I've said this before to no effect, so let's try again:
DON'T bother criticizing the actual voting provisions of Republican voting laws. They're mostly popular and mostly have close to zero effect on actual voting.
DO criticize the provisions that allow Republican legislatures to overturn results or replace election officials. Even most Republicans find these shocking when they hear about them.
That's about it. Why is this so hard?
And what make you think they will respond to this criticism? Since when have they ever been susceptible to it? Their own voters love it. They will do as they please and not give a hoot what the rest of us think about it.
Considering their own voters are effected more than Democrats, your point is wrong. Unlike whiny minorities, who don't get it, most of these laws can be used by future Democrats who can squeeze more acreage from the vote than a weaker candidate, creating bottlenecks against remaining Republican voters.
It's a desperation ploy, but interestingly, is forcing Republicans down ticket to go after minorities more.
The whole point is to ensure the republican wins regardless of the vote count so why would they oppose it? I reject the notion that republican voters are are shocked by “provisions that allow Republican legislatures to overturn results.”
Stop the steal. It’s the whole point of this effort.
The problem is, where they are losing votes makes "that" tough. It's desperation. My guess they keep on working down ballet.
Lol, "whiny minorities"?
Racist much?
And Republicans, of course, never whine.
Please delete your account. Thank you.
What does this even mean? How are "their own voters more affected"?
It probably didn't help you that your usual Anglo "progressive" racists decided that Spanish is an inferior language. Not to mention wanting to alter it for autogynephiliacs with bad cosmetic surgery -- the "transgenders."
If you racists think this went unnoticed ... LOL
Cordially,
The Latinx
It appears to me that there are two distinct reasons to ‘fight’ new Republican voting restrictions.
1. Because these laws may impact/partially unfairly alter the outcome of an election. On this point I agree with Kevin.
2. There is symbolism and voter turnout benefits from this fight: Democrats find these laws unfair, and it makes them angry. So, on this point, I disagree with Kevin we should scream from the treetops.
Republican voting provisions that aren't that popular:
-- limiting early voting.
-- limiting absentee ballots.
-- limiting voting hours.
-- blocking people from handing out water/food in long lines.
-- limiting in-person voting locations leading to long lines.
I don't see the harm in pushing back against these unpopular voting provisions. At least they create a baseline of expectations and fuel the outrage that drive people to the polls, to offset those restrictive provisions.
Agree. Especially pernicious is the combination of limiting mail-in and early voting at the same time states (and counties) cut back on voting day locations in traditional democratic strongholds (e.g., majority African-American neighborhoods), which makes wait times ridiculously long.
Why is this so hard? Because you're wrong on number one, Dr. Pangloss, that's why.
(BTW you're also wrong on your risible hobby horse that the Democrats, who are at most mildly center left by the standards of every other developed democracy, have somehow moved more to the left than the now almost openly racist and fascist Republicans have moved to the right. Digby has a good piece today calling Kevin wrong on this.)
Other countries have absolutely no relevancy in that conversation. Kevin is referring to American politics. It doesn't matter how our political spectrum compares to those of other nations'.
It matters in the context that according to Kevin the left had become a bunch of extremists, when the reality is that it really hasn't. If anything it is far behind from where most societies are.
Yes, there has indeed been more movement toward the left, but that is because it is hard to move more rightward from where conservatives are without turning the country into a despotic nation (yet they are still trying to do that).
Take some examples:
Gun control: The right wants a gun in every hand possible (and on this issue it is basically at this points in many States) How do you move more to the right than that?
Opposes rights and recognition at large for LGQTB people. How do you move more to the right on that? Demand for them to be jailed? Stoned to death?
Healthcare. The right wants as little regulation as possible and for every person to be left to fend for themselves. No money to get treatment? Too bad, next time be born rich. How do you move more to the right on that issue?
Everyone has moved left regarding gays. Just a few years ago most democrats (including Obama, Hillary and Biden) were against gay marriage. Now even the majority of republicans support it.
"It matters in the context that according to Kevin the left had become a bunch of extremists..."
No, Kevin didn't say (unless I'm misremembering his writings) that the left has become extremists. Just that they've moved left a lot more than the right has moved right. In fact, Kevin said he supports most of the left's positions. I don't think Kevin considers himself an extremist.
"If anything it is far behind from where most societies are."
Again, irrelevant. Who cares where other societies are? We're talking about the US.
How can a position or policy that enjoys widespread public support be called anything other than moderate? And why would they be specifically called 'leftist' instead. You need to recalibrate.
Indeed.
And I don't know why yesterday's post still bugs me. I guess in my own Larry David way I see it as neither PARTY has really moved at all on any issues, with one exception.
For example I got a response yesterday that Dems had "moved left" on gay marriage. The Democratic party has not moved at all. One if its constituant groups, gay couples, was working for gay marriage since the 1970s. What has happened is that society has moved on the issue, culminating in a bunch of legal victories and expansion of the right.
The Repubs have not moved either, but from their perspective they have always been against gay marriage but have now lost.
On voting rights, this is another example of neither party "moving" Democrats are in favor of people voting, and Republicans are only in favor of Republicans voting.
The only difference between party positions is that now the Republican party has "government is a joke" as a new position. Donald Trump was the ultimate example of a government official with no actual respect at all for the functions of government, and while one could say that Republicans have always wanted "less government" as to them, I see it as a new position. It may just be an extreme end of an old position, but it has moved from nowhere, to talk radio, to the White House over the least three or four decades.
Lol, homosexuals aren't one of their constituents. This post is beyond dumb.
That's clearly not historically true. There have been openly gay Republican groups for decades and, as one can infer from the frequency of Republicans taking, let us say, a "wide stance" that there's a very substantial number of closeted Republicans. Indeed, my guesstimate is that homosexuals are are larger constituency for the GOP than for the Democrats.
Indeed. Well said.
In this party environment, Steve Gunderson isn't walking thru that door.
Spadesofgrey, well there you go. It's the homosexuals again. You know that's a pretty big dog whistle to the crowd who hate and are simultaneously scared to death of LGBTQ Americans. Be sure to sanitize that toilet seat before you sit.
Hoo-boy. Never known any gay people, have you. Most of the gay folks I knew 20 years ago were staunch Republicans. The modern GOP drove them away.
Don't blame Kevin. Blame Pew Research. He's just reporting their findings.
(For the record Pew's research methodology is generally considered pretty solid.)
Maybe another bullet point under the DON'T category: Don't flee your state and refuse to do the job you were elected and are getting paid to do.
What an embarrassment those people are for Texas. Hopefully they get hauled back soon. If they don't like the expected outcome of a vote then help your party win more elections.
Yup, total idiots.
Hey, what's good for the goose..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Oregon_Senate_Republican_walkouts
My comments apply to them as well. I don't care what party they belong to. Do your job. Try your best to persuade your colleagues and vote as you see fit. Don't run away.
You must still believe in Santa Claus if you think anyone of the hacks in the Texas GOP is open to persuasion.
I doubt they are. Elections have consequences. Just because you're in the minority party of the legislature doesn't mean you run away and take the ball with you. They are acting like children.
But your argument is circular. Right now, the point of the Republican legislation for which the Democratic lawmakers are seeking to prevent a quorum is to make it significantly more difficult or perhaps impossible for the Republican Party to lose elections regardless of which party actually has majority support.
So your advice is either dishonest or ignorant or deliberately obtuse since if the Democrats do not act to prevent a quorum, the opportunity for Democrats to win future elections will be severely circumscribed or eliminated altogether.
Yea, I remember your posts at the time condemning their actions.
This is SOP. Conservative condemns something Democrats do, liberal points out time Republicans did same or worse, conservative piously claims they opposed that- it just happens that they never got around to posting his objections at the time, but they were totally real- honest, just ask them.
This is either disingenuous or reflects a lack of awareness. The problem with telling Democrats that they shouldn't take extraordinary steps to prevent Republicans from tampering further with the fundamental mechanisms of democracy is that, by definition, if the Democrats don't act decisively and radically now it will be increasingly difficult and perhaps impossible to win elections in the future.
Thank you Mitch. If not now when? After the GOP cancels elections?
STFU. You're well aware Democrats in Texas are resorting to political guerilla warfare tactics because the other side couldn't care less about democratic norms.
Uh, honest question: How are Democratic politicians who are fleeing the state not doing the job they were elected for? I want a clear, concise, good-faith answer.
Not that I'm expecting one.
What about crack 'n' pack gerrymanders? Republicans surely seem to like them in the many states where they retain control of legislatures but as a matter of fact they do not win those elections because their party has more voters. In Wisconsin, the gerrymanders have a massive effect in favor of Republicans, and they're very unpopular with the Democratic majority voters here.
I don't agree. But that is your fault. Again, if Democrats were doing better with acreage, then yes, maybe it would have a effect. But they are struggling meaning the gerrymandering is irrelevant. Nothing new or not used by Democrats either in history. If anything, Republicans could end gerrymandered districts where it isn't needed. If Democrats are blowing through them, then it doesn't matter anyways.
Unfortunately, in Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court decided that partisan gerrymandering was basically okay.
Yep that used to be the case in Virginia too. But demographic changes and GOP greed setup the opportunity for Democrats to pick off enough GOP'ers in suburban districts to regain control of the statehouse and senate.
"They're mostly popular and mostly have close to zero effect on actual voting."
1. Who cares what's popular or not? This is about a fundamental right of citizens to participate in democracy, regardless of (dis)ability, address, job obligations, etc. What people need to know is that there is precisely *zero* evidence that any of these things leads to increased voter fraud. When asked the other day in court if a single one of their batshit insane "affadavits" alleging absentee voter fraud had been even remotely vetted or verified, the Kraken lawyers simply sat there silent. They got nuthin'.
2. Of *course* having onerous ID requirements, limiting absentee voting, ballot gathering, extended voting periods, etc. impacts voter participation. If it didn't, Republicans wouldn't be bothering with all of this.
" Of *course* having onerous ID requirements, limiting absentee voting, ballot gathering, extended voting periods, etc. impacts voter participation. If it didn't, Republicans wouldn't be bothering with all of this."
Bingo.
Except the data doesn't agree. Virtue signaling is a b.
" This is about a fundamental right of citizens to participate in democracy..."
No state has passed any laws impeding that right. Voting is easier to do now than it has even been.
Prove it.
Go on the offensive. Pass these bills/executive actions:
1. National Voter I.D. - door-to-door and sea to shining sea availability, overseen by the Post Office.
2. National Election Day Holiday.
Both, I believe, are in H.B. 1, the huge voting rights bill the House has passed, but McConnell has vowed will never come up for a vote in the Senate as long as the breath of life is in him.
Even most Republicans find these shocking when they hear about them.
In the abstract, perhaps. But in an actual voting situation, they'll not only not find them shocking but actually right and proper. "Well, you know, otherwise, if those Democrats get elected, well then all sorts of the Wrong People are going to start agitating and making policy and just getting all uppity, and they'll increase my taxes and spend it on silly things like health care, and something something antifa something gaymarriage something something."
Don't kid yourself. They'll support the laws if they benefit Republican candidates, and they'll come up with some rationalization, however tortured, for doing so.
I think Kevin's dismissal of the effect or various state GOP laws designed to make voting harder is dubious at best. They wouldn't be doing it if it didn't have a significant effect.
But I do think Democratic messaging isn't helping their cause. Don't make it about "these laws disproportionately affect minority voters" even if true. That triggers all kinds of Fox-News-implanted PTSD about Democrats feeding off minority voters at the expense of "regular" Americans. At this point, it's a reflex. No thought involved.
Instead, Democratic politicians should be arguing that GOP legislatures around the country are trying to make voting harder. Period. No talk about who is more affected. Just that we should be making voting easier, not harder. That voter fraud of any appreciable scale is nonexistent, so there is no rational reason to restrict voting. What does giving water to voters in long lines have to do with voter fraud?? Make voting easier, more convenient for everyone. Easier, convenient - it's the American way.
Agreed.
I agree as well. They need to cut a bunch of ads with older, white voters -- preferably wearing a veterans cap or something -- talking about how these bills will make it harder for them to vote. Remember how Harry and Louise sunk the Clinton health bill? Maybe an older couple sitting around a table talking about how they won't make it to the polls this November will change some minds...
It's not just FOXnews.
#OurRevolution also believes the Institutional Democrat Party feeds off minority voters.
Because one signals virtue more facilely and the other is the stuff of wonks.
I would add to your second category all the new laws that criminalize actions taken in good faith by election officials. It's hard enough already to get people to serve in these positions.
There's widespread support for vote by mail and early voting.
There IS also widespread support for voter ID laws, probably because most people polled are used to showing IDs routinely. The answer there is to push for universal, free national ID cards and work to make sure everyone has one.
The rules to override local election boards are terrifying and will eventually lead to irreparably tainted elections and quite possibly armed conflict.
Vote by mail is trash.
Said no GQP voter ever (prior to 2020).
It isn't hard. You're just wrong.
Masses of people are not going to care, not in sufficient numbers to do anything. You are supporting arguments that will convince Kevin Drum, not some mostly apolitical schlub who considers all of this technical nonsense.
Are the voting restrictions popular? Voter ID maybe, but, heck, even Stacey Abrams got on board Manchin's plan in the Senate that includes voter ID. But, things like early and mail in voting and, I don't know, giving people water in a long line are pretty darn popular when I see polling on these things.
I wonder how long it will take Anglo "progressives" to become even more overtly racist than you already are, once you realize which way the "Hispanics" are moving. LOL
The Latinx
Voter ID is fine, but it is not fine to make it harder for some carefully considered classes of voter to get the necessary ID.
For an example, see this very instructive twitter thread about the rules for registration which just HAPPENS (I'm sure) to put far bigger hurdles in the path of people who have ever changed their legal names (which obviously disproportionately impacts married women). And Trump lost among women by 57-43, while carrying men by a similar proportion.
https://twitter.com/MsSamAdams/status/1414001402473549826
Rules in Indiana, I meant to include.