Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Cow Poke]

Um, no - seriously, Jim, that one was dumb. Fox and its affiliates had polls in both directions.

FYI - Fox had Jones up by ten points, not Moore.

Um, read his post again - that's part of the conspiracy theory, that Fox News has Jones up by 10 points...

Fox News is the only poll having Jones ahead by 10 points. Fox, being an arm of the republican party, that's not hard to figure out. They want to make sure Moore supporters aren't complacent, that they don't take his victory for granted, and get out to vote.

His little conspiracy is that Fox News faked its poll to try to spur Moore supporters to turn out in droves.

[Teallaura]

...

...and the world is watching.

Hey! A little privacy, please!

[carpedm9587]

Since half the people present when I voted were African American, I have to say this is stupid. Really, really stupid...

That's a bit of false logic. The percentage of people who were black at the polls has little/nothing to do with the percentage of people NOT at the polls who were disenfranchised by voter ID laws. Your trying to measure absence by percentage distribution of presence.

In other words, you could have 90% black people in line, and still have 2% of the black population unable to vote and not appearing. And the affect is not JUST black voters. It is, more generally, poor voters. But there is a disproportionate level of poverty in the black community than the white community, so they are generally more impacted - according to the studies.

[Cow Poke]

I DID answer your question:

The statistics are about the overall effect as measured in several states. Presumably, since it measures actual effect, it includes those that have been "helped" by folks like you.

I don't think ya did. OK, lemme be more clear.... besides you just saying that... got a source?

The point being - the statistics cite the actual net effect. If there are people like you out helping these folks get their IDs, then those people would not be part of the 2%. Presumably, without folks like you, the percentage would be (somewhat?) higher. There is no study that I know of that has gone out and counted the number of people who have been helped to get Voter IDs by people with your philosophy.

No.... your implication was that my attitude was uncommon. I was talking about people who are FOR Voter ID, but are supposedly AGAINST helping people get documented accordingly.

You really haven't addressed that. (I think I'm seeing the disconnect, but having trouble getting it over to you)

[carpedm9587]

Um, read his post again - that's part of the conspiracy theory, that Fox News has Jones up by 10 points...

His little conspiracy is that Fox News faked its poll to try to spur Moore supporters to turn out in droves.

I hadn't even CONSIDERED that possibility. Those little devious offspring of unmarried women...

[Teallaura]

First of all - thanks for correcting my "two"

Second - much as I would like to deny that such is occurring, the range of polling is suspicious, especially when left-leaning sources have polls that lean left and right-leaning sources have polls that tend to lean right. Rasmussen is a good case in point - being off the "aggregate" to the right almost all the time. Quinnipiac is off the aggregate to the left almost all the time.

But there is another dynamic at play: the polling methodology. There is a clear difference between robo-polls and people-polls. There is a clear difference between polls that include cell phones and polls that exclude them. These are comparatively new dynamics and the pollsters do not yet seem to know how to adjust for them.

That is one of the reasons I tend to prefer using aggregators like FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics. Their aggregate numbers, historically, have been some of the most accurate numbers out there. It's odd to me; it would seem to me the aggregate of flawed polls would be a flawed aggregate - but that's the lovely world of statistics for ya!

Aggregating has a correcting effect assuming that the polls used have merit to begin with. A bunch of badly done polls will just get more skewed. A bunch of reasonably well done polls will help correct each other - to a point.

[Starlight]

Since half the people present when I voted were African American, I have to say this is stupid. Really, really stupid...

Plenty of districts in Alabama are upwards of 75% black, so your observations aren't meaningful without further information regarding the statistics in your neighborhood, and anyway are affected by things like time of day, polling stations on bus routes vs not etc.

Also, you're ignoring that voter suppression issues also involve people turning up to vote but their vote not ultimately being counted. So seeing people turning up to try to vote is not evidence against voter suppression. Things to watch out for that might involve actual voter suppression include:
- Length of lines - whether the queue to vote in some areas has deliberately been made sooo long that people leave the line without voting after an hour or more.
- People getting to the front of the queue and finding they can't vote because they're not enrolled, or not enrolled for the right party (in primaries), or don't have the 'right' ID with them, or don't have ID with them, and being turned away without being able to vote.
- People being given 'provisional' ballots instead of normal ballots, as these are almost always not counted.

[Juvenal]

LGM's inappropriate posts, OTOH, were filled with vitriolic mockery.

LGM's appropriate posts were filled with vitriolic mockery. That's how he got on my ignore list to begin with. Theonomy got stung and turned getting rid of him into a campaign.

LGM got banned from IIDB, too. Took a couple weeks, something less than a month anyway. Same style of posting from him, but a lot less tolerance for ad hom from the site moderators.

...and the world is watching.

True enough, but for the rest of the world, it's not about the not-quite-sex scandals.

It's because he's kookier than Trump.

3 minutes until polls close.

[Cow Poke]

No - I'm not liberal. I have some positions that are way to the left - some that are way to the right - some that are more centrist. On average, I am probably slightly left of center. I am not "assaulting" anyone that I am aware of. I am pointing out a dynamic I see. This discussion was about Ms. Clinton. In general, I find the left goes WAY out of their way to excuse almsot everything she does, and the right goes way out of their way to denigrate her and everything she does. I know I am dealing with someone who has a strong existing bias when there is NOTHING they can say good (for the right) or bad (for the left) about a candidate. I have been clear about what I think are Clinton's shortcomings, and that I think she was a lousy choice as a Democratic candidate. I simply am not going to buy into the right-wing conspiracy theories without adequate evidence. Nor am I going to accept the "clean bill of health" of the left in the face of the evidence that exists.

I'm not sure why you think my "trust" leans left. I have noted that I withhold judgment on Moore, accept Franken's and Frank's apologies as evidence of their guilt, withhold judgment on Conyer on the basis of his denials and the counter balancing accusations. There are Republicans I admire and would vote for, and Democrats I do not and would not vote for.

So I'm not sure where your perception comes from that I "trust more to the left." I trust in proportion to the evidence available.

I appreciate the fact that I can "poke you", Carpe, and you take it in stride and....

I still think you're more left than center, but I'll pay more attention to the possibility that this might just be my extreme rightist bias.

[carpedm9587]

I don't think ya did. OK, lemme be more clear.... besides you just saying that... got a source?

No.... your implication was that my attitude was uncommon. I was talking about people who are FOR Voter ID, but are supposedly AGAINST helping people get documented accordingly.

You really haven't addressed that. (I think I'm seeing the disconnect, but having trouble getting it over to you)

As I have already said, CP, that specific thing has not been studied. The implication is in the statistics, and the lack of any significant reporting on such initiatives in the presence of overwhelming reporting on the impact. It's indirect evidence - I acknowledge. But if there was widespread activity as you cite, it would seem to me the right would quickly jump on it to make the point that steps are being taken to ensure VoterID laws are not negatively impacting anyone. Such stories are rare-to-nonexistent, based on my quick search for them.

It is also part of my experience. I have had this discussion with MANY people on the right over the past 2 years, and you are the FIRST person to tell me that you are making any effort to help people get IDs. It is anecdotal evidence at best, but combined with the rest, enough to give me fair confidence that this is not a widespread effort.

[Teallaura]

Not too stupid - simply lacking the base documentation required to get the Voter ID. And individuals are commonly known to polling personnel in rural districts (which are predominantly Republican), but not so much in urban districts (which are predominantly Democrat).

...

Um, what? Seriously, WHAT? Have you looked at a political map of Alabama? It's not urban v. rural - it's race. Democrats still hold the BB but not a lot of the rest of the state.

[carpedm9587]

I appreciate the fact that I can "poke you", Carpe, and you take it in stride and....

I still think you're more left than center, but I'll pay more attention to the possibility that this might just be my extreme rightist bias.

I am slightly left of center - no doubt about it (as I acknowledged).

But, as I said to MM, when you are far enough to the right, everyone else looks left!

One way I know I am slightly left of center is related to that: the sheer number of friends I have that are further left and further right than I. Again - anecdotal evidence - but I have only slightly more left-leaning friends than right. Since I live in a state and community that is so far to the left that smurfs vacation here - that suggests to me roughly where I sit on the continuum.

Another anecdotal piece of evidence is the distribution of the articles on www.allsides.com that resolate with me: they are mostly classified as centrist with a slightly stronger incidence of left-leaning articles than right.

Finally - the degree to which I cringe at political podcasts. I do so only slightly more often on right-wing podcasts than left.

All anecdotal, I know - but my quick means of assessing my own bias.

[Cow Poke]

As I have already said, CP, that specific thing has not been studied. The implication is in the statistics, and the lack of any significant reporting on such initiatives in the presence of overwhelming reporting on the impact. It's indirect evidence - I acknowledge. But if there was widespread activity as you cite, it would seem to me the right would quickly jump on it to make the point that steps are being taken to ensure VoterID laws are not negatively impacting anyone. Such stories are rare-to-nonexistent, based on my quick search for them.

It is also part of my experience. I have had this discussion with MANY people on the right over the past 2 years, and you are the FIRST person to tell me that you are making any effort to help people get IDs. It is anecdotal evidence at best, but combined with the rest, enough to give me fair confidence that this is not a widespread effort.

No, I still think you don't get it.

I'm not saying, or even trying to imply, that there are a bunch of people trying to help get people documented. (In my case, it was so this guy would meet the qualifications of an I-9 to get a job, not just to be able to vote.)

So, start from scratch....

I think there are a lot of people who are FOR Voter ID, who would not be opposed to providing assistance (even if it be low cost or free documentation) to help make that work.

One of the main reasons the anti-voter ID crowd cites is that poor people can't afford or get access to the validation process.

Most (if not all) of the proponents of Voter ID that I know are also FOR some means by which to get legitimate otherwise legal and qualified undocumented people documented.

That's what I'm asking. A simple "I don't know" would have sufficed, because I thought you were implying the reverse.

[carpedm9587]

Um, what? Seriously, WHAT? Have you looked at a political map of Alabama? It's not urban v. rural - it's race. Democrats still hold the BB but not a lot of the rest of the state.

Umm... my comment was not about Alabama, per se, but about VoterID laws in general - nationwide. There will clearly be variations state by state.

[Juvenal]

\Those little devious offspring of unmarried women...

They killed Kenny.