Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Another Blue Texas poll

Recommended Posts

Several polls have had Biden and (strangely) Sanders beating Trump in TX. Now, Warren is beating Trump in TX! https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/460727-biden-sanders-and-warren-lead-trump-in-new-texas-poll

question for you all: What does it mean that an open Socialist and woman progressive, both way more left than most Texas Democrats even, is beating a Republican President in Texas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Several polls have had Biden and (strangely) Sanders beating Trump in TX. Now, Warren is beating Trump in TX! https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/460727-biden-sanders-and-warren-lead-trump-in-new-texas-poll

question for you all: What does it mean that an open Socialist and woman progressive, both way more left than most Texas Democrats even, is beating a Republican President in Texas?

It could be just be Trump's protectionism and lack of hawkishness turning away some normal Texas Republican voters. I'm just guessing. After all, one of the big flaws of a two-party system is if you don't like whose put up for your "natural" party, you have to support "the other side" - however awkward a fit - make a "protest vote" for a Third Party/Independent candidate, or sit at home. It can often also make GENUINE support for certain candidates and parties very difficult to gauge at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vcczar said:

Several polls have had Biden and (strangely) Sanders beating Trump in TX. Now, Warren is beating Trump in TX! https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/460727-biden-sanders-and-warren-lead-trump-in-new-texas-poll

question for you all: What does it mean that an open Socialist and woman progressive, both way more left than most Texas Democrats even, is beating a Republican President in Texas?

It means we need voter ID and stricter immigration laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vcczar said:

Several polls have had Biden and (strangely) Sanders beating Trump in TX. Now, Warren is beating Trump in TX! https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/460727-biden-sanders-and-warren-lead-trump-in-new-texas-poll

question for you all: What does it mean that an open Socialist and woman progressive, both way more left than most Texas Democrats even, is beating a Republican President in Texas?

if anyone from forum announce running by dems polls will show they beat Trump, for my they will adjust to more realistic polls in election year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, avatarmushi said:

Every black or mexican guy I know has an ID. Insinuating that they aren't smart or capable enough to procure an ID sounds like a racist policy to me. I'd just prefer if it were actually American citizens that were voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Made all the more amusing by North Carolina having an actual case of election fraud, of course perpetrated by white Republicans, that forced a complete do-over in one of their house elections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The voter ID debate is strange coming from Canada. No one here I've met thinks requiring voter ID when voting is some sort of hardship, and there's no debate about it. Just as you're required to have ID when driving.

So this is a genuine question - why would people be unable to provide voter ID, and why would requiring it be in some sense discriminatory against minorities (non-whites)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

The voter ID debate is strange coming from Canada. No one here I've met thinks requiring voter ID when voting is some sort of hardship, and there's no debate about it. Just as you're required to have ID when driving.

So this is a genuine question - why would people be unable to provide voter ID, and why would requiring it be in some sense discriminatory against minorities (non-whites)?

I've asked the same question, positioning that it's impossible to drive, fly, rent an apartment, borrow a book at a library, open a bank account, or get a job without a photo ID...how are these people surviving, voting issues aside?

I was pointed to this site, which states that it's a burden on those who are poor, have trouble travelling (for example, the elderly), and can require time off from work (which the rich can afford but the poor can not).

https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

Personally, I've run into issues where I've temporarily misplaced my ID/wallet during multiple elections.  In each case, I was able to either eventually find it or come up with other forms of ID as I make a comfortable living and can spend whatever time is needed on these kinds of issues without worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

The voter ID debate is strange coming from Canada. No one here I've met thinks requiring voter ID when voting is some sort of hardship, and there's no debate about it. Just as you're required to have ID when driving.

So this is a genuine question - why would people be unable to provide voter ID, and why would requiring it be in some sense discriminatory against minorities (non-whites)?

I believe in voter ID. I think a driver's license, a state ID, Passport, or government/military work ID  should be used. However, I also think that the fee for getting these IDs should be waived for low income families, and that such facilities are open on Saturdays so these low income families won't have to skip work to get these IDs. I think voting should be a national holiday.  I think polling stations should be placed in low-income neighborhoods. I applaud cities that don't require bus fare on voting days (Austin does this). This is probably a minority opinion, but I also think that anyone that registered to vote should be required to vote. Maybe an incentive is some sort small tax break or something (but no penalty). This is kind of a reverse poll tax. If done, I think "None of the Above" should be an option on the ballot for those wanting the tax break but not wanting to vote for anyone. I think being strongly encouraged to vote will make more citizens active about being informed as well. It would also help 3rd parties, I think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Actinguy

Thanks for that link - that's interesting. The key quote seems to be

"Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites."

The term 'up to' here suggests this isn't as clear cut as the ACLU is making it sound, but let's say there is a disproportionate number of African-Americans lacking acceptable ID compared to whites, and let's use the 'up to' numbers given here, even though I find it hard to believe that 1/4 of African-Americans lack ID.

African-Americans make up 13% of the U.S.'s population. 13% x 25% = 3.25% of the voting population, roughly speaking.

European-Americans make up 73%. 73% x 8% = 5.8%.

So if these numbers given by the ACLU are approximately right, and assuming the premise that people without voter ID would vote if not for voter ID laws, it looks like voting ID laws actually prevent more European-Americans from voting than African-Americans.

One difference in Canada perhaps is that pretty much everyone has government-issued ID, because we have government run health care. Where I live, if you don't have a driver's license card, you will have a government-issued services card which has photo ID, primarily for health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

@Actinguy

 

African-Americans make up 13% of the U.S.'s population. 13% x 25% = 3.25% of the voting population, roughly speaking.

European-Americans make up 73%. 73% x 8% = 5.8%.

So if these numbers given by the ACLU are approximately right, and assuming the premise that people without voter ID would vote if not for voter ID laws, it looks like voting ID laws actually prevent more European-Americans from voting than African-Americans.

 

Sure...but using your own math, African-Americans are impacted disproportionately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Maybe an incentive is some sort small tax break or something (but no penalty). This is kind of a reverse poll tax. If done, I think "None of the Above" should be an option on the ballot for those wanting the tax break but not wanting to vote for anyone.

That's an interesting idea - won't have an effect for people who pay no income tax, though, so wouldn't incentivize anyone below a certain income level.

If you have paper ballots, requiring voters to show up (what Australia requires) doesn't require they vote for anyone. They can just put a big smiley face on their ballot if that's what they want to do. It's only with electronic systems that you'd need to explicitly provide an alternative, but either way, I think a NOTA option is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

using your own math, African-Americans are impacted disproportionately.

Of course, it's disproportionate given the ACLU's %s. I'm talking about the net effect on election results, given trends among racial groups. Of course, those trends will be significantly different among those who don't have ID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I believe in voter ID.

Ya, the problem doesn't seem to be voter ID, but with challenges certain people have in getting ID. Address those challenges seems the obvious solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, vcczar said:

What does it mean that an open Socialist and woman progressive, both way more left than most Texas Democrats even, is beating a Republican President in Texas?

What it suggests is that there's something wonky with the poll. Bernie is doing *better* than Biden? I'd start looking for more corroborating evidence. The recent 'real' poll in Texas was the Senate race in 2018, where someone further to the right than Trump won by 2.5 points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, the problem doesn't seem to be voter ID, but with challenges certain people have in getting ID. Address those challenges seems the obvious solution.

Agreed entirely -- obvious, and yet not accomplished.

Perhaps there are reasons why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

I believe in voter ID

Why?  There's been no significant amount of voter impersonation, as avatarmushi pointed out.  Impersonating individual voters is a grossly inefficient way to commit election fraud.  Anybody with the resources to do it on a large enough scale to matter will be able to influence the outcome more effectively using many other methods.  The old folks who volunteer to work elections aren't trained in spotting fakes.  Fake IDs are common and easy to obtain.  Every teenager who wants to drink has one.  

The only reason for voter ID schemes is to deny the right to vote to people you disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

@pilight

Do you think we should have ID for anything, given it's so easy to fake? For examples, driving a vehicle or airplane transportation?

Driving on a public road is dangerous.  Requiring a license to do so is reasonable.  Unlike volunteer poll workers, cops are trained to spot fake IDs and if someone gets pulled over using one it will be discovered pretty quickly.

You can fly on a domestic flight without ID now.  Just allow an extra hour or so for additional security checks.  All the ID checking is just theater anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

So if these numbers given by the ACLU are approximately right, and assuming the premise that people without voter ID would vote if not for voter ID laws, it looks like voting ID laws actually prevent more European-Americans from voting than African-Americans.

One difference in Canada perhaps is that pretty much everyone has government-issued ID, because we have government run health care. Where I live, if you don't have a driver's license card, you will have a government-issued services card which has photo ID, primarily for health care.

Yeah, I'd like ID automatically issued. 

In regards to laws hurting whites more than blacks, this is actually often the case, but the focus is on the minorities hurt by such laws. For instance, way more whites are on welfare than blacks; yet, both parties seem to stress the part of blacks and other minorities being on welfare as a means to earn votes or excite their party base. Another historical instance are the restrictive laws in the Deep South and Upper South. Much of the South, South Carolina especially, didn't allow a popular vote (SC never did until 1872 or 1876!). The Jim Crow Era, while a one-party state in the South, had two factions of Democrats---Populists and Establishment. The Establishment generally won, and they sought and often succeeded at restricting the rights of both blacks and poor whites. The populists wanted poor white equality, but not equality for blacks; although, many believed that blacks should be treated well. Their compromise was separate but equal, but equality never came. I think these factions within the Southern Democrats were really a carry over of States Rights Whigs (Establishment) and States Rights Democrats (Populists). These Whigs became Democrats when the Republicans emerged in 1856. The Coastal South (VA, NC, SC, GA) had a lot of Whigs (Such as Robert E. Lee, Alexander H Stephens, etc.) A lot of one party states have another party pretending to be the dominant party. We don't have anything that really compares with the one-party South of the Jim Crow Era where Democrats would win 90+% of the vote. Washington DC is probably the closes State or District in regards to having basically no second party. At least CA, and MA can elect GOP governors. WV might be changing to a one-party state with some GOP really being out-of-date Democrats. If all the anti-Trump GOP joined the Democrats, you'd have one-party states in New England with the factions being Democrats and former Rockefeller Republicans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vcczar said:

This is probably a minority opinion, but I also think that anyone that registered to vote should be required to vote.

I would only support this in a nation with a robust, healthy, and multi-faceted partisan system and culture where a REAL choice of leadership was presented and a disproportionately high number of elections were NOT just "pick your poison" or "select your monster," affairs. Thus, I would NOT support if I lived in, or were advising for, the United States political system...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

What it suggests is that there's something wonky with the poll. Bernie is doing *better* than Biden? I'd start looking for more corroborating evidence. The recent 'real' poll in Texas was the Senate race in 2018, where someone further to the right than Trump won by 2.5 points.

There have been several TX polls showing Dems beating Trump. There have also been several polls showing Sanders beating Trump in TX, NC, and I think FL. I'm not sure what creates this. I know I like Sanders, but I am pessimistic about polls that show any Red State liking him over Trump. Maybe they won't really vote that way, but they don't like Trump more than they don't like Sanders? Yet, Warren won't do as well as Trump for some reason. 

In other news, Yang beats Trump by 8 pts in NH, which is better than everyone but Biden, I think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

I would only support this in a nation with a robust, healthy, and multi-faceted partisan system and culture where a REAL choice of leadership was presented and a disproportionately high number of elections were nothing but "pick your poison" or "select your monster," affairs. Thus, I would NOT support if I lived in, or were advising for, the United States political system...

You don't think this would help create that? I think many non-voters don't like the major parties. It would probably help them reach the 5% needed for funding. I think the restrictions help the major parties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...