nonniey Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 2 hours ago, No Excuses said: Well here’s the latest poll numbers I have no doubt that Arpaio will take over a big chunk of Ward voters once he receives an endorsement from Trump. You are are correct that Arpaio has no statewide appeal. But he has appeal among GOP primary voters and it looks like most favor a wingnut over the establishment conservative. Thanks for the link. Actually think that shows McSally is in better shape than even I thought. She hasn't entered the race yet and isn't as well known as either Ward or Arpiao. Don't think Trump will endorse Arpaio but never can tell. The Alabama debacle will also play a part which should weaken both Ward and Arpaio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Remember, Trump values loyalty above all else, so he will endorse Arpaio. It's probably one of the reasons he pardoned him because Arpaio told him he wants to run for Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Is there a runoff or something like that in the Arizona primary? I can imagine Mcsally trying on some alt-right talking points and shifting right to try to pull support from the other two or to get support from Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Issa was going to lose bigly anyways. He narrowly won (1,600 vote difference out of 310,000 votes) last time and was a major target for Dems in California this year. His days were numbered. His district also went Blue for the first time Presidentially in 16 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 10, 2018 Author Share Posted January 10, 2018 https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/house/california-house/issa-retirement-moves-ca-49-toss-lean-democratic Issa Retirement Moves CA-49 from Toss Up to Lean Democratic Quote GOP Rep. Darrell Issa's retirement makes him the fourth Republican from a district carried by Hillary Clinton to not seek reelection in 2018. It's not as much of a game changer as Rep. Ed Royce's was yesterday because Issa was already highly vulnerable after winning by fewer than 1,700 votes in 2016, but it does put Democrats in the driver's seat to pick up the district. The northern San Diego-county based seat voted for Clinton 50 percent to 43 percent, and Democrats already have several serious candidates, including Marine veteran/2016 nominee Doug Applegate, environmental attorney Mike Levin and EMILY's List-endorsed former State Department official Sara Jacobs, the granddaughter of Qualcomm's co-founder. Republicans' best hope for holding the seat in the current lopsided political environment probably involves Democrats splitting the vote in the June top-two primary and allowing two Republicans to advance, but that would require a very elaborate set of circumstances. The race moves to the Lean Democratic column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Along with Issa retirement announcement, this article discusses the other retirements. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/issa-exits-the-stage-the-gop-has-reason-worry-about-2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Maybe the true Trump effect is forcing GOPers into retirement before they get embarrassed at the polls in 2018? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 8 hours ago, Burgold said: Why should it be harder to retain the right to vote than to purchase and keep guns? Out of curiosity, if the Right conceded your point and made the same rule for a gun, would you then support them doing this for voting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 14 hours ago, Hersh said: They purged him after six years of not voting. The notifications shouldn't even be sent after such a short time. A voter shouldn't have to do a damn thing if they haven't moved. Believe it is in the states interest to keep as accurate a registrar as possible. I just don't see Ohio's process as being unreasonable and I have a hard time believing anyone really would think it unreasonable. Come on Ohio makes multiple attempts to notify voters for four years before they purge voters and people claim that is voter suppression? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 The status should also renew automatically with DLs too. Not every state is the same, but I think DLs get renewed every 6 in California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said: The status should also renew automatically with DLs too. Not every state is the same, but I think DLs get renewed every 6 in California. Think that would conflict with the 1992 law that stipulates that you can't purge roles solely based on lack of voting/or time. Essentially voter registrations are automatically renewed every time a person votes so doing that would actually increase the number of people removed from rolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Republicans are making it harder to vote by forcing voters to check their status every year and prior to voting registration deadlines. This puts an onerous burden on the electorate while Republicans continue to game the system. And that's unConstitutional in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, nonniey said: Think that would conflict with the 1992 law that stipulates that you can't purge roles solely based on lack of voting/or time. Essentially voter registrations are automatically renewed every time a person votes so doing that would actually increase the number of people removed from rolls. You misunderstood me. I hate purging them at all. But if you have too, make it 8+ years and allow for auto renewal based on state ids (like DLs) being issued. This would be on top of voting renewing it. That way, all bases are covered and we have the most people voting possible and hardly anyone drops off because they didn't vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 19 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Out of curiosity, if the Right conceded your point and made the same rule for a gun, would you then support them doing this for voting? Nope. (Caught) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 20 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Out of curiosity, if the Right conceded your point and made the same rule for a gun, would you then support them doing this for voting? Excuse me while I go rob the liquor store with my hanging chad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, Burgold said: Nope. (Caught) Didn't think so. I thought it was odd because you seemed like you were for gun law matching voting law........until it was offered to you. 2 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Excuse me while I go rob the liquor store with my hanging chad. I'm not even sure what this means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Didn't think so. I thought it was odd because you seemed like you were for gun law matching voting law........until it was offered to you. I'm not even sure what this means. People don't murdered with hanging Chad's from unbalanced people..... Stop being slow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 25 minutes ago, nonniey said: Believe it is in the states interest to keep as accurate a registrar as possible. I just don't see Ohio's process as being unreasonable and I have a hard time believing anyone really would think it unreasonable. Come on Ohio makes multiple attempts to notify voters for four years before they purge voters and people claim that is voter suppression? How or why is it the state’s best interest to purge rolls after 6 years of not voting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: Didn't think so. I thought it was odd because you seemed like you were for gun law matching voting law........until it was offered to you. I'm not even sure what this means. I was more going for the absurdity of how aggressively some states try to suppress and limit our voting rights while making every effort to maximize the ease of purchasing and utilizing firearms. Heck, in recent years, we've even eliminated mental health limitations for the violently ill on purchases in several states. But, I do think that it's fair that if this deal was offered (limit voting rights in exchange for limiting some gun rights) I'd back away from the deal. I suspect there may be some hypocrisy in that. Still, I'm okay with my inconsistency. I look at events like Las Vegas and say... this must stop. I rarely look at high voter turn out and think "This must stop!" In most situations, I think we should encouraging and trying to maximize turnout. In few situations, do I think it's too our advantage to maximize gun ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 7 hours ago, LD0506 said: Oy.....here we go again, people "fighting the good fight" for the sake of fighting instead of using their brains to avoid having to fight. If the Dems/left/libs/whatever are so convinced that the Rep/right/cons/whatever are so egregiously acting to deny voting access in order to stack the deck in their favor, what do you think would actually yield results instead of just outrage-driven ad clicks? A reflexive rant/whine about people supposedly whining. Interesting but you are way off target given what the conversation is about though perhaps you are referencing something other than state voting laws and gerrymandering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 18 minutes ago, killerbee99 said: People don't murdered with hanging Chad's from unbalanced people..... Stop being slow I dont know what hanging Chads are but it doesnt sound like something I want to google. 13 minutes ago, Burgold said: I was more going for the absurdity of how aggressively some states try to suppress and limit our voting rights while making every effort to maximize the ease of purchasing and utilizing firearms. Heck, in recent years, we've even eliminated mental health limitations for the violently ill on purchases in several states. But, I do think that it's fair that if this deal was offered (limit voting rights in exchange for limiting some gun rights) I'd back away from the deal. I suspect there may be some hypocrisy in that. Still, I'm okay with my inconsistency. I look at events like Las Vegas and say... this must stop. I rarely look at high voter turn out and think "This must stop!" In most situations, I think we should encouraging and trying to maximize turnout. In few situations, do I think it's too our advantage to maximize gun ownership. I actually agree with your position on voting turnout and gun control for the most part. Just seemed like the way you try to equate the two rules but then backed away when offers I thought was odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 35 minutes ago, nonniey said: Think that would conflict with the 1992 law that stipulates that you can't purge roles solely based on lack of voting/or time. Don't you think that's what Ohio is doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: Don't you think that's what Ohio is doing? No and it is clear that that is not what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Just now, nonniey said: No and it is clear that that is not what they are doing. What starts the chain event for purging rolls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: What starts the chain event for purging rolls? Irrelevant. .... can't purge rolls based on lack of voting/ time. If there is another element which there is in Ohio's case you can clean up the registration list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.