An assault on American voters is underway

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Wanna read a really, REALLY poorly written opinion piece? lol...I've seen a million posts here on ES that talk about this issue far more logically and succinctly. Not allowed to post entire articles so just giving you a taste of the doozies I have no doubt you'll spot.

 

No, Georgia's new election law is not Jim Crow on steroids: 3 reasons it isn't a big deal

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/04/06/georgia-election-law-probably-wont-make-difference-jim-crow-column/7094233002/

 

[...]Reason 2: Even if there were outrageous voter suppression efforts underway in Georgia as Democrats warned about in 2018 and 2020, the record shows that determined voters are going to find a way to cast their ballots. Voting broke records in both those years. Here's how Nate Cohn put it in The Times: "And yet the law’s voting provisions are unlikely to significantly affect turnout or Democratic chances. It could plausibly even increase turnout. In the final account, it will probably be hard to say whether it had any effect on turnout at all."

 

Got that? One reason is that the law increases the opportunity to vote by adding more days of voting. A second is that liberal reforms to encourage voting by making it easier don't increase turnout very much, so getting rid of them doesn't matter much either.

 

Reason 3: And regardless of the flaws in Georgia's new election law, of which there are many, the law remains more liberal than in some states run by Democrats. For instance, there are more days of early voting or no-excuses absentee voting. Nobody is suggesting a boycott of New York or Delaware.

 

**************

 

I swear this must be straight off of Twitter.

[LadySkinsFan]

Oh, the twists and turns of the unholy Republicans.

[Riggo-toni]

I don't agree with him, but tbh, he has a point with reason #3. We do need a voting rights act that allows easier voting in all states.

[mistertim]

51 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Wanna read a really, REALLY poorly written opinion piece? lol...I've seen a million posts here on ES that talk about this issue far more logically and succinctly. Not allowed to post entire articles so just giving you a taste of the doozies I have no doubt you'll spot.

 

No, Georgia's new election law is not Jim Crow on steroids: 3 reasons it isn't a big deal

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/04/06/georgia-election-law-probably-wont-make-difference-jim-crow-column/7094233002/

 

[...]Reason 2: Even if there were outrageous voter suppression efforts underway in Georgia as Democrats warned about in 2018 and 2020, the record shows that determined voters are going to find a way to cast their ballots. Voting broke records in both those years. Here's how Nate Cohn put it in The Times: "And yet the law’s voting provisions are unlikely to significantly affect turnout or Democratic chances. It could plausibly even increase turnout. In the final account, it will probably be hard to say whether it had any effect on turnout at all."

 

Got that? One reason is that the law increases the opportunity to vote by adding more days of voting. A second is that liberal reforms to encourage voting by making it easier don't increase turnout very much, so getting rid of them doesn't matter much either.

 

Reason 3: And regardless of the flaws in Georgia's new election law, of which there are many, the law remains more liberal than in some states run by Democrats. For instance, there are more days of early voting or no-excuses absentee voting. Nobody is suggesting a boycott of New York or Delaware.

 

**************

 

I swear this must be straight off of Twitter.

 

lol @ reason 3

 

That's the equivalent of "Sure, I said something super racist, but you shouldn't be calling me out on it because there are people who are way more racist than me."

[Califan007 The Constipated]

29 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

I don't agree with him, but tbh, he has a point with reason #3. We do need a voting rights act that allows easier voting in all states.

 

No he really doesn't. Your point (using his "logic") is valid, but unfortunately he didn't make that point himself.

 

Two things concerning reason #3:

- mistertim's point above

- Context: in other words, the reasons why Georgia is changing their voting laws compared to why New York and Delaware already had their voting laws in place. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing neither of those states put those laws in place based on a) fake voter fraud claims and b) record voter turnout that threatened a political party's power.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[goskins10]

23 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Wanna read a really, REALLY poorly written opinion piece? lol...I've seen a million posts here on ES that talk about this issue far more logically and succinctly. Not allowed to post entire articles so just giving you a taste of the doozies I have no doubt you'll spot.

 

No, Georgia's new election law is not Jim Crow on steroids: 3 reasons it isn't a big deal

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/04/06/georgia-election-law-probably-wont-make-difference-jim-crow-column/7094233002/

 

[...]Reason 2: Even if there were outrageous voter suppression efforts underway in Georgia as Democrats warned about in 2018 and 2020, the record shows that determined voters are going to find a way to cast their ballots. Voting broke records in both those years. Here's how Nate Cohn put it in The Times: "And yet the law’s voting provisions are unlikely to significantly affect turnout or Democratic chances. It could plausibly even increase turnout. In the final account, it will probably be hard to say whether it had any effect on turnout at all."

 

Got that? One reason is that the law increases the opportunity to vote by adding more days of voting. A second is that liberal reforms to encourage voting by making it easier don't increase turnout very much, so getting rid of them doesn't matter much either.

 

Reason 3: And regardless of the flaws in Georgia's new election law, of which there are many, the law remains more liberal than in some states run by Democrats. For instance, there are more days of early voting or no-excuses absentee voting. Nobody is suggesting a boycott of New York or Delaware.

 

**************

 

I swear this must be straight off of Twitter.

 

 

I will address the obvious - and is not doubt your point. But I want to put it in print since I live in GA. 

 

Reason #1 - They may not be exactly Jim Crow laws - but they are in many ways like Jim Crow laws and have the same effect even if it's not written that way. The rules are written to disproportionately affect specific demographics. But since it does not 100% only apply to those demographics republicans do the mental gymnastics to convince themselves they are fair and just - "Look the white people there are affected too!" Yea, but "there" is only 1% white!  

 

Reason #2.  Maybe the biggest joke of the 3. Just because you were not as effective as you wanted to be doesn't mean the intent wasn't there. When you purposely drive your car into someone, just becasue you didn't kill them does not mean you are innocent of trying to kill them, or at the very least hurt them!!  

 

Reason #3. The low information right wing nutcase talking point. Yes, GA allows a few extra days for early voting - potentially, it's not mandated! But there is not voting on Sundays which Delaware allows early voting on both Sat and Sun! Also, there is no photo ID required for in person voting in DE, just an ID. They used CO as an example of the longer early voting time. Problem is that CO doesn't need the longer early voting since 99% of people vote by mail! And CO can mail ballots out to everyone registered without a request. GA is greatly restricting mail in voting and absentee voting. So those 2 "potential" days are virtually meaningless - only there to provide a talking point. 

 

My hope is that this will irritate enough people that then become even more determined to vote and get these republican douchebags out of office and pass honest voting laws that are meant to be more inclusive. Stacy did a great job motivating people for 2020. I will be retired by the time 2024 rolls around., I have not worked on a presidential campaign since 1984 for Gary Hart (great candidate just too scared to win and self sabotaged!) but will be a willing volunteer is whatever capacity I can to help get the vote out! 

 

[skinny21]

Chris Hayes had a guy from the Cato Institute on who said, in effect, there are no such things as voter suppression laws because turnout actually increases when these types of laws are passed.

 

On a related note, I ‘admire’ that the GOP solution for - 

More gun violence = more guns (when the US has the most guns).

More crime  = more incarceration (when we have the highest incarceration).

Voter turnout increases = suppress votes.

[Larry]

9 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

On a related note, I ‘admire’ that the GOP solution for - 

More gun violence = more guns (when the US has the most guns).

More crime  = more incarceration (when we have the highest incarceration).

Voter turnout increases = suppress votes.

 

 

Possibly a simpler paradigm.  

 

"Do what I wanted to do anyway.  And point at a problem and pretend that my action will fix it."  

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Someone needs to get Manchin on board. Then he needs to campaign for re-election touting how the Democrat led legislation benefits WVA people.

[mistertim]

14 hours ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

 

 

This is complete nonsense because it relies on the false idea that Trump supporters (or nowadays Republicans in general, as they're pretty much synonymous) could ever be convinced that something Democrats want to do would benefit them, no matter how persuasive the case or the facts.

 

As far as they're concerned if the Democrats want it, it has to be socialism aimed at destroying their way of life. They're just too ignorant and brainwashed to get through to.

[bearrock]

14 hours ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

 

 

Maybe I'm just missing it, but I read both the Wapo op ed and the article, where did Machin say any voting rights have to make Trump voters happy?  It seems like the headline took the content of what Machin said and took it to it's furthest possible implication and made a salacious headline out of it.

 

14 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

This is complete nonsense because it relies on the false idea that Trump supporters (or nowadays Republicans in general, as they're pretty much synonymous) could ever be convinced that something Democrats want to do would benefit them, no matter how persuasive the case or the facts.

 

As far as they're concerned if the Democrats want it, it has to be socialism aimed at destroying their way of life. They're just too ignorant and brainwashed to get through to.

 

While I agree many Trump voters are surely like this, Biden's covid relief bill had strong support by the GOP base.  Most if not all elements of the infrastructure bill, all poll with clear majority support (though that support drops depending on whether you couch it in generic terms or as Biden's bill).

 

I don't think you can have the GOP be completely on board with any bill (nor do I believe that's what Machin said).  But if we talk about expanding access to voting in exchange for voter ID for example (humor them.  I don't care voting fraud is a myth.  Give them something that can be horse traded for measures that actually help people), that would probably get some GOP voters to say "that sounds pretty reasonable".

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, bearrock said:

While I agree many Trump voters are surely like this, Biden's covid relief bill had strong support by the GOP base.

 

How many GOP votes do you figure it gets?  

[Califan007 The Constipated]

25 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Maybe I'm just missing it, but I read both the Wapo op ed and the article, where did Machin say any voting rights have to make Trump voters happy?  It seems like the headline took the content of what Machin said and took it to it's furthest possible implication and made a salacious headline out of it.

 

 

I don't think they had to walk too far for that headline:

 

"The only thing I would caution anybody and everybody about is that we had an insurrection on January 6, because of voting, right? And lack of trust in voting?” Manchin told HuffPost then. “We should not, at all, attempt to do anything that would create more distrust and division.”

 

The only things that created distrust and division was Trump losing the election, and Trump constantly feeding his supporters blatant lies as to why he did. Distrust and division were his goals. And Manchin saying "we had an insurrection on January 6, because of voting, right?" just underscores that headline. First, NO, we did NOT have an insurrection "because of voting". Second, he's saying that any voting reforms have to be acceptable to the demographic that believed Trump's lies...the demographic that the insurrectionists came from. That demographic came solely from Trump supporters.

[bearrock]

22 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

How many GOP votes do you figure it gets?  

 

It will get none in the Senate.  That's an impossible hurdle at this point.  But it can get support from the GOP voters.  Which is what Manchin needs for his reelection.

[bearrock]

1 minute ago, Califan007 said:

 

I don't think they had to walk too far for that headline:

 

"The only thing I would caution anybody and everybody about is that we had an insurrection on January 6, because of voting, right? And lack of trust in voting?” Manchin told HuffPost then. “We should not, at all, attempt to do anything that would create more distrust and division.”

 

The only things that created distrust and division was Trump losing the election, and Trump constantly feeding his supporters blatant lies as to why he did. Distrust and division were his goals. And Manchin saying "we had an insurrection on January 6, because of voting, right?" just underscores that headline. First, NO, we did NOT have an insurrection "because of voting". Second, he's saying that any voting reforms have to be acceptable to the demographic that believed Trump's lies...the demographic that the insurrectionists came from. That demographic came solely from Trump supporters.

 

He added "lack of trust in voting".  Unjustified lack of trust yes, but what he said is true.  His remedy that "[they] should not, at all, attempt to do anything that would create more distrust and division" is quite frankly a vague platitude. 

 

Could he mean that he won't vote for anything that doesn't have a 100% of GOP base on board?  I guess.  Could he also claim that having 10-20% GOP support is a substantial showing and such bill would not create more distrust and division?  Sure.  He's Susan Collins of the Democrats.  His generalities could mean any number of things.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

9 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

He added "lack of trust in voting".  Unjustified lack of trust yes, but what he said is true.  His remedy that "[they] should not, at all, attempt to do anything that would create more distrust and division" is quite frankly a vague platitude. 

 

Could he mean that he won't vote for anything that doesn't have a 100% of GOP base on board?  I guess.  Could he also claim that having 10-20% GOP support is a substantial showing and such bill would not create more distrust and division?  Sure.  He's Susan Collins of the Democrats.  His generalities could mean any number of things.

 

He mentioned the distrust specifically within the context of the insurrection and those who took part in it being fueled by their distrust, so he's not talking about getting more GOP members of congress on board. At any rate, the headline of making Trump supporters happy was pretty damn accurate. Nobody fears Dem voters storming state government offices in Georgia due to what they truly believe is an act of voter suppression.

[bearrock]

6 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

He mentioned the distrust specifically within the context of the insurrection and those who took part in it being fueled by their distrust, so he's not talking about getting more GOP members of congress on board. At any rate, the headline of making Trump supporters happy was pretty damn accurate. Nobody fears Dem voters storming state government offices in Georgia due to what they truly believe is an act of voter suppression.

 

I've been pretty consistent in this discussion that I'm talking about the GOP base, not GOP members of Congress (because I think GOP votes in Congress, especially the Senate, is a pretty bad barometer as we saw with the covid relief bill).

 

Not doing anything to create more distrust and division =/= make them happy.  

[goskins10]

7 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

He added "lack of trust in voting".  Unjustified lack of trust yes, but what he said is true.  His remedy that "[they] should not, at all, attempt to do anything that would create more distrust and division" is quite frankly a vague platitude. 

 

Could he mean that he won't vote for anything that doesn't have a 100% of GOP base on board?  I guess.  Could he also claim that having 10-20% GOP support is a substantial showing and such bill would not create more distrust and division?  Sure.  He's Susan Collins of the Democrats.  His generalities could mean any number of things.

 

So we know there were no problems with the election. Yet a large group of people (and at this point I use that term loosely), don't trust the system due to lies and we are supposed to appease them therefore giving them justification for their mistrust? Fixing something that is not broken just to appease a bunch low information idiots who are pouting becasue they did not get their way makes no sense. Don't get me wrong. They should be mad. But they should be mad at the proliferation of lies that make them so incredibly stupid. Anyone still believing the lie is an idiot. 

 

This does not even address the fact that anything you do to appease these people makes it harder for POC to vote. That is their end goal. Pout till they win even if they have to cheat to do it. I am totally fine letting them pout. Manchin will come around. He is playing games to keep his seat in a very conservative area of the country. 

Edited April 10, 2021 by goskins10

[Simmsy]

As of right now, Manchin is just an annoyance, but we all know its going to get much worse. He needs to be reminded that he doesn't hold the power in this situation. I'm at the point where I think he should be primaried or maybe we should push harder in these purple states to turn some of the red seats blue. Anyways, he needs to go.

[88Comrade2000]

Manchin is delusion in catering to Trump voters and expecting any support from GOP.  I don't care what they say in their little groups because when any Democratic bill comes to a vote; the GOP vote no.

 

The Dems have noone but themselves to blame.  They should've won at least Maine and North Carolina in the Senate; and then you wouldn't have to worry about Manchin and Sinema.  They shouldn't have lost 12-13 seats in the House.   Joe Biden has be to the first president elected where he losts seats in House; at least in a while.

 

I know I am a broken record when I say this, but the election of 2020 was only about getting Trump out of office. There was no broad support for Biden's agenda; if there was, the voters would've gave him a congress with the numbers for him to enact the agenda.  That didn't happen.  The Dems lost house seats and only got a 50-50 tie due to a fluke special election. If Trump was an actual human being and conceded right after when Joe was declared the winner; I doubt the Dems would've won both Georgia seats.

 

Machin doesn't hold the power?   Actually, he holds the power for anything the Dems want passed.  Whether that's voting rights, infrastructure, healthcare, etc...    Whatever the Dems get thru the next 2 years will have to pass muster with Manchin and Sinema.   Are they delusional in thinking the GOP will vote on anything; yes.  

 

Both of those senators will be primaried the next time they run but at least in West Virginia; no way in hell a progressive Dem wins there.  Manchin will be the Democratic nominee. Whether he wins reelection again; depends on who the GOP puts up.   The other WV senator is GOP but she is the daughter of former 3 term GOP governor, Arch Moore.  I'd say Joe is most likely to win another term.

 

We know the GOP is sitting pretty for 2022.  Hell, just by redistricting alone; the GOP may already have the majority in the House for 2022. The only way they don't regain control is if they nominate a bunch of MTGs.   Dems may have a chance to pick up a couple of seats in the Senate, to negate Manchin and Sinema.  The map is favorable and their  is bunch of GOP senate retirements.  2020 was favorable also but all the Dems could do was tie.     The GOP/Trump voter is going to be real motivated in the 2022 midterms to go vote and stop the Biden/Dem agenda.   The Dems have a poor record in the midterms when they hold the presidency.

 

In my 2021 predictions, I said I doubt Joe passes much of his agenda because he doesn't have the numbers in congress to do it.  If Joe gets anything else passed before 22 midterms; I say it will be miracle.  

 

The only way Dems can prevent 2022 from following historical midterms patterns is to have turnout as great 2020.  Then you may have a chance to get the numbers after 2022 and then pass the agenda you want, from voting rights , etc...

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

[skinsmarydu]

Aaaand now Will Smith is pulling his upcoming film "Emancipation" out of GA. 

 

Way to go, Governor Dickface. 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, skinsmarydu said:

Aaaand now Will Smith is pulling his upcoming film "Emancipation" out of GA. 

 

Way to go, Governor Dickface. 

 

Governor Dickface approval rating goes up among Republicans.