You have some backup for that claim?
The emails to the North Carolina election board seemed routine at the time.
“Is there any way to get a breakdown of the 2008 voter turnout, by race (white and black) and type of vote (early and Election Day)?” a staffer for the state’s Republican-controlled legislature asked in January 2012.
“Is there no category for ‘Hispanic’ voter?” a GOP lawmaker asked in March 2013 after requesting a range of data, including how many voters cast ballots outside their precinct.
And in April 2013, a top aide to the Republican House speaker asked for “a breakdown, by race, of those registered voters in your database that do not have a driver’s license number.”
Months later, the North Carolina legislature passed a law that cut a week of early voting, eliminated out-of-precinct voting and required voters to show specific types of photo ID — restrictions that election board data demonstrated would disproportionately affect African Americans and other minorities.
Critics dubbed it the “monster” law — a sprawling measure that stitched together various voting restrictions being tested in other states. As civil rights groups have sued to block the North Carolina law and others like it around the country, several thousand pages of documents have been produced under court order, revealing the details of how Republicans crafted these measures.
The two sides to the voter ID law debate Embed Share Play Video3:15
This year more states than ever will require potential voters to show photo ID in order to vote in the election. Here's why this is so controversial. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
A review of these documents shows that North Carolina GOP leaders launched a meticulous and coordinated effort to deter black voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. The law, created and passed entirely by white legislators, evoked the state’s ugly history of blocking African Americans from voting — practices that had taken a civil rights movement and extensive federal intervention to stop.
Last month, a three-judge federal appeals panel struck down the North Carolina law, calling it “the most restrictive voting law North Carolina has seen since the era of Jim Crow.” Drawing from the emails and other evidence, the 83-page ruling charged that Republican lawmakers had targeted “African Americans with almost surgical precision.”
Doesn't matter. The fact is Trump defeated them all spending less than a third the amount of the rest. That's not a bad thing. Perhaps Trump can bring some of his ability to get the job done for far less than the other guy to the office.
My initial response was the same, until there was some credible discussion of bizarre results between electronic voting machines and ballots in key counties of three swing states... Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Apparently the electronic voting machines in those three states were consistently showing 7% fewer votes for Hillary than the same demographic using ballots. So now, I dunno.
Actually it matters a great deal in any discussion that the media was against him. He would not have gotten where he did if not for the untold millions of free coverage he got when his speeches and rallies were put live on various media outlets.
You cannot just look at the negative coverage but also have to look at the benefits of any coverage at all.
Then perhaps the Democrats should get better at utilizing the press. You seem to be claiming that doing the job for far less money is a bad thing. Why would that be a bad thing?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...162398-6adf-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html
You and xfactor think specifically seeking to restrict certain demographics that don't share your political orientation from voting is funny. Humor is all in timing and delivery, however, so I can only assume that to be why the courts aren't getting the joke.
Anything that pushed a possible fascist to the American people was a bad thing.
Liberals rarely ever get or appreciate a joke about liberals. That's been my experience. Regardless, it is funny to see your claims in light of what I know from living in a voter ID required state. Far from trying to dissuade voters, Texas has made it so damn easy. We have early voting two weeks before the election. Those polling places were stationed all over the city and you can vote at any of those regardless of where your actual precinct is. Many forms of ID are accepted, and failing that, we'll give you one at no cost. Clinton won here, btw, by a large margin so it seems many, many Dems were able to figure it out, at least enough to punch that straight ticket option. No matter what Texas does though, to alleviate concerns of voter suppression, you'll claim it exists and that it's intentional.
Can you link to that? I've seen it mentioned somewhere but don't anything about it myself.
Yeah, subverting democracy is great, hahahahaha.
It's been discussed on CNN and MSNBC, and the 7% figure was given by one of the analysts in the discussion. I'll google and see if I can find an article.
Here's one link: If I find others I'll post them. Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results - CNNPolitics.com
Liberals rarely ever get or appreciate a joke about liberals. That's been my experience. Regardless, it is funny to see your claims in light of what I know from living in a voter ID required state. Far from trying to dissuade voters, Texas has made it so damn easy. We have early voting two weeks before the election. Those polling places were stationed all over the city and you can vote at any of those regardless of where your actual precinct is. Many forms of ID are accepted, and failing that, we'll give you one at no cost. Clinton won here, btw, by a large margin so it seems many, many Dems were able to figure it out, at least enough to punch that straight ticket option. No matter what Texas does though, to alleviate concerns of voter suppression, you'll claim it exists and that it's intentional.
Actually it matters a great deal in any discussion that the media was against him. He would not have gotten where he did if not for the untold millions of free coverage he got when his speeches and rallies were put live on various media outlets.
You cannot just look at the negative coverage but also have to look at the benefits of any coverage at all.
Whenever the media focused on Hillary her numbers tanked. That's why the MSM did their level best to keep the spotlight off her.
Some of those swing states were solidly in the Democrat camp last election. So if I were a Democrat I would be worrying why I lost them.
How does the election give unfair attention to swing states?
Pennsylvania is a traditional swing state with a blue leaning while michigan and wisconsin have blue leanings. While it is true that the political landscape of states does change, the amount of people in swing states will always be less than those living in safe states.
How did anything I described scream out "subverting democracy" to you?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...162398-6adf-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html
You and xfactor think specifically seeking to restrict certain demographics that don't share your political orientation from voting is funny. Humor is all in timing and delivery, however, so I can only assume that to be why the courts aren't getting the joke.
Uhh, from the post you were responding to:
(Restricting people from voting)
How does the election give unfair attention to swing states?
2/3 of the election campaign took place in 4 states. And New Hampshire with just 4 electoral votes got more attention than California, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, New York, Illinois, Washington, and Tennessee even though all of those states have more electors than NH but they're safe states. And New York despite being the home state of both candidates and being the fourth biggest population saw zero campaign events.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?