November Election Thread

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: November Election Thread

Post by _EAllusion »

Water Dog wrote:Why the Walker hate in WI? I thought he was liked over there. Interestingly, GOP simultaneously took governorships in MA, VT, NH, and MD.
Of the people who dislike him, it's going to be a few different things policy wise, but what inspires his critics to hate him so much is his relentless dishonesty and willingness to manipulate the system for short-term, transactional advantage. That was not normal for a major Wisconsin politician prior to him. Even to the bitter end, he was running a campaign on protecting Obamacare pre-existing condition rules while his admin simultaneously sought to dismantle it.

It's difficult to describe to someone not familiar with internal Wisconsin politics, but he systematically destroyed several clean, transparent government institutions in Wisconsin and this was done nakedly for Republican gain with no higher purpose. These include things that people my age were brought up in civics classes to cherish as why our state's government is good. If you google Wisconsin and clean, open government, you'll find endless articles complaining about Walker's relentless attacks on it.

Something that bothers me that state Democrats might not care as much about is that he represented a major change in Wisconsin Republican politics. The state party used to be more moderate and libertarianish going back to before I was born. I voted for Mark Neumann over Walker in 2010 knowing that a Republican was likely to win the general election specifically because I much preferred Neumann's classic Wisconsin style of Republicanism over Walker. There was a joke shortly after that election that Walker was trying to transform the state into Wisssissippi, and it's based on the the real truth that Walker is much more like a southern Republican in terms of policy concerns and corrupt style. This is part of a national trend. The Republican party these days is essentially is the deep South nationalized, but Walker is how that trend came to our state.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: November Election Thread

Post by _EAllusion »

Water Dog wrote:So you're saying felons are more likely to vote democrat?


Yeah, they are. Mind you, in Florida "felons" includes things like people who got a fake ID as a teen and the system decided to throw the book at.
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: November Election Thread

Post by _subgenius »

Water Dog wrote:
Kevin Graham wrote:Amendment 4 just passed in Florida. This allows 1.4 million residents to vote, who couldn't because they're former felons. This could prove huge in the next election.

So you're saying felons are more likely to vote democrat?

because felons are noted for their civic duty and participation in legitimate enterprise....
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: November Election Thread

Post by _EAllusion »

subgenius wrote:because felons are noted for their civic duty and participation in legitimate enterprise....


We can tell how much you care about civic duty and participation in legitimate enterprise by your rabid support of Donald Trump. This is definitely a sincere concern of yours.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: November Election Thread

Post by _Chap »

Water Dog wrote:
Kevin Graham wrote:Amendment 4 just passed in Florida. This allows 1.4 million residents to vote, who couldn't because they're former felons. This could prove huge in the next election.

So you're saying felons are more likely to vote democrat?


Let's put it this way:

Trump enthusiasts opposed the proposal to allow people convicted of felonies to regain the right to vote, rather than being effectively disenfranchised for the rest of their lives - which is a pretty rare system amongst different states.

If I was one of those voters, I would not feel much like voting Republican. Would you, under those circumstances?

Florida voters during Tuesday’s midterm elections approved Amendment 4, automatically restoring voting rights in the state for people previously convicted of felonies.

Florida’s Amendment 4 restores voting rights for people in the state convicted of felonies as long as they have completed their sentences, although anyone convicted of murder or felony sex offenses would be excluded.

Based on the Sentencing Project’s 2016 estimates, this benefits more than a million people. The organization estimated in 2016 that nearly 1.5 million people in Florida have completed felony sentences but can’t vote — about 9.2 percent of the voting-age population in Florida. The total, though, includes some people convicted of murder and felony sex offenses, so not every one of those people benefits under Amendment 4.

Black people, who are disproportionately arrested and incarcerated, will benefit the most. In 2016, more than 418,000 black people out of a black voting-age population of more than 2.3 million, or 17.9 percent of potential black voters in Florida, had finished sentences but couldn’t vote due to a felony record, according to the Sentencing Project. (Again, this includes some people convicted of murders and felony sex offenses.)

The amendment was officially supported by Floridians for a Fair Democracy, which gathered more than 1.1 million petitions to put it on the ballot. It received bipartisan endorsements from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Koch brothers–backed Freedom Partners.

Most states have at least some voting restrictions for people convicted of felonies. Most often, the law bars people who are currently in prison from voting. Some prohibit voting until a person finishes parole or probation, too.

Florida, however, barred people from voting even after they’ve completed their sentences. Only two other states — Kentucky and Iowa — currently do this. Virginia technically does under its Constitution, but former Gov. Terry McAuliffe and current Gov. Ralph Northam, both Democrats, have used their executive powers to restore voting rights to those convicted of felonies.

Only Maine and Vermont let people vote regardless of their criminal record, which means that people in the two states can even vote from prison.

Courts, including the US Supreme Court, have generally upheld such voting restrictions under the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which indicates that the government may abridge the right to vote due to “participation in rebellion, or other crime.”

In Florida, there was a process in place for getting voting rights restored. But the process, set up by Gov. Rick Scott (R), was very arduous. It required people to wait as long as seven years to apply, and the application review itself could take several additional years. Even after someone applied, restoration of voting rights was far from guaranteed: According to the Florida Commission on Offender Review, only 3,005 of more than 30,000 applicants had their voting rights restored through the system since Scott implemented it.

As a result, Florida had disenfranchised more potential voters than any other state, with more than 10 percent of all potential voters and more than 21 percent of potential black voters in Florida unable to vote due to felony records.

With Amendment 4’s win on Tuesday, that will now change — and more than 1 million people will get back the right to vote.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_DarkHelmet
_Emeritus
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:38 pm

Re: November Election Thread

Post by _DarkHelmet »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Looks like we gettin' medicinal weed in Utah, but we won't be able to smoke it. Weird.

- Doc


Why can't you smoke it? What are you getting, CBD oil? What?


It's Utah. Brownies, of course. They'll probably figure out other pot laced desserts. I expect green jello weed to be on the menu.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die."
- Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
_Doctor Steuss
_Emeritus
Posts: 4597
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:57 pm

Re: November Election Thread

Post by _Doctor Steuss »

In Nevada, a dead rapey pimp won against a Democrat. I guess that's a feather to put in the cap.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: November Election Thread

Post by _EAllusion »

It's getting pretty hard to imagine Democrats being able to nominate and confirm anyone to the Supreme Court for anything resembling the foreseeable future. Or, more conservatively put, the scenarios in which that is possible don't seem likely within the next 20 years.

Republicans have an iron-lock on the Senate after this for a very long time and they seem to culturally be oppposed to letting Democrats confirm justices as a partisan bloc. It's actually easy to imagine a full-blown Constitutional crisis in 2021 as a Democratic president cannot even get a cabinet confirmed.

It's of course possible that we hit a recession in 2020 and Trump goes down like Hoover with massive negative coat-tails, but I woudn't count on that.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: November Election Thread

Post by _Kevin Graham »

EAllusion wrote:It's getting pretty hard to imagine Democrats being able to nominate and confirm anyone to the Supreme Court for anything resembling the foreseeable future. Or, more conservatively put, the scenarios in which that is possible don't seem likely within the next 20 years.

Republicans have an iron-lock on the Senate after this for a very long time and they seem to culturally be oppposed to letting Democrats confirm justices as a partisan bloc. It's actually easy to imagine a full-blown Constitutional crisis in 2021 as a Democratic president cannot even get a cabinet confirmed.

It's of course possible that we hit a recession in 2020 and Trump goes down like Hoover with massive negative coat-tails, but I woudn't count on that.


So if Ginsberg dies in 2021 with a Democrat President, you think the Republican Senate will flat out refuse to confirm anyone for 3-7 years?
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: November Election Thread

Post by _EAllusion »

Kevin Graham wrote:
So if Ginsberg dies in 2021 with a Democrat President, you think the Republican Senate will flat out refuse to confirm anyone for 3-7 years?
Yes. Conservative legal groups like judicial watch were agitating for this in 2016 with the Scalia vacancy. Several Republican Senators came out strongly in favor of it and none opposed it. It's easy to focus on the blocking of Garland, but prior to that, McConnell had already virtually shut down confirmations of all other federal court appointments. Anything other than a Democratic Senate or maybe a very narrowly split one means Democrats get no appointments. This'll happen until the Courts are simply controlled by right-wing judicial group appointees.

What stops that is a close or Democratic Senate, but the math is simply abysmal for that happening in the near future. Even excepting California, Democrats dominated the Senate preference vote this cycle and lost probably around 5 seats. That's because rural, low education voters have an increasingly strong preference for the Republican party and they are disproportionately concentrated in low population states. The default, neutral election Senate math is something like 60/40 Republican.

Voting demographics shift over time, so this isn't set in stone, but it is difficult to imagine it changing in the near future and Democrats are in a deep hole to get to a bare majority. It could happen, but you're kidding yourself if you think that's likely.
Post Reply