"Democratic voter turnout was 285 percent worse in states with new voter ID laws."

[Blue_Adept]

“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.” And voter ID laws are just the beginning. Kansas has disenfranchised 37,000 residents, including a 13-year Air Force veteran, by adding completely unnecessary requirements to vote. America has no history of fraud changing election results (setting aside events 16 years ago), but is does have a centuries-long history of denying people the right to vote. And it’s happening again in the states with the worst record of voter suppression. Democrats need a massive registration and get-out-the-vote effort to counter this kind of willful assault on democracy — and it should have started a decade ago.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/5-reasons-democrats-need-to-be-very-scared-and-ready-for-november/

[randr]

1. Just what has the DNC and DWS done over the past few years to counter this?

[Blue_Adept]

2. These are individual state issues

The DNC doesn't work in that regard; that's up to the state parties to deal with. Otherwise it becomes an intruding "national" organization that pits the locals against outsiders within the party.

[randr]

3. Bull shit--the national organization has always been in tune with voter registration et al

This is a National emergency and I have seen no leadership from the 'home office'..

[Blue_Adept]

4. In tune with registration, but coordinating to enact/repeal laws?

Haven't heard or seen much of that over the years.

[randr]

6. Do you think the RNC has nothing to do with the suppresson laws?

If the DNC is not involved in helping the individual states fight this madness, what are they doing?
Since they abandoned Dean's fifty state approach no political party has lost as many seats in State houses and National offices as we have. The neglect is palpable.
It is no wonder new voters distrust the Democratic establishment as much as the Republican. They are one and the same.

[red dog 1]

11. + 1

[wildeyed]

13. The only way to counter this

either by winning the statehouse and controlling the legislative process or by challenging the law through judicial channels. If you choose to challenge them in court, then you need to be able to say why the law is unconstitutional. There have been multiple cases brought by NAACP using the Voting Rights Act as a basis to challenge. A group of college students brought suit (and lost) in TN because they were prohibited from using their student IDs as photos ID. I did find one instance of a state Democratic Party bringing suit in VA.

I guess I don't understand why you think the DNC would be responsible for bringing suit for a constitutional challenge of these laws Their job is to organize the convention, raise money and coordinate national strategy. Pretty sure they discuss these laws at strategy meetings. They are a huge weapon against the Party. But no way they would spearhead the actual lawsuits.

Lawyer people, could they even bring suit, legally? Since they are a national group?

[Octafish]

16. What about the US Attorney General?

Whatever happened to Voting Rights?

[wildeyed]

17. The Supreme Court gutted Voting Rights in 2013, remember?

Section four is gone, so states no longer need to get pre-clearance from the Justice Department. Attorney General can't do squat now. IMO, this was as bad as Citizens United, even though it got way less press.

Groups are challenging the new laws under another section of Voting Rights now, but it is new territory since section 4 was always used to block voter ID laws in the past.

[Gwhittey]

23. What about voter drives?

I notice a several lack of them over what was done in 2008.

[wildeyed]

24. Because it is still the PRIMARY.

And in my city, it was the Obama campaign and various c3 voter education groups who did all the voter drives, certainly not the DNC

You want voter drives, go do one. Easy. Look up how on your Board of Elections website.

[Live and Learn]

44. The only one that has made this an issue is Bernie. Voter disfranchisement makes a mockery of our

system.

[blackspade]

49. Zip.

[Gothmog]

5. Voter ID laws are solely for voter suppression

[Akicita]

33. If it is done for ineligible voter suppression it is fine by me.

If it is done to suppress eligible voters then it is wrong. A good middle ground may be to have voter ID but make it very, very, easy for eligible voters to get the voter ID for free.

[Live and Learn]

45. It will never be easy. Elderly sick people that don't drive don't keep their ids up.

And getting them to the DMV to get their picture taken would be a major ordeal.

How about people that have misplaced their picture id? Should they be kept from voting?

Voter fraud is not a real problem but voter suppression is.

[Akicita]

47. I would like all eligible citizens to become familiar with the candidates and issues and then vote.

If elderly and sick want to vote but cannot get to the DMV then programs should be set up to have the DMV make house calls or provide transportation. We need to go the extra mile to make sure that any eligible person who wants to vote has that opportunity.

If people lose their ID, they should be able to vote provisionally. When they replace their ID their provisional vote will be confirmed and counted.

Who knows if voter fraud is a real problem or not. In many places you just have to say you are eligible and you get to vote.. Nobody checks. With many tens of millions of ineligible people living in this country it makes sense to not just operate on the honor system.

Again, it is up to the states to ensure that every eligible citizen who wants to vote is given the opportunity to do so. Any shenanigans to prevent eligible voters from exercising their right to vote should be exposed and denounced. Any undue burdens placed on the sick and elderly by voter ID laws should be ameliorated by outreach programs to ensure that anyone who requests a voter ID will get one if they are eligible.

[atreides1]

51. Here's a good article about Voter Fraud

https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/truth-about-voter-fraud

[Akicita]

53. Thank you.

[nc4bo]

7. SURPRISE! Next up, North Carolina. Bring your ID yall! Ya here?! nt

[wildeyed]

14. And who made the laws?

Who benefits? And who is challenging them in court?

[Jitter65]

8. Democrats did not do all they could have done to counter these ID issues. Nor did the black and

hispanic civil rights leaders energize their bases to do more. I hope between now and November there will be a grass-roots push for registration in all those states with new voter ID laws.

[vintx]

10. Why would they?

The third-way Dems / DLC types don't want the poor voting any more than the GOP does!

[wildeyed]

19. Flat out not true.

No Democrat led statehouse anywhere EVER supported these types of laws, at least not since 1968.

You could argue that a majority of actual Democrats support the laws, but that is because they are ill-informed. Trust me, I know, I have been arguing with them on this forum off and on for over a decade

In NC, we got some of the best and most liberal campaign finance reform and voter access laws IN THE COUNTRY with Dems in charge who make Hillary Clinton look like a combo of Mother Theresa and Paul Wellstone.

You straight up don't know what you are talking about.

[TM99]

27. You said.

No Democrat led statehouse ever supported it.

And in case you haven't noticed, due to the DNC & DWS's incompetence, more statehouses are controlled by the GOP than ever before.

So what could they have done? Oh, I can think of a thing or two.

[wildeyed]

38. That is some sad and tortured logic.

You think that the DNC let the GOP take over the statehouse ON PURPOSE so they could have the fun of disenfranchising poor voters?

What is the wink about? I dunno what you think they could have done. You need to type whatever you "think" on your computer for people to know what that might be. Don't forget the press "Post my reply!" when you finish

[TM99]

39. So insults are all you have.

The DNC has all but abandoned the 50 state strategy. They have abandoned financially supporting local Democrats that don't tow the New Dem party line. That has had consequences. Apparently you haven't really been paying attention to all of the losses under Obama and DWS in charge of the Democratic Party. Here let me begin your necessary education --

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/

Now let me keep this very simple. State legislatures under GOP control have passed these voter disenfranchisment laws. Had more state legislatures been in Democratic control instead, would they have been passed? No.

So one major negative consequence of Obama and DWS's reign over the DNC has been the utter wipe out of Democratic state legislatures which would have kept such laws from becoming reality.

I am sure that if you stop rolling around laughing at the jokes in your head you might just learn something.

[wildeyed]

40. You are the one not being clear.

What is with the all winking? Is this a semaphore thing? Charades? Do it in a pattern and then maybe I can decipher your meaning....

Yes, correct, if more legislatures had been under Dem control, then we would not have so many voter disenfranchisement laws. But if you read your own link, you would see that there are a variety of possible reasons for the losses, not the least being that we lost in a redistricting year. Which your own link attributes to more straight ticket voting by an older and whiter electorate in the off years.

Didn't say shit about 50-state strategy, or any of that other stuff you typed. That is just your opinion. Try to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion, then YOU might learn something

[TM99]

42. Churlish fools go on my Ignore list.

[wildeyed]

50. Works for me.

[wildeyed]

15. Oh really?

Last edited Mon Mar 7, 2016, 05:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Got any actual facts to back that vacuous opinion up? And what would YOU have done better?

The voter ID laws are part of the ALEC plan. Democrats and activists who actually pay attention saw this coming miles off. The only way to fight them is to control the statehouse. The reason we got them in NC? Democrats were too precious to actually show up to vote in 2010, a redistricting year, and the GOP won the statehouse for the first time in 100 years. They then gerrymandered the fuck out of the state, so the next election, 51% of voters chose a Democratic state rep, but the GOP ended up with a veto-proof majority. AND the Governor is GOP too.

The black leadership in my state has been ON IT from go. Rev. Dr. Barber and Moral Mondays. And white people have been working their asses off too. This is not JUST a black thing. NAACP also brought multiple lawsuits, a few that are now at the SC level and resulted in re-drawing of some of the district boundaries. The ID laws were challenged too, semi-successfully. You should Google that, then tell me how their work is not up to your high, high standards

And you should do more than "hope" there will be a grassroots push. You should damn well DO something, since you feel free to stand in almighty judgement of the rest of us doing bloody battle down here in the trenches. Send money, at lest. Jeeze....

[SpankMe]

9. Kick. Excellent article. n/t

[red dog 1]

12. K&R...Thanks for posting

"Democrats need a massive registration and get-out-the-vote effort to counter this kind of willful assault on democracy.."

Unfortunately, this will likely not happen as long as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is Chair of the DNC.


Is it too late for a new, grass-roots fueled, Howard Dean-type 50 state solution?
(Perhaps led by such groups as Occupy The Vote and MoveOn.org.?)

[wildeyed]

20. No.

You. Get on it. Now.

Voter registration drives are the easiest thing in the world to organize. Google your Board of Elections, right now and figure it out. Also not the DNC's goddam job, so y'all need to quit whining about that. If is a silly complaint. State parties or c3 groups are more effective anyway. They usually lack enough paid organizers to do the work (harder than it looks, just saying') and never have enough volunteers. So go forth and volunteer.

[FighttheFuture]

22. It is their fucking job to grow the party. Howard Dean was doing that with the 50 state

strategy. Make Democrats competitive in all 50 states at the local level on up. You will naturally increase voter registration. It sure as hell helped Obama big time in 2008 and gave him tremendous coattails. then, it was cancelled and Dean forced out. Look at what happened since. No big surprise there, unless you are blind.

[wildeyed]

30. Did Howard Dean succeed?

Did you ever actually see or worked on a DNC-sponsored voter registration event? I have registered thousands of voters, but never once as a Democratic Party volunteer. Not even for the state party. And I would have if there was an opportunity. But the majority of those voters were registered with small local c3 groups and a few with the Obama campaign. Oh, yeah, I got super-depressed about the John Kerry campaign in 2004 and just went out an DID some events on my own initiative.

What's stopping you?

Do I agree with Dean's 50-state strategy? In theory, yes. But after my experience with the local and state party, hmmmmm... It's complicated. Probably easier to just let candidates and c3s run those, due to the entrench dysfunction present in many local party organizations.

And Obama did his own damn voter registration, not the DNC.

[FighttheFuture]

34. Yeah, he was succeeding. Then Obama/Rham pushed him out lest they loose control of the

party with all that grass roots activism Dean created. It could appear.

Of course, we could do the half-measures you suggest while the Republicans with their coordinated strategies paid for by corporations and billionaires keep on eating us alive. Or we can actually get rid of shit like DWS and put back in people who would really grow the party. But, that would threaten the "establishment", so good luck with that. "easier to just let candidates and c3s run those", Yeah, right. That's not a 50 state strategy which made inroads into the heart of Red State america.

Looking Back at Howard Dean's 50-State Strategy

When former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean became chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in early 2005, one of his main efforts was to undertake a "50-state strategy," a bid to build up party infrastructure and candidate recruitment at every level and in every state -- even in solidly Republican bastions.

"We strengthened the parties so sitting governors could find good candidates" for offices high and low, Dean said. "That's much easier to do from Topeka than it is from Washington."

State party chairs loved the idea, but among national strategists, the approach was controversial. Dean bumped heads with then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who believed in a more conventional strategy of focusing limited campaign resources on swing districts. On CNN, Paul Begala said Dean's gambit amounted to "hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose." (Begala later apologized.)


Here's how the Democrats fared in the reddest of red states between January 2005 and January 2009, the period when the 50-state project was in operation:

State House seats: Net gain of 39 seats, a 2 percent increase of all seats in the states analyzed
State Senate seats: Net loss of two seats
Governorships: Net loss of one
Attorney generalships: Net gain of one (elected seats only)
U.S. House seats: Net gain of three seats
U.S. Senate seats: Net gain of one seat
Presidential performance: In 15 of the 20 states, the Democratic nominee saw an increase in vote share between 2004 and 2008. In three other states, the vote share remained constant. It dropped in only two states.



Now let's compare this record to the one between January 2009 and January 2013.

State House seats: Net loss of 249 seats, a decrease of 13 percent of the existing seats in those states
State Senate seats: Net loss of 84 seats, a decrease of 12 percent
Governorships: A decrease by half, from eight governors to four
Attorney generalships: A drop by two-thirds in elected AGs, from nine to three
U.S. House seats: A 40 percent drop, from 44 seats to 26
U.S. Senate seats: A drop from 11 seats to 8. (It could drop further by 2014: Of those eight remaining seats, three senators are retiring and another three face tough reelection contests.)
Presidential performance: Only two of the 20 states (Alaska and Mississippi) saw higher support for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. In most of the 20 solidly red states, Obama's 2012 vote fell back roughly to John Kerry's level from 2004.
Altogether, these post-2009 declines are, to put it bluntly, pretty catastrophic. In these 20 solidly red states, the Democrats controlled 13 legislative chambers in 2005, a number that fell to just three in 2013. Of the 40 chambers in these states, only two experienced a net gain of Democratic seats between 2005 and 2013; in the other 38, the Democrats lost ground.

[wildeyed]

37. Yeah, I read that article too.

Says clearly that the gains cannot be linked sole to the 50-state strategy. Correlation is not causation. I also did voter registration in a red state during that period, and did not see hide nor hair of any DNC 50-state strategy

And I liked Dean, BTW. But wait, isn't he under the bus now anyway, because he endorsed Clinton? I get confused sometimes.....

Dean didn't create activism in my state. WE did it. The people who live here and care and show up and volunteer and work hard year after year. We are still doing that. I marched just last Thursday, with a non-partisan group to bring attention to the early vote. But since 2008, the GOP is wise to our ways and spends 10's of millions to defeat us. This is not the DNC's fault, or DWS's fault or Obama's fault (LOL!). They are a serious adversary with serious money. But activism CAN beat money, if the activists are willing to suffer. First they ignore, then they laugh, then they fight..... We are at the fighting part right now. Soon will be the winning part

But I sure as shit don't look to no DNC to fix my problems. They can only do so much. It is up to activists to really make the changes. You think LBJ would pass Voting Rights without King and his group bringing the pressure? No. Politicians NEVER do the right thing without activists. Law of nature, that.

I do think the party needs help recruiting better candidates. The problem I have with all the whinging on this site is that is up to the people who run the party. Who are largely volunteers. Who could be you if you were willing to do the work. If you even tried, I bet you would stop being so judgey. Because it is harder than it looks.

Get rid of DWS, I don't care. I don't think she is very good either. I do think it rude to refer to her as "shit". She IS a person, albeit one you don't like.

[FighttheFuture]

54. YEs, I am not saying we do not need people at the local level, as yuo were doing. I am saying the

DNC can, and should do a lot more and was under Dean. Then he was canned for shitheads like Tim Kane and DWS.

I am not saying it is not hard, especially with the Democratic Establishment, and SHIT like Debbie Wasserman Schulz, sabotaging any real efforts of a real Democratic party. And before you want to parse that, I considerr the Democratic party's roots as established by Jefferson and reaffirmed by FDR.

BTW, Dean does not have to endorse Bernie for me to praise what he did back when he was DNC chair. Just to help with your "confusion".

[wildeyed]

55. And I do not, in theory, disagree with you.

Yes, it is better when the Party works on turnout. That is, IMO, what Democrats should do. GOTV. But in practice, it is very difficult for two reasons. First, the party itself is pretty dysfunctional. And there is no easy way to clean it up from the inside. I believe that activists need to bring the votes first, and then the pressure for change and also for better candidates. Some of the better local politicians in my city came from inside the activist movement, not the party. They ran for local office first, did a good job and earned the trust of more mainstream Dems and are now starting to move up the food chain. It requires work and persistence, but I SEE it happening.

The second reason is the Supreme Court rulings for both Citizens United and the destruction of Article 4 of Voting Rights. Those two rulings make it exponentially harder for both party Dems and activists to focus GOTV. The money part is an arms race, IMO. Dems are in a Cold War with Reps to keep on money. Until we change that (and with Scalia dead, we have a freaking shot at it), we MUST raise money to keep up. A popular grassroots guy like Sanders can get away with just doing donations, but most candidates don't generate the kind of enthusiasm. And I don't think he can do anything, on his own, to change that. So right now the party, very sadly, needs to focus more on raising money than GOTV.

The destruction of Voting Rights is what opened the door for the voter ID laws and a bunch of other BS that we are still fighting. So that make the GOTV much harder. In my state (NC) a small c3 coalition lead by a guy named Rev. Barber managed to up voter participation in an extraordinarily short period of time. We were aided and abetted by some great liberal politicians, but ALSO by conservative, white Southern DINOs. It is a coalition party. We brought the votes, so they did the backroom deals that needed to be done to get some really liberal election laws on the books. The plan was to slowly bring better candidates into the process, even third party, and eventually transform the state. But we lost in 2010 We are fighting back, but it is not easy. And I cannot begin to express how much better DINOs are than GOP. Night and fucking day.....

So like I said, in theory, you are right, but in practice, it is just not possible right now, at least from where I sit. And I AM on the front lines in a purple state. I think that should carry some weight....

Sorry if I was sharp. I get prickly because it feels like people are being incredibly judgmental and negative without understanding the scope of the problem. I think we are on the cusp of beating the living shit out of the GOP and controlling the Supremes again. We just need some patience. I WANT to vote for a guy like Sanders (but with a better planned campaign and better minority outreach). I WANT single payer. I REALLY want to deal with affordable housing too. Huge issue. but we need the Supremes and to do a better job persuading more conservative voters to see out view. We CAN push out the more corporate Dems. But we need to be tactical and see that there is much work involved first. It feels like some of my blue state brethren are getting ready to throw the rest of us to the dogs because they are mad that Sanders is losing. And they do not understand how fiercely we are fighting in some of the red states, and how little protection we have from a Trump or Cruz presidency. People here are already dying from GOP policies. If we don't have some decent Feds, there will be so many more. Clinton doesn't look that bad from our perspective

[red dog 1]

58. + 1

[red dog 1]

60. + 1

[red dog 1]

59. + 1

[valerief]

18. Funny how that works out, huh? It's almost as if the legislatures wanted it this way.

Almost, my ass!

[FighttheFuture]

21. What a surprise *NOT*! Thanks, DNC and DWS for all your "hard" work at protecting the

establishment status quo. You certainly took care of the Democratic Party!

[ChiciB1]

25. THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING FROM THE GET-GO! Too Many

here have equated this to Bernie Sanders being in the election. I believe I just posted this fact about 2 days ago. But, some here don't want to see it this way. IT MUST be because of Bernie Sanders!

BUT the real question is this. Why are so many here UNABLE to understand that OUR Democratic Party really has never fought back against this in any meaningful way! And this isn't the only issue that they haven't stood up for "we the people" for so many years.

How many, many times and how many people here have talked about what THIS DEMOCRATIC PARTY has NOT done for us?? I know this has been such a thorn in my side and makes me see RED. Ever since Al From colluded with Bill Clinton to initiate the formation of the DLC the Party started shifting to the RIGHT! As time has passed the DLC morphed into The Third Way and even though it's been said the DLC no longer exists, that argument really doesn't mean much. But we're here now and far too many of us have had it up our EYEBALLS with the ConservaDem wing of the Party that has almost taken over The Democratic Party that so many of us joined years ago.

The mere fact that DWS IS STILL the head of the DNC speaks volumes! And WHO is it that she's been supporting all along? Hillary Clinton! The Clintons are THE two people who really took the reigns back in the 90's and it's grown as time has gone by.

It really shouldn't surprise anyone here as to why so many of us have so much anger against people who ONCE stood for and fought for issues such as Civil Rights, Abortion Rights, Unions... so many issues that have basically been ignored! These Democrats were the icons we used to look up to, but now we clearly see HOW LITTLE they're fighting now!

We get attacked the ALMOST ALL OF this Democratic Party has thrown it's support behind Hillary and are actually working very hard to KICK Bernie to the side! Bernie's message today is nothing more than what The Democratic Party used to stand for. But NOW so many are blindly willing to accept the Status Quo! Never mind that THIS Party MUST be willing to make REAL CHANGE, REAL SOON! Putting BAND AIDS on a gaping wound doesn't work medically and it most certainly won't work economically!

THIS current Democratic Party has done very little to help the people of this country for way too long and it's the reason that so many of us are very easily WILLING to quit! It HAS been difficult watching once great icons coming forward to use their name to elect someone who wants try to "fix" or "add to" situations that are past fixing. Issues that need a complete overhaul. Very difficult for those of us who knew a very different Democratic Party, but MORE it's a slap in our face too see people we worked hard to elect and are so willing to roll over and become lap dogs.

So, now we're at a fork in the road and I know I want to go down a different road, not the one we've been traveling on for way too long. It makes no sense to just settle for more of the same because NOTHING WILL BE DIFFERENT.

I know what road I'm going to take even it means I leave this Democratic Party behind. The possibility for CHANGE is here, not the Obama "HOPE & CHANGE," actual change where THE PEOPLE will need to be a part of.

TPTB & almost every media outlet is against us so the time has come for THE REVOLUTION to take our country back! The Repukes ARE eating our lunch! WAKE UP!

[WillParkinson]

26. Mr. Burns approves...

[SheilaT]

28. Wouldn't 100% be all of the voters?

I mean, if before the laws 10,000 people had voted, 285% of that would be 28,500 voters, and subtract 28,500 from 10,000 we are into negative numbers. How in the world do negative numbers of voters actually vote?

[Agnosticsherbet]

29. Clearly, Republicans new what they were doing.

The ass wipes.

[Angry Dragon]

31. asshole repubs

[Akicita]

32. What was the decline in voter turnout in the voting precincts where "Slick Willey" showed up

on election day.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Math fail. There is nothing less than 100% less. (X - (1*X)) = zero.

Writers; math class isn't just for nerds.

[Dont call me Shirley]

36. Where's the DNC on this national epidemic? Over here? No. Over there? No. Nowhere.

[dflprincess]

43. Perhaps if the Democrats had taken election fraud seriously

in 2000 and 2004 the Republicans would not have been able to get away with this crap.

[NHprogressive]

46. I had no idea it was quite this bad

That is awful. I'm all for GOTV efforts.. if only there was an organization in charge of such a thing who had the people's interests in mind and could start to get ahead of individual states reducing voter freedom

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. I am shocked it was this good

I expected it to be far worst. And this does not make it good either.

[islandmkl]

52. if it is left to each individual to make a difference...against a machine...that is noble...

but not very effective when each individual had at their disposal a machine of their own...that was chosen by leadership to not enter the battle...

that is where the RNC kicked the living shit out of the DNC...yeah, we have Obama in '08 and '12, but what the hell happened in 2010 (when the all-important census comes into play) and 2014?...

and state-by-state organizational assistance became virtually non-existent...

[gcomeau]

56. No cause for concern.

According to multiple sources in the Clinton supporters camp apparently voters aren't necessary this election cycle... and good riddance to them.


I have to admit that dunce that I am I don't quite follow the reasoning, but I'm sure they know what they're talking about.

[Raster]

57. I'm sure the repubs still have that "Mission Accomplished" banner....

...stashed away somewhere.

The difference between us and them: WE WANT PEOPLE TO VOTE.