Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Teallaura]

Don't worry, that's normal with Teal's posts.

And this is why I was being dismissive with you.

[Teallaura]

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

Okay.

[Teallaura]

They killed Kenny.

Who hasn't?

[Teallaura]

CNN have just released their Exit Poll which puts Moore at 49-50 and Jones at 48-49. It's going to be close.

A big split was by race: Blacks went 95% for Jones and Whites went 70% for Moore.
Also a big split by Trump-Approval: 93% of Jones voters disapprove of Trump while 90% of Moore voters approve of Trump.

Um, that's also indicative of party line split.

[Teallaura]

aa, bb?

African American, Black Belt.

[Teallaura]

And, my understanding (if it's like Texas) is that provisional ballots are essentially set aside, and if the race is closer than the number of provisional ballots (so the number of provisional ballots would impact the race one way or the other), they are then assessed as to validity, yes?

Yes, exactly.

The number of provisional ballots is recorded - with the ballots unopened - so we have an idea of how many voted provisionally (there's always one joker who sticks it in the envelop still blank).

[carpedm9587]

Nope, I only made one actual serious observation - there are multiple Blue rural counties in Alabama. I think there's only one urban one - B'ham. Maybe Mobile... The urban/rural thing is not particularly true in Alabama - it has a lot to do with our history.

Here is a map and a breakdown of the 2016 voting distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._Alabama,_2016). Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but those blue districts appear to be in Birmingham, and the belt across central Alabama that includes Montgomery and Tuscaloosa. Mobile is the only major metro area in Alabama that actually went red, defying the normal "urban goes blue, rural goes red." Most of the rest of the state is rural and deeply red.

Am I missing something...?

IF we were being serious, then in the BB counties you should expect to see the problem in the AA pop - and we don't. We also don't see it in the W pop. We don't see it in the number of provisional ballots (which should be significant). We simply don't see any indicators in the polls that this disenfranchisement is actually occurring.

So what, again, is the evidence that there is no disenfranchisement due to VoterID laws? I'm not seeing it in any of the numbers you've cited.

However, as to my post, my 'numbers' are so NOT representative that I should think it obvious that I was being dismissive... Okay, maybe not.

You did seem a tad dismissive...

[carpedm9587]

Yes, exactly.

The number of provisional ballots is recorded - with the ballots unopened - so we have an idea of how many voted provisionally (there's always one joker who sticks it in the envelop still blank).

Provisional ballots are often pointed to as the "saving grace" for voterID, but they still require the person to be verified after the election day (within two weeks), so it is not clear to me how that is going to happen without ID. That being said, I have no statistics about how deeply this impacts. My assumption is that the data I provided early includes people who are able to vote provisionally, but I cannot say I know that for a fact.

[Cow Poke]

Wow. These are amazing statements. I hate to break it to you CP, but the poor don't do a lot of flying. It's expensive.

EGGzackly --- shouldn't that be a right, too?

Many (most?) of them don't own cars, commonly using public transportation (more so in urban and suburban areas than rural, of course).

Many of them (where I live) drive anyway! Part of my auto insurance pays for their unlicensed condition!

I don't know where you live, but I have NEVER had to show an ID to enter a public building in any state that I have lived in or visited. I just have to go through the security system and have no metal on me. And I have NEVER had to show an ID to pick up any prescription - I just have to provide my credit card with my name on it -

WOAH, you have a CREDIT CARD with your NAME on it? I bet you have a mailing address, too!

Do the poor have credit cards? They can get a credit card, but not a photo ID? A welfare check?

and I didn't need an ID to get that either - or a debit card for that matter. And that is true for every state I have lived in or had to buy a prescription in, which is a LOT of them (due to my business travel levels).

It depends on the level of classification of the drug, some require photo ID.

So I have no idea what your basis is for deciding that these are "phony liberals." I think your right-wing bias is showing just a tad.

And I think it's a crock of bullpucky that people who actually want to vote and be involved in the political spectrum can't provide some kind of ID if they actually participate in any semblance of other society.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, exactly.

The number of provisional ballots is recorded - with the ballots unopened - so we have an idea of how many voted provisionally (there's always one joker who sticks it in the envelop still blank).

In most states (I do not know about Alabama) a provisional ballot is only counted if the voter can be verified as a registered, legal voter within 2 weeks of the election date. That process is only undertaken if the vote is within the number of provisional ballots cast (as indicated in CP's post).

A provision ballot is NOT a guarantee of being counted. ID or some proof needs to be provided. What exactly that proof is varies widely.

[carpedm9587]

EGGzackly --- shouldn't that be a right, too?

It is hard for me to tell if you are just pulling my leg. CP - it's not about rights. They have as much right to fly as I do. They lack the money - because they're poor. Do you REALLY not get this, or are you really suggesting that if liberals really cared about voter disenfranchisement, they would give poor people money so they could fly...?? This argument just seems ridiculous to me.

Many of them (where I live) drive anyway! Part of my auto insurance pays for their unlicensed condition!

Umm.. uninsured, maybe. But how exactly does your auto insurance pay for their unlicensed condition? That, by the way, is also prevalent among the poor if they DO have a car and no way to verify their identity - they simply drive without licenses and hope not to be caught.

WOAH, you have a CREDIT CARD with your NAME on it? I bet you have a mailing address, too!

Do the poor have credit cards? They can get a credit card, but not a photo ID? A welfare check?

Actually, many do - because it gives them buying flexibility - and many have enormous debt piled on it. And you can get a credit card with no ID whatsoever. You cannot get an ID without verification of some sort (birth certificate, passport, etc.). Are you serious - you don't know this?

It depends on the level of classification of the drug, some require photo ID.

I have obtained everything from antibiotics to schedule 2 narcotics - I have NEVER shown an ID in any state I've visited. Again - I do not know where you live - but the rules there don't appear to match my experience in at least a couple dozen states (admittedly not Alabama).

And I think it's a crock of bullpucky that people who actually want to vote and be in politics can't provide some kind of ID if they actually participate in any semblance of other society.

Obviously you think it is - but the research and statistics say you're wrong. You can ignore them because they don't align with your assumptions - but I can't say I'm going to find that kind of (excuse me) willfull ignorance all that compelling.

[Cow Poke]

It is hard for me to tell if you are just pulling my leg. CP

And you're a good sport. Can't respond right now, but the right is gonna continue to insist on the common sense approach that it's not unreasonable to ask for ID when voting, and the left is going to continue to blather about them being racist and haters and voter suppressionists.

Gotta tend to my fireplace and a couple other issues...

[Teallaura]

Here is a map and a breakdown of the 2016 voting distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._Alabama,_2016). Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but those blue districts appear to be in Birmingham, and the belt across central Alabama that includes Montgomery and Tuscaloosa. Mobile is the only major metro area in Alabama that actually went red, defying the normal "urban goes blue, rural goes red." Most of the rest of the state is rural and deeply red.

Am I missing something...?

Yep - the blue counties align with the BB almost perfectly, are mostly rural (really really rural as you move west) and Tuscaloosa is much smaller than Huntsville so Mobile isn't an outlier.

So what, again, is the evidence that there is no disenfranchisement due to VoterID laws? I'm not seeing it in any of the numbers you've cited.

It's not - it's in the absence of indicators. No stacks of complaints from poor and/or AA voters, no stacks of provisional ballots (that's most telling). There just isn't any actual indicator that this is happening that I can think of.

You did seem a tad dismissive...

:

[Cow Poke]

Umm.. uninsured, maybe.

Quite often, yes. Many of them will be undocumented guests from south of here.

But how exactly does your auto insurance pay for their unlicensed condition?

The numbers games. Insurance premiums are figured on risk - and it's no secret that one of those risks is that one of their insured will be in a motor vehicle crash with somebody who is not only uninsured, but undocumented. It's built into the rates.

Gotta go, but had to answer that one!

That, by the way, is also prevalent among the poor if they DO have a car

or "borrow" one

and no way to verify their identity - they simply drive without licenses and hope not to be caught.

Yeah, so you liberals (kidding) should help them get ID so that problem can be solved!

[carpedm9587]

And you're a good sport. Can't respond right now, but the right is gonna continue to insist on the common sense approach that it's not unreasonable to ask for ID when voting, and the left is going to continue to blather about them being racist and haters and voter suppressionists.

Gotta tend to my fireplace and a couple other issues...

Actually - I never used the term racist or haters - but the effect IS to suppress specific votes, and (as I noted) to solve a problem no one has demonstrated exists. I understand the strategic incentive to do that - I just think that the entire thing is unamerican and unpatriotic. Although it does impact minorities more than whites, I do not think the INTENT is racist, so I would not call someone advocating for it a racist. I think the INTENT is to gain a political edge.

But while I do not agree with the left labeling everything that impacts one race more than another "racist," I do think the right needs to pay more attention to initiatives they push for that have that exact effect. First of all, they leave themselves open to these accusations. Second, there is little doubt that the demographics in the U.S. are shifting, and we are not far from the day when white/caucasian will not longer be the majority of the population. It will, for a long time, still be the largest race represented - but, cumulatively, minorities will soon dominate. So long as those minorities continue to vote predominantly Democrat - that does not bode well for the right. And so long as the right continues to pursue policies that disproportionately impact minorities - they are going to suffer for it in the long run. It is simply not a wise political course, IMO.

And I say that because I think this country benefits from a strong left AND a strong right. When we become disproportionate in that balance, debate and compromise are sacrificed (as we are seeing now), and things go out of kilter. There are 55 million registered Republicans in the U.S., and 72 million registered Democrats. That is NOT a good balance.