Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Cow Poke]

They killed Kenny.

I just saw him a couple hours ago at 7-11!!!!!!

[Teallaura]

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.

Nope, it's really, really crappy statistics - and so is the presumption of disenfranchisment.

Also, if it were representative (it's soooo not) it would be about right, if memory serves - Elmore is a BB county and about 46% AA.

The majority of the AA percentage of the pop is in the BB - and in the BB, the majority of the poor are AA, not W. So if it were representative (really, really it's not) it's actually evidence that the disenfranchisement you're assuming isn't happening.

Next week we'll get real turnout and argue it!

[carpedm9587]

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.

OK - I missed your point. So my response is, "I don't know, and it doesn't matter."

Look - if that body of people out there exists, the fact that they are for something (which has not been measured by anyone - so I cannot assert that they don't exist and you cannot assert, outside the context of your local community, that they do), the fact is that their effort, if present, still results in a 2% disenfranchisement and that producing an average 1.2% shift in the vote distribution (in favor of Republicans). So that effort, even if present, is not eliminating voter disenfranchisement.

If the right were TRULY trying to solve a problem WITHOUT disenfranchising voters - there is a clear strtegy for doing so: create a system for universal VoterIDs FIRST - then implement the laws requiring them when it is no longer going to disenfranchise voters. I do not know of this approach being used anywhere.

[Cow Poke]

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.

OK, so, since you acknowledged that you have a slightly left bias, your view of your own position is going to be... um... biased... so, since you think you're only slightly left, and you have a left bias, that means.....

[Starlight]

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.

[Juvenal]

the majority of the aa percentage of the pop is in the bb - and in the bb, the majority of the poor are aa, not w. So if it were representative (really, really it's not) it's actually evidence that the disenfranchisement you're assuming isn't happening.

aa, bb?

[Cow Poke]

OK - I missed your point. So my response is, "I don't know, and it doesn't matter."

Well, yes, it actually does. Because if the main opposition to requiring photo ID is the cost or access to records, AND the voter ID law (such as it would be) includes a remedy for that, it wipes out the objection.

Look - if that body of people out there exists, the fact that they are for something (which has not been measured by anyone - so I cannot assert that they don't exist and you cannot assert, outside the context of your local community, that they do), the fact is that their effort, if present, still results in a 2% disenfranchisement and that producing an average 1.2% shift in the vote distribution (in favor of Republicans). So that effort, even if present, is not eliminating voter disenfranchisement.

If the right were TRULY trying to solve a problem WITHOUT disenfranchising voters - there is a clear strtegy for doing so: create a system for universal VoterIDs FIRST - then implement the laws requiring them when it is no longer going to disenfranchise voters. I do not know of this approach being used anywhere.

Look, I think this is yet another case of the phony liberals pretending to care about something they really don't care about.

If they REALLY cared about poor people being shut out from voting, they would ALSO care about the fact that these people can't board airplanes or legally drive cars or enter federal buildings or buy prescription drugs....

It's - as one of my favorite Tweb posters puts it - BULLPUCKY!

[carpedm9587]

Nope, it's really, really crappy statistics - and so is the presumption of disenfranchisment.

Also, if it were representative (it's soooo not) it would be about right, if memory serves - Elmore is a BB county and about 46% AA.

The majority of the AA percentage of the pop is in the BB - and in the BB, the majority of the poor are AA, not W. So if it were representative (really, really it's not) it's actually evidence that the disenfranchisement you're assuming isn't happening.

Next week we'll get real turnout and argue it!

Your math makes no sense to me, Teal. It defies everything I know about statistical theory. Unless I misunderstand you, you are saying that a voter disenfranchisement of the poor (predominantly affecting African Americans) can be disproven because most of the people at the polls were black.

So I see that as trying to say the following: You have a large collection of pennies (black people) and nickles (white people). Their proportion is equal to the voting population proportion in Alabama. You sort them out and put all of the coins who were NOT disenfranched in one jar, and all of the coins who were disenfranchised in another. Then you argue that, because there are more black people in the "not disenfranchised" jar than white people, it proves that there are no coins in the other jar? Huh?

Add to that the fact that the number of people in line at a given time may or may not reflect the greater distribution for the entire day.

If I understand your claim correctly, the math is just all wrong. If I don't, then you'll have to explain it to me. This boy is apparently dense.

[Teallaura]

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.

No, SL, I was dismissing you. Your disenfranchisement theory hasn't shown any real world indications.

It's a special election... the 'queue' thing is actually FUNNY! I'm not trying to be mean - it really is funny because the chances of that kind of turnout are just about nil in a special election, even this one. This actually matters more to me - I can't stand up for long periods. But Alabama, like the rest of the US, allows for voter assistance at the polls - reasonable accommodations must be made. Tell the nice pollster you need a chair and they get you one.

The primaries part is ignorance on your part - a voter declares the primary they are intending to vote in at the polls in Alabama. They would still be allowed to vote provisionally so that's again incorrect on all parts.

I've voted provisionally when I moved less than thirty days before the election. An unusually high number of provisional ballots would raise alarms - but they simply haven't materialized.

[Cow Poke]

aa, bb?

I know, math --- there has to be an x in there, right?

[Cow Poke]

No, SL, I was dismissing you. Your disenfranchisement theory hasn't shown any real world indications.

It's a special election... the 'queue' thing is actually FUNNY! I'm not trying to be mean - it really is funny because the chances of that kind of turnout are just about nil in a special election, even this one. This actually matters more to me - I can't stand up for long periods. But Alabama, like the rest of the US, allows for voter assistance at the polls - reasonable accommodations must be made. Tell the nice pollster you need a chair and they get you one.

The primaries part is ignorance on your part - a voter declares the primary they are intending to vote in at the polls in Alabama. They would still be allowed to vote provisionally so that's again incorrect on all parts.

I've voted provisionally when I moved less than thirty days before the election. An unusually high number of provisional ballots would raise alarms - but they simply haven't materialized.

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?

[Juvenal]

I know, math --- there has to be an x in there, right?

And z's for complex numbers.

[carpedm9587]

Well, yes, it actually does. Because if the main opposition to requiring photo ID is the cost or access to records, AND the voter ID law (such as it would be) includes a remedy for that, it wipes out the objection.

Unless, as the statistics suggest - the remedy is not eliminating the effect - which is my point.

Look, I think this is yet another case of the phony liberals pretending to care about something they really don't care about.

If they REALLY cared about poor people being shut out from voting, they would ALSO care about the fact that these people can't board airplanes or legally drive cars or enter federal buildings or buy prescription drugs....

It's - as one of my favorite Tweb posters puts it - BULLPUCKY!

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

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.

[Starlight]

Your math makes no sense to me, Teal. It defies everything I know about statistical theory.

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

[Teallaura]

Your math makes no sense to me, Teal. It defies everything I know about statistical theory. Unless I misunderstand you, you are saying that a voter disenfranchisement of the poor (predominantly affecting African Americans) can be disproven because most of the people at the polls were black.

So I see that as trying to say the following: You have a large collection of pennies (black people) and nickles (white people). Their proportion is equal to the voting population proportion in Alabama. You sort them out and put all of the coins who were NOT disenfranched in one jar, and all of the coins who were disenfranchised in another. Then you argue that, because there are more black people in the "not disenfranchised" jar than white people, it proves that there are no coins in the other jar? Huh?

Add to that the fact that the number of people in line at a given time may or may not reflect the greater distribution for the entire day.

If I understand your claim correctly, the math is just all wrong. If I don't, then you'll have to explain it to me. This boy is apparently dense.

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.

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.

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.