The mold for the Democrats' election excuse has been cast:

[JeremiahJohnson]

BBJ - how about I help you out. Since there's not much logic put on any of this, I'll take a SWAG.


Republicans tend to push for voter ID laws - fact.
Democrats tend to fight voter ID laws - fact.

Elements that affect voter turn out - like rain - affect everyone.

Voter ID laws affect the poor in that they may have to obtain an ID they didn't have before.

An exemption is in place to make it easy for poor people to vote without an ID - vote by mail does not require it.

An exemption is in place to make it easy for poor handicapped or elderly people to vote without an ID.

Obtaining a free ID is just as difficult for a poor black person, as a poor white person, as a poor asian person.

When voter ID laws are lax, voter freud is a real possibility.

GAO data concluding voter ID laws inhibit minority voter turn-out is debated. No general consensus is substantiated.

When voter freud is prosecuted, those votes tend to be in the "D" column (according to the attorney general of Texas who prosecutes these cases).


Republicans see the trend in voter freud, conclude they could decrease "D"s on election day by eliminating voter freud.


I agree with you that Republicans push for Voter ID laws because they think it helps them win. The reason is everything. Voter freud increases votes for Democrats. Poor votes are neither wholely republican or democrat. Freudulent votes are.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I agree with you that Republicans push for Voter ID laws because they think it helps them win.

OK, maybe I could have saved a lot of typing if I had just stated it that way.

By the way, is voter freud when a person votes for candidates that remind them of their mother?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I know what logic is, but I'm not convinced that you do (as long as we're being condescending). I know you're making the point that, the only reason to believe that any person couldn't get a legal ID is to say that they must be really stupid, since it's so unbelievably easy and free. I get that part, and I've heard it on several conservative talk radio programs. As I said, I stated no support or not for that requirement or what effects that the voter ID laws would have in that respect.

I'm ONLY stating that it is my OPINION that Republicans realize that Demographic is traditionally Democrat (it's no secret), and that Republican leaders believe that they could benefit if they passed the ID law, because it might catch some of those voters who didn't have the legal ID and who failed to obtain one in time to vote, even if only because they didn't know about the new law, or maybe it just slipped their mind, or they just didn't make the time to go through the ridiculously easy and free process to get one. I know several very smart and responsible people who forgot to get their drivers license renewed and none of them seemed to feel at all stupid about that, they just called it an oversight.

Here's where your attempt at logic fails - since you asked for condescension I'll provide it - You accept the GAO report as gospel (that voter ID laws impact voter turn-out). You swallowed it whole (because it fits your world view and every other view) and didn't even read anything that rebuts it. It's the same "logic" that accepts alternative energy sources like wind energy are a viable energy source to lower the need for fossil fuels even without any storage capability for the grid. You must learn to think and research for yourself sir or ma'am. Just because it's in print doesn't make it so. You must possess and use logic of some kind and be sure of the "facts" on which you support the ending conclusion.

My training is engineering. My 30-year background is in energy. I am traveled and educated, but I have also reached wrong conclusions, taking a logical approach, because of bad "facts".

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

OK, maybe I could have saved a lot of typing if I had just stated it that way.

By the way, is voter freud when a person votes for candidates that remind them of their mother?

My bad - frAud - I'm a scientist and engineer, not an English major.

Of course they think it will make them win, but not because of low minority voter turn-out. That piece of data is highly in question where voter FRAUD is not.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

OK, maybe I could have saved a lot of typing if I had just stated it that way.

By the way, is voter freud when a person votes for candidates that remind them of their mother?

Another "by the way":

If Republicans push for voter ID because they think it will help them win (obvious)...

And Democrats push to reverse and lax voter ID because they think it will help them win (obvious)...

What if it turns out the data about low minority turn-out as a result of voter ID...is wrong?

 

[findingZzero]

How about this. Voter fraud is a myth.

Myth of Voter Fraud | Brennan Center for Justice

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

That piece of data is highly in question where voter FRAUD is not.

I've heard that sentiment voiced on conservative talk radio, and interestingly, I hear the opposite on NPR. I'm one of those strange dudes who listens to both quite a lot.

To be perfectly honest, I really couldn't prove which group is correct, but I've indicated which way I lean (at least on this matter).

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Another "by the way":

If Republicans push for voter ID because they think it will help them win (obvious)...

And Democrats push to reverse and lax voter ID because they think it will help them win (obvious)...

What if it turns out the data about low minority turn-out as a result of voter ID...is wrong?

I would say that, if minority turnout is not effected by the voter ID laws, and if fraud was significant, and mostly Democrat, but prevented by the ID laws, then it's a win for Republicans and a win for democracy.

If minority turnout is effected by voter ID laws, and if fraud was significant, and mostly Democrat, but prevented by the ID laws, then that's definitely a win for Republicans, and maybe a win for democracy too, but that would be debated.

If minority turnout is effected by voter ID laws, and if fraud wasn't significant and so not effected by ID laws, then it's a win for Republicans, but maybe not so much for democracy, unless you believe that any win for Republicans IS a win for democracy.

If minority turnout isn't effected by voter ID laws, and if fraud wasn't significant and not effected by ID laws, then I'd say it's a wash for Republicans and a wash for democracy.

 

[JS1911]

Regardless of anything else, nobody can tell me that Republicans haven't fought hard for I.D. rules for any other reason than that it effects traditional Democrat demographics.

They even had to change the rules mid-stream to make sure that college IDs wouldn't qualify, since, you know, most college kids vote Democrat. There was even one leading Republican in Texas who publicly stated that college kids shouldn't vote anyway, since their immaturity leads them to swing liberal.

At least you're willing to admit that the main voting demos for the D's are the lazy, the stupid, and the immature.

 

[zippy23]

The fact that you think we are "getting on with an election" might be the wrong idea. I personally think its fixed. I will still vote of course, because not voting is just plain stupid, but i honestly think at this point its fixed. kind of a paradigm

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I know you're making the point that, the only reason to believe that any person couldn't get a legal ID is to say that they must be really stupid, since it's so unbelievably easy and free. I get that part, and I've heard it on several conservative talk radio programs.

I'm ONLY stating that it is my OPINION that Republicans realize that Demographic is traditionally Democrat (it's no secret),

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

How about this. Voter fraud is a myth.

Myth of Voter Fraud | Brennan Center for Justice

To the OPs point, voter fraud exists in Texas, the attorney general has documented cases on the books with real convictions. It's not a myth when there are documented cases in the court log.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

To be clear I am neither a "D" nor an "R". I couldn't care less about lables because they're all pretty much trying to get elected. However, when there are documented cases of voter fraud, and the rest is all an academic squabble about data, I'll side with the known and say do something about it. Especially when they've made it so very easy for those who are legitimate voters.

BBJ - it doesn't matter what label is on the journalist either. I don't really care. By training I'm concerned with facts and their impact. I couldn't care less what a journalist or a statistician thinks. I would prefer to see the data and draw my own conclusions. Opinions and conjecture are only entertainment (to some) regardless if it's Fox News or NPR or MSNBC. Facts and logic are all the concern me. Finding true facts is a difficult enough task. The hardest thing to do is to say you don't know when you're not sure of the facts. Without knowing the truth you can't possibly reason yourself to a believable conclusion.

 

[Expat]

To the OPs point, voter fraud exists in Texas, the attorney general has documented cases on the books with real convictions. It's not a myth when there are documented cases in the court log.

Oh come on JJ, who are you going to believe. The Dems or your lying eyes...