Hillary's margin of victory in Massachusetts was roughly 17,000 votes. She won the city of Boston - arguably the Democratic Establishment's greatest stronghold - by roughly 20,000 votes. Therein lies the difference.
As voting rights advocates predicted loud and often, new voter ID laws seem to be hitting Democrats harder than Republicans.
GOP voter turnout in this year's presidential race is up 62 percent relative to 2008, the last time both parties had open contests. But Democratic voter turnout is down by 29 percent across all the primary and caucus states that have voted so far. In all but two states, fewer Democrats turned out to vote in 2016 than did in 2008.
Evidence suggests that new voting restrictions are at least a contributing factor.
Eight out of the 16 states that have held primaries or caucuses so far have implemented new voter ID or other restrictive voting laws since 2010. Democratic turnout has dropped 37 percent overall in those eight states, but just 13 percent in the states that didn't enact new voter restrictions. To put it another way, Democratic voter turnout was 285 percent worse in states with new voter ID laws.
As voting rights advocates predicted loud and often, new voter ID laws seem to be hitting Democrats harder than Republicans.
GOP voter turnout in this year's presidential race is up 62 percent relative to 2008, the last time both parties had open contests. But Democratic voter turnout is down by 29 percent across all the primary and caucus states that have voted so far. In all but two states, fewer Democrats turned out to vote in 2016 than did in 2008.
Evidence suggests that new voting restrictions are at least a contributing factor.
Eight out of the 16 states that have held primaries or caucuses so far have implemented new voter ID or other restrictive voting laws since 2010. Democratic turnout has dropped 37 percent overall in those eight states, but just 13 percent in the states that didn't enact new voter restrictions. To put it another way, Democratic voter turnout was 285 percent worse in states with new voter ID laws.
Here's the thing...I'll have to show more ID to pick up my Pearl Jam tickets at Fenway in August than I did to vote outside Boston on Tuesday. That strikes me as backwards.
Both parties run voter registration drives and get out the vote drives. They could both run voter ID drives as well. Expecting people to have some form of ID to prove who they are on election day shouldn't be treated as disenfranchisement.
As voting rights advocates predicted loud and often, new voter ID laws seem to be hitting Democrats harder than Republicans.
GOP voter turnout in this year's presidential race is up 62 percent relative to 2008, the last time both parties had open contests. But Democratic voter turnout is down by 29 percent across all the primary and caucus states that have voted so far. In all but two states, fewer Democrats turned out to vote in 2016 than did in 2008.
Evidence suggests that new voting restrictions are at least a contributing factor.
Eight out of the 16 states that have held primaries or caucuses so far have implemented new voter ID or other restrictive voting laws since 2010. Democratic turnout has dropped 37 percent overall in those eight states, but just 13 percent in the states that didn't enact new voter restrictions. To put it another way, Democratic voter turnout was 285 percent worse in states with new voter ID laws.
Here's the thing...I'll have to show more ID to pick up my Pearl Jam tickets at Fenway in August than I did to vote outside Boston on Tuesday. That strikes me as backwards.
Both parties run voter registration drives and get out the vote drives. They could both run voter ID drives as well. Expecting people to have some form of ID to prove who they are on election day shouldn't be treated as disenfranchisement.
It wouldn't be, if voter ID's were free and easy to access. But they aren't. They are expensive and have to be procured during work hours, putting a much heavier burden on poor black people who don't drive.
As voting rights advocates predicted loud and often, new voter ID laws seem to be hitting Democrats harder than Republicans.
GOP voter turnout in this year's presidential race is up 62 percent relative to 2008, the last time both parties had open contests. But Democratic voter turnout is down by 29 percent across all the primary and caucus states that have voted so far. In all but two states, fewer Democrats turned out to vote in 2016 than did in 2008.
Evidence suggests that new voting restrictions are at least a contributing factor.
Eight out of the 16 states that have held primaries or caucuses so far have implemented new voter ID or other restrictive voting laws since 2010. Democratic turnout has dropped 37 percent overall in those eight states, but just 13 percent in the states that didn't enact new voter restrictions. To put it another way, Democratic voter turnout was 285 percent worse in states with new voter ID laws.
Here's the thing...I'll have to show more ID to pick up my Pearl Jam tickets at Fenway in August than I did to vote outside Boston on Tuesday. That strikes me as backwards.
Both parties run voter registration drives and get out the vote drives. They could both run voter ID drives as well. Expecting people to have some form of ID to prove who they are on election day shouldn't be treated as disenfranchisement.
It wouldn't be, if voter ID's were free and easy to access. But they aren't. They are expensive and have to be procured during work hours, putting a much heavier burden on poor black people who don't drive.
Which is why that needs to be fixed. There is no reason why a voter ID should be expensive. Or even have any cost at all. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
As voting rights advocates predicted loud and often, new voter ID laws seem to be hitting Democrats harder than Republicans.
GOP voter turnout in this year's presidential race is up 62 percent relative to 2008, the last time both parties had open contests. But Democratic voter turnout is down by 29 percent across all the primary and caucus states that have voted so far. In all but two states, fewer Democrats turned out to vote in 2016 than did in 2008.
Evidence suggests that new voting restrictions are at least a contributing factor.
Eight out of the 16 states that have held primaries or caucuses so far have implemented new voter ID or other restrictive voting laws since 2010. Democratic turnout has dropped 37 percent overall in those eight states, but just 13 percent in the states that didn't enact new voter restrictions. To put it another way, Democratic voter turnout was 285 percent worse in states with new voter ID laws.
Here's the thing...I'll have to show more ID to pick up my Pearl Jam tickets at Fenway in August than I did to vote outside Boston on Tuesday. That strikes me as backwards.
Both parties run voter registration drives and get out the vote drives. They could both run voter ID drives as well. Expecting people to have some form of ID to prove who they are on election day shouldn't be treated as disenfranchisement.
It wouldn't be, if voter ID's were free and easy to access. But they aren't. They are expensive and have to be procured during work hours, putting a much heavier burden on poor black people who don't drive.
Which is why that needs to be fixed. There is no reason why a voter ID should be expensive. Or even have any cost at all. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
I agree with that, but Republicans surely don't, you had better believe they relish the additional difficulty it places on poor black voters.
Oregon is patting itself on the back for making voter registration automatic...for those who are paying for driver's licenses. In a state where almost everyone drives, with very few minorities in poverty, it isn't much of an accomplishment for voting accessibility.
There is a ton of research on voting fraud most point to mis management of voter roll maintenance. Most irregularities are due to clerical errors not individuals trying to cast multiple votes. If a state requires photo id then they should provide photo ids, works in every other "democracy".
They should allow the permanent residents who have lived here for a while and pay taxes to vote too. We might be less tired of how things go and still have an optimistic outlook on the future of the country
Please, Pearl Jam, consider a Benaroya Hall vinyl reissue!
I'm pretty sure if someone is so badly off that they can't get a driver's license or a state ID card, voting is fairly far down on their list of priorities. That being said, sure, give them an ID card and register them. Just one more non-voting registered voter on the rolls.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Payroll and benefits transactions to Clinton total $254,000 since April 2015
BY: Joe Schoffstall March 4, 2016 5:00 am
The campaign of Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton has made payments totaling six figures to Clinton this election cycle, according to a review of its expenditures.
Federal campaign finance records reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon found that starting in April 2015, the month that Clinton launched her campaign, thousands in payments began flowing to the candidate. Clinton has previously claimed that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” when he left the White House, but the two have since amassed millions of dollars in wealth.
The first transaction from Hillary for America to Hillary Rodham Clinton came on April 13, 2015 in the amount of $74,042. This transaction was filed under ‘Payroll & Benefits’ with a separate payment of $1,488 for ‘Employee Benefits’ that same day, according to FEC filings. On April 14, just one day later, $744 went to Clinton marked as employee benefits.
The next in a series of payments to Clinton did not occur until later in the year.
In November 2015, when transactions resumed to Clinton, she pulled in a total of $32,811 from two separate payments. In December, another $56,514 was made to her name. In January 2016, $88,878 more was given. All told, payroll and benefits transactions to Clinton have totaled $254,447 since the launch of her campaign.
Moreover, some of these payments were shown to overlap with money given to Clinton Executive Services Corp., the private company set up by Hillary that oversaw the use of her private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
For example, on December 12, 2015, $42,032 was given to Clinton, but this sum was transmitted to the corporation, according to a memo. A total of $98,588 in payroll payments to Clinton did not overlap with the corporation. These payments were made on April 14, 2015 and January 29, 2016.
No other candidate running for president recorded payments to themselves, FEC files show. Donald Trump reimbursed $410,000 to himself and other Trump entities for payroll expenses, rent, hotel, and restaurant bills in December, according to reports.
While it is legal for candidates to pay themselves from campaign funds, the rule was established and intended for candidates who are not well off and quit their jobs to run for political office.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are estimated to be worth over $100 million dollars combined, with Hillary’s net worth estimated around $30 million and Bill’s estimated around $80 million, according to previous reviews of financial disclosure reports.
Clinton’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the payments by press time.
There’s little evidence of much voter impersonation fraud — when people misrepresent themselves at the polls — although proponents of these laws argue that even one case is cause for concern. A 2012 analysis by News21, a journalism project at Arizona State University, found 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud since 2000.
But the disparate impact of voter ID laws — whether they prevent people from voting — has also been difficult to measure. Several states have estimated how many people might be disenfranchised by their laws — usually hundreds of thousands of voters. But tracking those who were discouraged from showing up or turned away at the polls is more complicated. The best attempt so far, an analysis by the Government Accountability Office in 2014, found that from 2008 to 2012, turnout declined by a few percentage points more in two states, Kansas and Tennessee, once they imposed voter ID laws, than in other states.
Depressing and funny all at the same time. That show is smart.
It focuses far more on the misconduct of state legislatures than it does rebutting any point that I made.
I disagree, I thought the segment made it very clear that there is no problem. A problem made up by the right to disenfranchise voters who are more likely to vote left.
The state legislature stuff was there to point out their clear hypocrisy.
Maybe you have other evidence that shows rampant voter id fraud, if you do please share.
Depressing and funny all at the same time. That show is smart.
It focuses far more on the misconduct of state legislatures than it does rebutting any point that I made.
I disagree, I thought the segment made it very clear that there is no problem. A problem made up by the right to disenfranchise voters who are more likely to vote left.
The state legislature stuff was there to point out their clear hypocrisy.
Maybe you have other evidence that shows rampant voter id fraud, if you do please share.
Why don't we start with you showing where I ever claimed there is rampant voter fraud?
Depressing and funny all at the same time. That show is smart.
Oh, it's outstanding and exceptional, love John true heir to Jon. That woman talking about integrity and voting on someone else's voting station was the pits though...and other things mentioned. Have a great weekend.
Depressing and funny all at the same time. That show is smart.
It focuses far more on the misconduct of state legislatures than it does rebutting any point that I made.
I disagree, I thought the segment made it very clear that there is no problem. A problem made up by the right to disenfranchise voters who are more likely to vote left.
The state legislature stuff was there to point out their clear hypocrisy.
Maybe you have other evidence that shows rampant voter id fraud, if you do please share.
Why don't we start with you showing where I ever claimed there is rampant voter fraud?
Well then why do you want everyone to have an id to vote? Any other reason for it? Enlighten me.
Not to mention that it's not fair to equate picking up a purchased ticket presumably with a credit card to voting. If voter fraud was as rampant as credit card fraud then I say yes triple IDs and micro chip. But voter fraud is .000000000000000000000000000000000001% of credit card fraud. Wonder why nobody has ever offered voter fraud protection? VoteLock
Is having a basic ID (not even a driver's license) such a preposterous notion?
Preposterous never. May not be as easy or as affordable to some then others. What are the requirements to get the basic ID? Where? HOW MUCH? Etc...
I just checked. Here in California, go to the DMV (you can make an appointment at most locations), fill out the application (or can get it online), have your thumbprint and photo taken, and pay $28. Provide birth certificate or similar documentation. Not too much to do. I managed this feat in my teens, without assistance other than a ride to the DMV.
Agree with jeff's comments as well. Logical, as usual.
And I'm not sure the ticket pick-up example is unequatable - to me, it illustrated that something as simple and innocuous as acquiring concert tickets via the 10C requires ID. Most here are good with that scenario, unless I'm mistaken.
That another something so much more important (I'd hope! To me, at least, it is) would require the same isn't over the top...or is it, really, to some?
Is having a basic ID (not even a driver's license) such a preposterous notion?
Preposterous never. May not be as easy or as affordable to some then others. What are the requirements to get the basic ID? Where? HOW MUCH? Etc...
I just checked. Here in California, go to the DMV (you can make an appointment at most locations), fill out the application (or can get it online), have your thumbprint and photo taken, and pay $28. Provide birth certificate or similar documentation. Not too much to do. I managed this feat in my teens, without assistance other than a ride to the DMV.
Agree with jeff's comments as well. Logical, as usual.
And I'm not sure the ticket pick-up example is unequatable - to me, it illustrated that something as simple and innocuous as acquiring concert tickets via the 10C requires ID. Most here are good with that scenario, unless I'm mistaken.
That another something so much more important (I'd hope! To me, at least, it is) would require the same isn't over the top...or is it, really, to some?
28 dollars buys a dozen eggs, a few loaves of bread, peanut butter and jelly, and more. A trip to the DMV is a pain in the ass for everyone, those who don't drive even more so. There is no doubt that it diacpurages a greater number of people from voting than the number who try to commit voter fraud.
I have a question. Sorry if it is stupid. Does a driver's license not count as ID? Can you not use this to vote? Is is actually legally allowed to be without an ID in general? In Germany, you are by law required to have your ID on you at all times. We don't have to get a new one all the time though.
Please, Pearl Jam, consider a Benaroya Hall vinyl reissue!
Depressing and funny all at the same time. That show is smart.
It focuses far more on the misconduct of state legislatures than it does rebutting any point that I made.
I disagree, I thought the segment made it very clear that there is no problem. A problem made up by the right to disenfranchise voters who are more likely to vote left.
The state legislature stuff was there to point out their clear hypocrisy.
Maybe you have other evidence that shows rampant voter id fraud, if you do please share.
Why don't we start with you showing where I ever claimed there is rampant voter fraud?
Well then why do you want everyone to have an id to vote? Any other reason for it? Enlighten me.
It's not complicated. We require people to register to vote but require no proof that the person voting is actually the person registered. To me that makes no sense. A voter ID seems like a logical step. That such IDs are hard to acquire and expensive is a problem that, as I said earlier, can be fixed.
The point you are arguing against is not a point that I ever made.
Comments
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
GOP voter turnout in this year's presidential race is up 62 percent relative to 2008, the last time both parties had open contests. But Democratic voter turnout is down by 29 percent across all the primary and caucus states that have voted so far. In all but two states, fewer Democrats turned out to vote in 2016 than did in 2008.
Evidence suggests that new voting restrictions are at least a contributing factor.
Eight out of the 16 states that have held primaries or caucuses so far have implemented new voter ID or other restrictive voting laws since 2010. Democratic turnout has dropped 37 percent overall in those eight states, but just 13 percent in the states that didn't enact new voter restrictions. To put it another way, Democratic voter turnout was 285 percent worse in states with new voter ID laws.
Both parties run voter registration drives and get out the vote drives. They could both run voter ID drives as well. Expecting people to have some form of ID to prove who they are on election day shouldn't be treated as disenfranchisement.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
In a state where almost everyone drives, with very few minorities in poverty, it isn't much of an accomplishment for voting accessibility.
If a state requires photo id then they should provide photo ids, works in every other "democracy".
May not be as easy or as affordable to some then others.
What are the requirements to get the basic ID? Where? HOW MUCH? Etc...
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Hillary Paid Herself $250,000 From Campaign Funds
Payroll and benefits transactions to Clinton total $254,000 since April 2015
BY: Joe Schoffstall
March 4, 2016 5:00 am
The campaign of Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton has made payments totaling six figures to Clinton this election cycle, according to a review of its expenditures.
Federal campaign finance records reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon found that starting in April 2015, the month that Clinton launched her campaign, thousands in payments began flowing to the candidate. Clinton has previously claimed that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” when he left the White House, but the two have since amassed millions of dollars in wealth.
The first transaction from Hillary for America to Hillary Rodham Clinton came on April 13, 2015 in the amount of $74,042. This transaction was filed under ‘Payroll & Benefits’ with a separate payment of $1,488 for ‘Employee Benefits’ that same day, according to FEC filings. On April 14, just one day later, $744 went to Clinton marked as employee benefits.
The next in a series of payments to Clinton did not occur until later in the year.
In November 2015, when transactions resumed to Clinton, she pulled in a total of $32,811 from two separate payments. In December, another $56,514 was made to her name. In January 2016, $88,878 more was given. All told, payroll and benefits transactions to Clinton have totaled $254,447 since the launch of her campaign.
Moreover, some of these payments were shown to overlap with money given to Clinton Executive Services Corp., the private company set up by Hillary that oversaw the use of her private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
For example, on December 12, 2015, $42,032 was given to Clinton, but this sum was transmitted to the corporation, according to a memo. A total of $98,588 in payroll payments to Clinton did not overlap with the corporation. These payments were made on April 14, 2015 and January 29, 2016.
No other candidate running for president recorded payments to themselves, FEC files show. Donald Trump reimbursed $410,000 to himself and other Trump entities for payroll expenses, rent, hotel, and restaurant bills in December, according to reports.
While it is legal for candidates to pay themselves from campaign funds, the rule was established and intended for candidates who are not well off and quit their jobs to run for political office.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are estimated to be worth over $100 million dollars combined, with Hillary’s net worth estimated around $30 million and Bill’s estimated around $80 million, according to previous reviews of financial disclosure reports.
Clinton’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the payments by press time.
Tuh
(that was hilarious, knife welding crab!)
But the disparate impact of voter ID laws — whether they prevent people from voting — has also been difficult to measure. Several states have estimated how many people might be disenfranchised by their laws — usually hundreds of thousands of voters. But tracking those who were discouraged from showing up or turned away at the polls is more complicated. The best attempt so far, an analysis by the Government Accountability Office in 2014, found that from 2008 to 2012, turnout declined by a few percentage points more in two states, Kansas and Tennessee, once they imposed voter ID laws, than in other states.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The state legislature stuff was there to point out their clear hypocrisy.
Maybe you have other evidence that shows rampant voter id fraud, if you do please share.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Have a great weekend.
If voter fraud was as rampant as credit card fraud then I say yes triple IDs and micro chip. But voter fraud is .000000000000000000000000000000000001% of credit card fraud.
Wonder why nobody has ever offered voter fraud protection? VoteLock
Agree with jeff's comments as well. Logical, as usual.
And I'm not sure the ticket pick-up example is unequatable - to me, it illustrated that something as simple and innocuous as acquiring concert tickets via the 10C requires ID. Most here are good with that scenario, unless I'm mistaken.
That another something so much more important (I'd hope! To me, at least, it is) would require the same isn't over the top...or is it, really, to some?
There is no doubt that it diacpurages a greater number of people from voting than the number who try to commit voter fraud.
The point you are arguing against is not a point that I ever made.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."