Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Indeed, and another turnout factoid that makes it even more significant is that across pretty much every racial and ethnic group (with the exception of Pacific Islanders) women vote more than men
.
Seconded.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 9th 2018 at 8:46:06 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
I’ve got a guess as to that one, look where the switch is, at 65 men start voting more than women, what a big thing that happens around that age? Retirement.
I’d bet money that part of why women vote more than men is ease of voting, women are more likely to be either underemployed or be working full time running a household, which provides more time and/or flexibility for a person to go out and vote, but once one hits retirement age that goes away.
Also you have a few other impacts, women are less likly then men to be excluded from voting due to a criminal history, older women are less likely to drive and thus may lack the needed ID to vote in certain areas.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranEdited by MarqFJA on Oct 9th 2018 at 4:08:32 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.I mean, I actually agreed with Cooking Cat there, but I figured since the posts weren't getting thumped...
Part of it is a guess based on personal campaigning expierance, I’ve done a fair number of Election Day get out the vote drives, I can remember us encountering women who said they’d vote once their husband got back from work (or that they’d go down to vote together once he was back), I’m also pretty sure just in general we’d get more women than men answering the door during the daytime canvas.
Now in the UK polls are all open until 10pm so it’s pretty easy to vote after work, but if polls close earlier I can see being at work having a big impact.
Edited by Silasw on Oct 9th 2018 at 1:07:56 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
I have to wonder how much polling place hours affect turnout in the US. Most places close up around 6-7PM, and I know from experience there are a lot of people who feel like they don’t have time to vote because of work.
Self-moderation of OTC is encouraged.
Edited by archonspeaks on Oct 9th 2018 at 6:17:36 AM
They should have sent a poet.Ted Cruz declines, so challenger Beto O’Rourke gets an hour on national TV by himself
I'm not sure what Cruz and his people are thinking but this is quite wonderful, due to their cowardice O'Rourke is likely to greatly benefit. This way he can directly tell the people of Texas his positions and propaganda without Cruz being able to lie or otherwise sabotage them.
As they say, never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself. And it seems that Cruz is quite desperate to all he can to destroy himself.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 9th 2018 at 10:11:58 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangIt's probably a lose-lose situation for Cruz, given his Memetic Loser status.
ASAB: All Sponsors Are Bad.And how many undecided voters are there in this race? An hour of uninterrupted hour of tv time is a boon, but how many is it really likely to sway in a state like Texas? Polling has pretty consistently shown Cruz ahead despite Beto's appeal, if I'm not mistaken.
Edited by Cris_Meyers on Oct 9th 2018 at 9:28:06 AM
Fun fact: Every time you guys bring up Ted Cruz's name, for some reason my mind temporarily confuses him with Tom Cruises and wonders when and why the hell did he abandon his acting career to become a Republican politician, and when did the GOP start accepting Scientologists in their ranks?
Like, if I've been directly insulting other posters by calling them "wussy-ass cucks" or some similarly vulgar slur, then you'd have a case for "you're going to get banned for X."
Edited by MarqFJA on Oct 9th 2018 at 5:36:23 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Supreme Court Makes it Harder for Tribal North Dakotans to Vote
The Supreme Court's order will likely make it harder for Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, considered the most vulnerable Democrat in the Senate, to retain her seat in November. Heitkamp won her seat by less than 3,000 votes in 2012 with strong backing from Native Americans, and she is the only statewide elected Democrat. North Dakota Republicans began changing voting rules to make it harder to cast a ballot months after Heitkamp's victory six years ago. Republicans have claimed the changes to voter ID requirements are intended to stop voter fraud, even though in-person fraud is exceedingly rare.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was sworn in on Monday, did not partake in the decision, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented.
North Dakota's 2017 voter law ID was challenged by Native residents who alleged that the law disproportionately blocked Native Americans from voting. In April, a federal district court judge blocked large portions of the law as discriminatory against Native voters. "The State has acknowledged that Native American communities often lack residential street addresses," Judge Daniel Hovland wrote. "Nevertheless, under current State law an individual who does not have a 'current residential street address' will never be qualified to vote." According to the website of the Native American Rights Fund, which represents the plaintiffs, many native residents lack residential street addresses because "the U.S. postal service does not provide residential delivery in these rural Indian communities." As a result, tribal I Ds use P.O. boxes, which are not sufficient under North Dakota's new law - a specification that seems designed to disenfranchise native voters. Hovland's ruling was in place during the primaries this spring.
But in September, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the law to go into effect. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling Tuesday. In her dissent, Ginsburg argued that the Supreme Court's order was at odds with one of the top court's most frequently invoked doctrines on election law: not to change the rules right before an election. By allowing a different set of ID rules in the general election from in the primary, Ginsburg warned, the court was risking widespread confusion and disenfranchisement.
"The risk of voter confusion appears severe here because the injunction against requiring residential-address identification was in force during the primary election and because the Secretary of State's website announced for months the ID requirements as they existed under that injunction," Ginsburg wrote. "Reasonable voters may well assume that the I Ds allowing them to vote in the primary election would remain valid in the general election. If the Eighth Circuit's stay is not vacated, the risk of disfranchisement is large."
Ginsburg noted that according to the factual record of the case, about 20 percent of voters likely to try to cast a ballot in the midterms will lack the required identification. Another "approximately 18,000 North Dakota residents also lack supplemental documentation sufficient to permit them to vote without a qualifying ID," she noted.
Well if Beto could activate more of the Latino population and convince Texas whites (particularly women) to vote for him then I wouldn't discount it, especially considering that polls have not been so clear cut
.
So I think this is hardly something that Cruz can afford.
Simply more evidence that the Supreme Court is not our friend
and as an institution is not worth defending.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 9th 2018 at 10:42:14 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
The day when all these dirty plays get thrown back in the GOP's collective faces tenfold can't come soon enough.
Out of curiosity, by "not worth defending" are you suggesting that it should be abolished, or simply that it should be extensively reformed to fix its most serious flaws? Because Europe doesn't seem to have much trouble with their own supreme court equivalents.
Edited by MarqFJA on Oct 9th 2018 at 5:46:39 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.I think that Democrats need to take legal action against it via court packing or just ignoring its decisions and if that leads to the Court becoming irrelevant as an institution then it would be a net-positive.
Either it'll become friendly or it'll fade into irrelevance, either would be a win-win from my POV.
Well, that's not good, we can scarcely afford a Senator to be weakened.
Hopefully, she can survive it.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Oct 9th 2018 at 10:50:57 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangNot a lost cause but unlikely. However, Spartan's right that we can't afford a weakened Senator all the same.
We're barely eking by with a 49-51 minority. We've managed a few victories solely because we've gotten a bare handful of Republicans to defect. Even in the likely event that we don't take the Senate, every Senator still counts because holding the line against the toxic Republican agenda gets that much harder for each seat they gain.
Simply put, if the numbers had been 45-55 in 2017, we wouldn't have the ACA today. Every seat matters; not just seats 49 through 51.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Oct 9th 2018 at 9:11:12 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Considering that the Supreme Court fading to irrelevance kind of... violates the concept of checks and balances, I AM NOT in favor of that particular option. I think that would cause more problems than it solves. Especially considering that despite "not my friend status" the SC has weighed in favorably on causes many of us consider to have been the right decision for the court to make. There's a middle path in here somewhere.
Anyway, going back to Beto O'rourke: we sort of lose sight of the fact here, because we're always plugged into the news, that a lot of people don't start paying attention until things like debates start happening. There's probably a lot of people who will be listening to him for the first time. And hell, even some people who might see Cruz refusing to debate him as a sign of weakness. Every little things matters, and the more O'rourke gets his message out the better. (I just hope that he doesn't fade away in the event that he loses, because he clearly knows a thing or two about getting a campaign funded without Super Pacs and about getting the message out. The democratic party could learn a lot from him, I think.)

Getting pretty personal guys, maybe take a deep breath and leave it?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran