(09-22-2014 09:27 AM)DragonLair Wrote: I would just like to point out that the question posed in the picture and the "answer" given have nothing to do with each other.
The questions posed is voter id laws supprese votes.
The "answer" talks about blacks wanting the gravy train to continue.
the interview that that quote came from was about vote ID laws suppressing the vote. It was Mr. Yelton who couldn't seem to stay on topic. The law that he is referring to in that quote is in fact a voter ID law.
In either case the answer he gives has nothing to do with voter suppression.
except for the whole "this law is going to kick the dems in the butt" part of it...
Not really, Democrats supposedly manipulate votes to there advantage. Whether this is true or not it doesn't matter because the perception is that they do. So when he is saying this he is speaking to the manipulation of votes and if there are voter id laws it is going to hurt the democratic party.
Again though i don't see how requiring a ID to vote is an obstacle. Its not like there is a reading requirement or land owning requirement. It is a 5-10 dollar expense in most states to get an ID.
your whole argument is based on perception, mine is based on fact. it is perfectly clear what yelton is saying this (voter ID) law is going to kick the dems in the butt. doesn't get any more clear cut than that.
you simply do not see democrats pullings this type of cr.ap anywhere near as frequently as the GOP does. you can spew any talking point you want but the fact is that in person voter fraud is virtually non existent. These laws are aimed at fixing a non existent problem and as much as you want to claim that there is no consequence of making voting more difficult, the fact is that there is always a consequence. 11% of the country does not have the proper form of ID. To actually get an ID you need other forms of ID and that's where you see problems starting to form.
but the whole concept of "how hard is it to get an ID" is just 25% of the problem. 50% of the problem is that people with valid IDs are being turned away from the polls for sh.it as stupid as having a middle initial or a different last name (marriage) that is different from what the voter registration says. the last 25% is that these laws are being pushed through in a partisan manner, literally rushed through the legislative process to limit debate and backlash, and usually were passed right before an election.
(09-22-2014 09:27 AM)DragonLair Wrote: I would just like to point out that the question posed in the picture and the "answer" given have nothing to do with each other.
The questions posed is voter id laws supprese votes.
The "answer" talks about blacks wanting the gravy train to continue.
Exactly. But johnnyzero likes the fear mongering.
nope, nope, nope.
the question had absolutely EVERYTHING to do with voter ID laws. That was the question asked. The "answer" was where things went down the welfare talking point.
it's funny how you just take his word as fact just because it's something that you WANT to believe.
I actually read the picture that you posted. I can understand English. You, not so much.
You read a picture? Well I actually watched the interview that that post came from. But yeah, because you saw a quote on a picture you can make a false inference that the quote in question was not related to voter ID.
Quote:In the 2012 house elections Democratic candidates received 1.5 million more votes than their Republican counterparts, and yet the Republicans sent 33 more members to congress than their Democratic counterparts.
Since every district is virtually equivalent in number of registered voters, all that shows is that the Dems carried their districts with a higher margin than the Republicans. And since the Dems created, with the courts' help, many districts that were gerrymandered to make sure that a black representative would be elected, we can fairly assume that those districts voted substantially for the Dem.
Just a quick review:
Illinois #1 - Bobby Rush 80%
Illinois #2 - Jesse Jackson Jr 63%
Missisisippi #2 - Bennie Thompson 61%
Alabama #7 Terri Sewell 76%
Quote:In the 2012 house elections Democratic candidates received 1.5 million more votes than their Republican counterparts, and yet the Republicans sent 33 more members to congress than their Democratic counterparts.
Since every district is virtually equivalent in number of registered voters, all that shows is that the Dems carried their districts with a higher margin than the Republicans. And since the Dems created, with the courts' help, many districts that were gerrymandered to make sure that a black representative would be elected, we can fairly assume that those districts voted substantially for the Dem.
Just a quick review:
Illinois #1 - Bobby Rush 80%
Illinois #2 - Jesse Jackson Jr 63%
Missisisippi #2 - Bennie Thompson 61%
Alabama #7 Terri Sewell 76%
I believe this thoroughly refutes your argument.
are there 435 or 4 house members??? I'm not sure...
I quick checked these states and here's what i found: Alabama
One democrat elected at 75% of the vote
the other 6 republicans collectively averaged 73% of the vote
Mississippi
One democrat elected at 67% of the vote
the other 3 republicans collectively averaged 68% of the vote
Illinois
not gonna do the averages for this many canidates, but I found two republicans (out of 8) who recieved a larger % than JJJ
(This post was last modified: 09-22-2014 10:45 AM by john01992.)
Quote:In the 2012 house elections Democratic candidates received 1.5 million more votes than their Republican counterparts, and yet the Republicans sent 33 more members to congress than their Democratic counterparts.
Since every district is virtually equivalent in number of registered voters, all that shows is that the Dems carried their districts with a higher margin than the Republicans. And since the Dems created, with the courts' help, many districts that were gerrymandered to make sure that a black representative would be elected, we can fairly assume that those districts voted substantially for the Dem.
Just a quick review:
Illinois #1 - Bobby Rush 80%
Illinois #2 - Jesse Jackson Jr 63%
Missisisippi #2 - Bennie Thompson 61%
Alabama #7 Terri Sewell 76%
I believe this thoroughly refutes your argument.
are there 435 or 4 house members??? I'm not sure...
I quick checked these states and here's what i found: Alabama
One democrat elected at 75% of the vote
the other 6 republicans collectively averaged 73% of the vote
Mississippi
One democrat elected at 67% of the vote
the other 3 republicans collectively averaged 68% of the vote
Illinois
not gonna do the averages for this many canidates, but I found two republicans (out of 8) who recieved a larger % than JJJ
Well no one is going to look at every race but nonetheless, your basic assertion is irrelevant since total popular vote is not the basis for electing the House. Every district has the same number of registered voters.
Some districts skew heavily to one party. In my own district, NY 27, Brian Higgins, a white Dem, has won the last 3 times with 80%, 75% and 61% of the vote. In the adjacent 28, Louise Slaughter, another Dem, won with 73%, 73% and 62%.
Quote:In the 2012 house elections Democratic candidates received 1.5 million more votes than their Republican counterparts, and yet the Republicans sent 33 more members to congress than their Democratic counterparts.
Since every district is virtually equivalent in number of registered voters, all that shows is that the Dems carried their districts with a higher margin than the Republicans. And since the Dems created, with the courts' help, many districts that were gerrymandered to make sure that a black representative would be elected, we can fairly assume that those districts voted substantially for the Dem.
Just a quick review:
Illinois #1 - Bobby Rush 80%
Illinois #2 - Jesse Jackson Jr 63%
Missisisippi #2 - Bennie Thompson 61%
Alabama #7 Terri Sewell 76%
I believe this thoroughly refutes your argument.
are there 435 or 4 house members??? I'm not sure...
I quick checked these states and here's what i found: Alabama
One democrat elected at 75% of the vote
the other 6 republicans collectively averaged 73% of the vote
Mississippi
One democrat elected at 67% of the vote
the other 3 republicans collectively averaged 68% of the vote
Illinois
not gonna do the averages for this many canidates, but I found two republicans (out of 8) who recieved a larger % than JJJ
Well no one is going to look at every race but nonetheless, your basic assertion is irrelevant since total popular vote is not the basis for electing the House. Every district has the same number of registered voters.
Some districts skew heavily to one party. In my own district, NY 27, Brian Higgins, a white Dem, has won the last 3 times with 80%, 75% and 61% of the vote. In the adjacent 28, Louise Slaughter, another Dem, won with 73%, 73% and 62%.
my basic assertion is a fact that gets discussed all the time. your basic assertion is bonehead stupid dude and has been dismissed long ago.
basic math (a house district is about 720k) shows that your rationale doesn't come close to explaining why one party has a -33 seat gain with +1.5 million votes. Thats a pretty hard difference to overcome even if every traditional republican state has one democrat heavy district.
Your talking point doesn't really show anything, in the three states that you used as an example, only Illinois had a valid claim. but guess what Illinois has a slight advantage TO THE REPUBLICANS when you break down the D/R presidential vote to the D/R sent to congress. In Texas, Mississippi, & Alabama which were the only red states that i actually broke down, it's the exact opposite. In all three cases the dems were severely under represented in congress compared to the 2012 presidential vote.
(09-22-2014 07:20 AM)DrTorch Wrote: So claims a labor union president.
Quote:The GOP is working desperately to deny the right to vote to citizens it doesn’t like. You know, poor people, black people, Hispanic people, old people, female people, especially people it believes are inclined to vote for Democrats.
You want to know why democracies fail? It's liars like this.
Keep it up leftists. You're tearing down the US, and are likely to get the war you've been pushing for.
Yes, you're right, it's all a figment of the Democrats imagination, and not a concerted effort by Republicans. Except that of course, it isn't, and is part of a well understood policy of not-so-subtle race-baiting and discrimination that many in the Republican party have taken part in since the beginning of the Southern Strategy in the early 70's.
But you know what? I actually respect this guy for actually coming out and saying what everyone knows instead of insulting our intelligence by claiming it's to prevent 'voter fraud'. The only options for those defending it here are either a) they're liars or b) they're actually dumb enough to believe it themselves.
Quote:basic math (a house district is about 720k) shows that your rationale doesn't come close to explaining why one party has a -33 seat gain with +1.5 million votes. Thats a pretty hard difference to overcome even if every traditional republican state has one democrat heavy district.
OK let me try to make this as simple for you as possible. The ONLY explanation for the difference in House seats won and total votes cast is that those seats won by Dems were won by a greater margin than the seats won by Republicans.
I'm not sure exactly what you two are arguing over, gerrymandering requires that districts are zoned in a way to congregate opposition votes while assuring slight majorities in multiple districts for your own party.
(09-22-2014 07:20 AM)DrTorch Wrote: So claims a labor union president.
Quote:The GOP is working desperately to deny the right to vote to citizens it doesn’t like. You know, poor people, black people, Hispanic people, old people, female people, especially people it believes are inclined to vote for Democrats.
You want to know why democracies fail? It's liars like this.
Keep it up leftists. You're tearing down the US, and are likely to get the war you've been pushing for.
Yes, you're right, it's all a figment of the Democrats imagination, and not a concerted effort by Republicans. Except that of course, it isn't, and is part of a well understood policy of not-so-subtle race-baiting and discrimination that many in the Republican party have taken part in since the beginning of the Southern Strategy in the early 70's.
Race baiting? That's exactly what the Dems do. So you've failed to make a coherent point. Why are you here again?
(09-22-2014 02:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote: I'm not sure exactly what you two are arguing over, gerrymandering requires that districts are zoned in a way to congregate opposition votes while assuring slight majorities in multiple districts for your own party.
You're probably right. We're both spinning the same point in a different way. So I'll end with this:
Elections have consequences. Even when they are state level.
(This post was last modified: 09-22-2014 04:13 PM by QuestionSocratic.)
(09-22-2014 07:20 AM)DrTorch Wrote: So claims a labor union president.
Quote:The GOP is working desperately to deny the right to vote to citizens it doesn’t like. You know, poor people, black people, Hispanic people, old people, female people, especially people it believes are inclined to vote for Democrats.
You want to know why democracies fail? It's liars like this.
Keep it up leftists. You're tearing down the US, and are likely to get the war you've been pushing for.
Yes, you're right, it's all a figment of the Democrats imagination, and not a concerted effort by Republicans. Except that of course, it isn't, and is part of a well understood policy of not-so-subtle race-baiting and discrimination that many in the Republican party have taken part in since the beginning of the Southern Strategy in the early 70's.
Race baiting? That's exactly what the Dems do. So you've failed to make a coherent point. Why are you here again?
Another post devoid of any meaning. Why are you here again?
(09-22-2014 07:20 AM)DrTorch Wrote: So claims a labor union president.
Quote:The GOP is working desperately to deny the right to vote to citizens it doesn’t like. You know, poor people, black people, Hispanic people, old people, female people, especially people it believes are inclined to vote for Democrats.
You want to know why democracies fail? It's liars like this.
Keep it up leftists. You're tearing down the US, and are likely to get the war you've been pushing for.
Yes, you're right, it's all a figment of the Democrats imagination, and not a concerted effort by Republicans. Except that of course, it isn't, and is part of a well understood policy of not-so-subtle race-baiting and discrimination that many in the Republican party have taken part in since the beginning of the Southern Strategy in the early 70's.
Race baiting? That's exactly what the Dems do. So you've failed to make a coherent point. Why are you here again?
Another post devoid of any meaning. Why are you here again?
You are a confrontational little tike. Who are you again?
(09-22-2014 07:20 AM)DrTorch Wrote: So claims a labor union president.
Quote:The GOP is working desperately to deny the right to vote to citizens it doesn’t like. You know, poor people, black people, Hispanic people, old people, female people, especially people it believes are inclined to vote for Democrats.
You want to know why democracies fail? It's liars like this.
Keep it up leftists. You're tearing down the US, and are likely to get the war you've been pushing for.
Yes, you're right, it's all a figment of the Democrats imagination, and not a concerted effort by Republicans. Except that of course, it isn't, and is part of a well understood policy of not-so-subtle race-baiting and discrimination that many in the Republican party have taken part in since the beginning of the Southern Strategy in the early 70's.
Race baiting? That's exactly what the Dems do. So you've failed to make a coherent point. Why are you here again?
Another post devoid of any meaning.
Ah, another semi-literate. must be a graduate of fit's classes.
You can't read, and then complain that others can.
Although I won't deny that gerrymandering exists. Heck, it exists in every state and some are even worse than what you've attempted to demonstrate with Texas. ..i.e. Dems in Kentucky... But....let me correct you on one thing....your first slice of data is popular election percentage versus congressional allocations. Those are two different types of data points. Another way to say it is that Republicans won 100% of the president allocation but only won 69% of the congressional allocation. That makes as much sense as what you stated. You just can't compare those two data points and make the assumption you made. Yes, it can indicate some ideas but it's not definitive.
A closer look will show some interesting results.
Obama received 41% of the vote in Texas, yet Democratic candidates for the House only received 38%. In essence, lots of folks only voted for President...as is typical.
Raw numbers:
Obama - 3.3 million votes.
Dem House Candidates - 2.8 million votes.
Romney - 4.5 million votes
Rep House Candidates - 4.2 million votes.
In short, both presidential candidates received more votes than their counterparts in the House elections, however, Obama had far more (500,000 to 300,000) of those kinds of voters.
(This post was last modified: 09-23-2014 11:53 AM by WKUApollo.)
Although I won't deny that gerrymandering exists. Heck, it exists in every state and some are even worse than what you've attempted to demonstrate with Texas. ..i.e. Dems in Kentucky... But....let me correct you on one thing....your first slice of data is popular election percentage versus congressional allocations. Those are two different types of data points. Another way to say it is that Republicans won 100% of the president allocation but only won 69% of the congressional allocation. That makes as much sense as what you stated. You just can't compare those two data points and make the assumption you made. Yes, it can indicate some ideas but it's not definitive.
A closer look will show some interesting results.
Obama received 41% of the vote in Texas, yet Democratic candidates for the House only received 38%. In essence, lots of folks only voted for President...as is typical.
Raw numbers:
Obama - 3.3 million votes.
Dem House Candidates - 2.8 million votes.
Romney - 4.5 million votes
Rep House Candidates - 4.2 million votes.
In short, both presidential candidates received more votes than their counterparts in the House elections, however, Obama had far more (500,000 to 300,000) of those kinds of voters.
That's a legitimate criticism of his numbers, but I'm not aware of the issues with Kentucky you're referencing.
But yeah, because you saw a quote on a picture you can make a false inference that the quote in question was not related to voter ID.
