But he talks about letting felons vote the sentence before.

Felon reenfranchisment is a great but most states already have that so effects would be limited, which was his point.

[Edited on October 26, 2018 at 9:16 AM. Reason : And your post didn't disprove that letting prisoners vote is a far left idea]

10/26/2018 9:15:32 AM

my post is very clear now, read it again

10/26/2018 9:19:07 AM

Your 2nd paragraph is fine

The first part seems to want to prove that letting prisoners vote isn't a "dingbat left idea" but then provides no evidence of that. The other point, how many people would be able to vote, was already essentially made by grumpy.

10/26/2018 10:12:47 AM

first paragraph says that just letting former felons vote is millions of additional people by itself


[Edited on October 26, 2018 at 10:18 AM. Reason : just letting felons who have gotten out of prison vote again would restore voting rights to over a m]

10/26/2018 10:16:52 AM

Which is exactly what grumpy already said in the portion of his post you cut out

Quote :

"Felons? You could get something in the neighborhood of six million votes there. Nothing to sneeze at, but unless they all move to Florida, they're not really tipping the scale much. "

And why did you write "dingbat left idea" before quoting a poll about something else

Communication is a two way street. You think you're clear but someone is asking for clarification so you could try doing that instead of being condescending.

[Edited on October 26, 2018 at 10:22 AM. Reason : E]

10/26/2018 10:21:48 AM

nah, its clear

10/26/2018 10:22:15 AM

Ok cool good talk.

Love when people fuck up and get ultra defensive instead of just making simple updates

10/26/2018 10:25:00 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/states-rethink-prisoner-voting-rights-incarceration-rates-rise-n850406

Anyway, apparently 2 stares allow prisoners to vote and a 3rd is considering it. I'd be interested in seeing national polling to whether it is, in fact, a far left idea

10/26/2018 10:27:48 AM

Quote :

"lol "law and order Republicans""

Look, I know they're a bunch of crooks, but you don't have to convince me. For most people, Sideshow Bob knows what's up: "You secretly want a Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king!"

Quote :

"the 80% of voting age millenials that don't vote (and pick liberals/progressives by a 2:1 margin)."

These people have the franchise and can vote whenever they want. Expanding the right to vote will not affect these people.

There are no doubt votes to be picked up here for all political persuasions, but JesusHChrist has been talking about disenfranchisement, and that is what I am responding to.

dtownral, rwoody is right - your post still doesn't make sense as a response to mine. I have spoken in favor of giving the right to vote to convicted felons who have served their time. It is letting actual prisoners in prison vote that is a "dingbat" idea. 71% of nobody supports that proposal.

Quote :

"our voter turnout is between 40-60%, you can expand your base just by having an energizing message that reaches people who otherwise wouldn't vote -- obama won was because his message resulted in a high turnout"

Did he?

Voter turnout in 2004 was 60.1%. In 2008, it was 61.6%. In 2012, it dropped to 58.2%. In the last election, 60%. So even if you give him all the credit, you get a 1.5% increase his first year. Credit where credit's due - that's not nothing. Obama also didn't need the extra voters - he would have won handily just with what he'd siphoned away from the pool of regular voters who had supported Bush.

And to the extent that he did get raise turnout, at least in the one year - and for that matter, to the extent that he drew in regular voters as well - how much of that was his policy proposals? How much of it was his "progressive" politics? And how much of it was that he was a young, cool, attractive black guy running against a stodgy dude who looked old enough to have been a POW in the War of 1812?

I'm thinking it was mostly the second thing.

10/26/2018 10:43:09 AM

Quote :

"Ok cool good talk. Love when people fuck up and get ultra defensive instead of just making simple updates"

i never made the claim you're attributing to me

10/26/2018 10:52:43 AM

Quote :

". 71% of nobody supports that proposal."

Well I just posted an article that says that Maine already allows this. Not exactly a far left state. They have a far right governor and a republican (barely) moderate senator

^well that's more clarifying than your last 3 posts but still fairly vague.

Quote :

" why did you write "dingbat left idea" before quoting a poll about something else"

[Edited on October 26, 2018 at 10:59 AM. Reason : E]

10/26/2018 10:54:18 AM

Maine isn't, Vermont is, and neither of them have very large prison populations.

But maybe I'm wrong and lots of people would be fine with it, at least until it becomes a major issue and you start seeing GOP PAC ads about child rapists voting from prison.

[Edited on October 26, 2018 at 11:14 AM. Reason : ]

10/26/2018 11:12:59 AM

Quote :

"These people have the franchise and can vote whenever they want. Expanding the right to vote will not affect these people. There are no doubt votes to be picked up here for all political persuasions, but JesusHChrist has been talking about disenfranchisement, and that is what I am responding to."

He was talking about voter engagement:

Quote :

"Because it is mathematically advantageous to expand voter engagement more so than chase your vote. That is the only point the left has been trying to make. As disenfranchisement and income disparities increase and become more pronounced and unavoidable, the lefts message becomes more palatable to the population at large than the concerns of lily-white suburbanite John Deer dads."

10/26/2018 11:14:30 AM

Quote :

"Did he? Voter turnout in 2004 was 60.1%. In 2008, it was 61.6%. In 2012, it dropped to 58.2%. In the last election, 60%. So even if you give him all the credit, you get a 1.5% increase his first year. Credit where credit's due - that's not nothing. Obama also didn't need the extra voters - he would have won handily just with what he'd siphoned away from the pool of regular voters who had supported Bush. And to the extent that he did get raise turnout, at least in the one year - and for that matter, to the extent that he drew in regular voters as well - how much of that was his policy proposals? How much of it was his "progressive" politics? And how much of it was that he was a young, cool, attractive black guy running against a stodgy dude who looked old enough to have been a POW in the War of 1812? I'm thinking it was mostly the second thing. "

so you finally acknowledge the millions of potential voters that require no acts of congress to expand into, that's good

and to your other point- look at democratic turnout. 2000 democrats got 36% of registered voters (27% of 18+ citizens), in 2004 they got 42% of registered voters (30% of 18+ citizens), and in 2008 it jumped to 48% of registered voters (34% of 18+ citizens). That's about an extra 8 million people just on vague lip service to a progressive message


there are millions of voting age people in the US who are not currently active voters who the democratic party can expand into without requiring any legislation. your repeated point that, "you're ignoring conservatives, you can't expand voting because of conservatives" is a nonsense point given that our voter turnout is only 40-60%


-

Quote :

"why did you write "dingbat left idea" before quoting a poll about something else""

an example of a dingbat left idea that may add millions of potential voters, literally the very next part of the post

[Edited on October 26, 2018 at 11:27 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2018 11:23:29 AM

Quote :

"dtownral, rwoody is right - your post still doesn't make sense as a response to mine. I have spoken in favor of giving the right to vote to convicted felons who have served their time. It is letting actual prisoners in prison vote that is a "dingbat" idea. 71% of nobody supports that proposal."

Which was all thoroughly clear on the last page. dtownral is a troll.

Quote :

"And to the extent that he did get raise turnout, at least in the one year - and for that matter, to the extent that he drew in regular voters as well - how much of that was his policy proposals? How much of it was his "progressive" politics? And how much of it was that he was a young, cool, attractive black guy running against a stodgy dude who looked old enough to have been a POW in the War of 1812? I'm thinking it was mostly the second thing."

+1

10/26/2018 11:35:08 AM

try to keep up with the adults

10/26/2018 11:36:18 AM

Quote :

"an example of a dingbat left idea that may add millions of potential voters, literally the very next part of the post"

OK, thank you for clarifying. I understand the point you were trying to make


However, the idea you posted isn't a left idea? Its supported by Grumpy and most of the country.

10/26/2018 12:28:30 PM

Quote :

"He was talking about voter engagement"

If that's what he's talking about, he should quit saying "disenfranchisement," which is a different thing.

Quote :

" 2000 democrats got 36% of registered voters (27% of 18+ citizens), in 2004 they got 42% of registered voters (30% of 18+ citizens), and in 2008 it jumped to 48% of registered voters (34% of 18+ citizens)"

Er...OK? So basically it made the same jump in 2008 as it did in 2004. There's no "jump" in either statistic, there's just a steady increase in Democratic vote share.

10/26/2018 1:43:34 PM

so you are finally acknowledging that the democratic party can expand their base and your reason they can't doesn't make sense?

[Edited on October 26, 2018 at 1:55 PM. Reason : and no it's a larger jump and high historically, also not steadily increasing - it fell since 2008]

10/26/2018 1:52:53 PM

Quote :

"If that's what he's talking about, he should quit saying "disenfranchisement," which is a different thing."

The context was voter engagement. He said disenfranchisement and income disparity are things that can push people toward the left, and we need to engage those people.

Since we're talking about disenfranchisement, though: if we had automatic voter registration and mail-in ballots in every state, turnout would be much higher, and when turnout is high, Democrats win. And it's common sense policy that can't be argued against.

10/26/2018 2:47:19 PM

Also voter Id laws, gerrymandering, lack of voting holidays, voter purges and inadequate early voting coverage all cause disenfranchisement without actually making it illegal to vote, as with felons in some states.

10/26/2018 3:02:16 PM

^^he knows what I was talking about, he's just trying to court-room lawyer his way out of addressing the point.

Disenfranchisement exists (mostly vis-a-vis our criminal justice system that overwhelmingly criminalizes people of color for non-violent offenses). And voter apathy and disengagement exists as an extension of gerrymandering and the various forms of voter suppression that make voting both difficult and not worth the effort for millions. Narrowing voter turnout has been a strategy for the right for their entire existence because low voter turnout and voter disengagement is the only way they can gain and maintain political power.

Trying to parse these two issues as being disconnected from one another is a stupid exercise, but yet he's spent an entire page doing just that.

You have to re-enfranchise voters AND increase engagement by following a progressive agenda that empowers the working poor. This involves both expanding the vote and making policy proposals that excite voters. Doing one without the other is not an effective strategy if you want to actually gain and exercise power.

10/26/2018 4:10:07 PM

fuck

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/413572-hillary-clinton-leaves-door-open-for-2020-run-id-like-to-be-president?fbclid=IwAR08rerN-arr_2NFw1he4_7wrWy2PUL9Svjq2x4BkLcpUkUb9hH5X2RhgAE

10/29/2018 12:23:25 PM

that's not happening

10/29/2018 12:25:57 PM

Quote :

"no it's a larger jump and high historically, also not steadily increasing - it fell since 2008"

I was only referring to the data that you put forward, which do not show a jump. From 2000-2004, 6% increase in registered voters and 3% of 18+. From 2004-2008, 6% increase in registered voters and 4% of 18+. Those are pretty consistent numbers.

I think you all vastly overestimate the potential impact of non-voters being drawn to the polls, and I think your theory that "If we're just progressive enough they'll start voting" is baselessly optimistic. If nothing else, it wrongly assumes that eligible nonvoters are overwhelmingly very liberal. To the extent that any nonvoter is "political," plenty of them are conservative; you don't win them by going Left, and there's the possibility of providing enough negative motivation to drive them to polls for the other guy.

A "cool" candidate is what gets people off the couch and involved in the Democratic process. Issues matter more to people who are already involved in the process and voting.

You're also glossing over the fact that removing obstacles to voting - through automatic registration, ending gerrymandering, getting rid of ID laws, whatever - all require you to be in power. You can't use them to win elections until you've already won an election, so they're not really relevant to this discussion - especially since the people they'd most appeal to are nonvoters who won't help you get there.

11/1/2018 7:10:44 AM

Quote :

" You can't use them to win elections until you've already won an election, so they're not really relevant to this discussion - especially since the people they'd most appeal to are nonvoters who won't help you get there."

you're the one making this obstacle, you can expand your voter base without doing those things

11/1/2018 8:28:11 AM

Yes, I acknowledged that, and specifically addressed it in the majority of my post. There are two tracks here, and though it is a great struggle, I think I can muster the mental dexterity to deal with both of them in one post. I understand that you might not be capable of the feat, but that's OK! I'm sure you're good at other things, like staring blankly into space, or shitting.

11/1/2018 11:05:49 AM

says the person who made repeated posts unaware of them

11/1/2018 11:10:53 AM

Quote :

"think you all vastly overestimate the potential impact of non-voters being drawn to the polls, and I think your theory that "If we're just progressive enough they'll start voting" is baselessly optimistic. If nothing else, it wrongly assumes that eligible nonvoters are overwhelmingly very liberal. To the extent that any nonvoter is "political," plenty of them are conservative; you don't win them by going Left, and there's the possibility of providing enough negative motivation to drive them to polls for the other guy."

Aren't the biggest non voting populations more liberal leaning? Young people and non-white tend to lean more liberal and make up the bulk of non voters. I think even among registered voters, a higher percentage of Republicans voted in the last election.

The best way to turn out non voters is up for plenty of debate but the potential impact is huge. The last presidential election was decided by 80,000 votes...

Also Republicans clearly prefer fewer voters bc just about every suppression tactic is republican and just about every idea to make voting easier is a democratic platform.

11/1/2018 1:07:11 PM

Democrats have their own nasty tactics for voter suppression, with pushing local offices to off-cycle election years being a favorite. Both parties love to gerrymander as well.

I recall massive complaints of purges of voters from the Democratic primaries in closed primary states two years ago, with the implied intent being to purge voters that might vote for non-establishment Democrats.

11/1/2018 5:12:46 PM

Quote :

"Democrats have their own nasty tactics for voter suppression, with pushing local offices to off-cycle election years being a favorite. "

I don't think the word suppression means what you think it does

11/1/2018 6:51:24 PM

^^

11/1/2018 7:13:46 PM

Quote :

"Aren't the biggest non voting populations more liberal leaning? Young people and non-white tend to lean more liberal and make up the bulk of non voters."

The bulk of non-voters are in populations which are otherwise left-of-center, yes. But I hesitate to call them "liberal" because mostly what they are, almost by definition, is apolitical. If they were enthusiastic far-Left progressives, they'd be voting.

11/2/2018 5:15:38 AM

Bullshit, look at all the Bernie or Bust folks that didn't vote

11/2/2018 7:07:17 AM

^^

Quote :

"think even among registered voters, a higher percentage of Republicans voted in the last election. "

Helps your argument to cut off the quote before that is sentence. Also, for the discussion with me, the switch from liberal to far left progressive is a fairly big strawman. I never claimed non voters were far left.

But anyway, yes, just among registered voters, republicans had a voting advantage.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voters-who-stayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

I would argue, in general, there is no such thing as apolitical, there is just engaged or not engaged, or privileged enough to not worry. Politics isn't a sports team, it affects the every day lives of many people. I would argue that ignorance, apathy, suppression and/or frustration are more likely to be be traits that describe non voters. This is more obvious with registered non voters (outside of automatic registration states I suppose). They were once engaged/political enough to at least register, then something changed....

11/2/2018 7:33:50 AM

Quote :

"Bullshit, look at all the Bernie or Bust folks that didn't vote"

most voted for clinton, and also it's hard to use these kinds of votes to determine ideology -- consider that something like 15% of clinton voters voted for mccain -- there are a lot of factors that play into it

11/2/2018 8:56:36 AM

Also, hadn’t it been pretty widely documented that there were far more Obama(x2) voters that stayed home than Bernie or Busters?

11/2/2018 9:08:29 AM

Also, for whatever extent it’s relevant to this discussion, there is no way in hell that Bernie or busters who abstained even remotely approached the number of never Trump Republicans.

11/2/2018 11:34:32 AM

If they were truly Bernie-or-Bust, they still would have shown up to write in Bernie's name.

11/2/2018 1:11:50 PM

Quote :

"Also, for the discussion with me, the switch from liberal to far left progressive is a fairly big strawman."

It's only a strawman if nobody is arguing it. Half the people in this thread are saying that we'll get all these people off the couch and to the polls if only we nominate people who are way out on the left, while I've been saying that a candidate who is both (1) moderate and (2) actually a good, engaging candidate is the way to go. If you're not proposing a far-left person, then I'm not actually arguing with you, I'm arguing with them.

Quote :

"I would argue, in general, there is no such thing as apolitical, there is just engaged or not engaged, or privileged enough to not worry. Politics isn't a sports team, it affects the every day lives of many people. I would argue that ignorance, apathy, suppression and/or frustration are more likely to be be traits that describe non voters. This is more obvious with registered non voters (outside of automatic registration states I suppose). They were once engaged/political enough to at least register, then something changed..."

Politics very much is a sports team for many people, which is why there are so many people who voted for Trump and continue to support him because he beat "the other team."

I'm not going to quibble with you over what we mean when we say "apolitical," because to me, a combination of "ignorance, apathy, and/or frustration" pretty much fits the bill. And particularly within the sphere of registered voters, yes, there are always going to be some who used to vote, or could be enticed to vote, or what have you. But "apathy" and "don't think my vote counts" are typically the top responses in polls about why people didn't vote. These are not the low-hanging fruit of electoral politics. You have to get their attention, motivate them enough to become engaged in the process, and make sure they're engaged in your favor. What I'm arguing is that (1) going with a super-progressive candidate is unlikely to achieve these things, (2) even if you did manage to succeed to some extent, by the time you account for the disaffected moderates and energized conservatives, you're not gaining much, and (3) even if you won, the backlash in this case would be terrible.

On the flip side, a high-quality moderate candidate - that is, a charismatic, energizing, fresh-faced one - gets people out in droves. Several people in this thread have been inadvertently making the case for me the whole time. Barack Obama was a very centrist President, they whine out of one side of their mouths - while out of the other they point out that he motivated a lot of people to go to the polls. No shit. Barack Obama was young, black, hip, funny, cool, and attractive. His opponents were white guys who were either extremely old or extremely un-hip.

Some of these guys loathe Booker and Harris because they're too centrist, but they'd get out the vote in a way that Elizabeth Warren is never going to be able to do. They're not ideal - nobody's mistaking any of this crowd of candidates for being the next JFK or anything - but unless a real political genius pops up in the next two years, I say go with the candidate who is more likely to end the present regime, and start taking your chances with real progressive policy candidates in 2022 or 2024.

11/2/2018 5:57:07 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if Beto runs to take the baton from Bernie to keep pushing the liberal agenda.

11/7/2018 9:50:54 AM

Joe Biden wakes up this morning, sees that Democrats won the statewide races in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, probably thinks he can be President.

11/7/2018 9:53:40 AM

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/08/eric-swalwell-president-2020-975846

11/8/2018 6:56:36 PM

That’s a big “meh” to me.

11/8/2018 8:38:09 PM

Biden has no chance:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/joe-biden-president-busing-racism
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/joe-biden-democratic-party-military-hawk
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/joe-biden-neoliberal-democrat-conservative-lobbying
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/biden-crime-mass-incarceration-police-prisons
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/joe-biden-abortion-president

11/8/2018 8:49:56 PM

Hillary Will Run Again
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-will-run-again-1541963599

11/12/2018 1:56:24 PM

Quote :

"Please add context here: this is Mark Penn, the former "Clinton aide" who was summarily fired in 2008 after he urged Clinton to go full racist against Obama and call him a threat to American values. Penn has not been privy to Clinton's thoughts for years, if indeed he ever was."

11/12/2018 3:54:33 PM

Yeah I don't buy it

11/12/2018 4:55:51 PM

Quote :

"fired in 2008 after he urged Clinton to go full racist against Obama and call him a threat to American values"

Deserved firing, but turned out to be pretty prescient eight years later.

11/12/2018 5:35:25 PM

https://www.yang2020.com/

He's running for president! He wants to challenge Donald Trump!

11/30/2018 8:34:40 AM