North Carolina and Republicans' push to the extreme right

[illegaloperation]

Hagan will be one of the first to benefit

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/north-carolina-senate-race-2014-kay-hagan-95025.html?hp=f1

[barfbag]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What turned N.C. in 2008 was Obama was black and black turnout went up. When Obama has not been on the ballot, black turnout remained at historical levels. Hillary last I checked wasn't black.

I don't think we can assume that black turnout will return to 2004 levels (is that what you're insinuating?) in 2016. We haven't had a presidential election without Obama on the ballot since then. 2012 black turnout matched 2008 levels, contrary to the common expectation. Who's to say it will significantly drop in 2016? Some people say Bill Clinton was the first black president, and while jocular, I think that statement gives one something to think about. The African-American community has associated itself with the Democratic Party for quite some time now. I don't see blacks choosing the Republican candidate over Hillary when the GOP has had problems with minorities for as long as they have.

And before NC's recent bill, preregistration was a common practice in the state. You did it at the DMV when you took the driver's license test. I know this because I preregistered to vote two months ago (I am seventeen). I find it deeply troubling that youth younger than me will be unable to enjoy the same ease of access to exercising their right to vote when the time comes.

I suspect it will drop by a little bit and maybe moderately depending on how things are going in the country. Obama's approval rating will be very indicative as to how much he can exactly help. We know that if Bush were to pal around with McCain in 2008, we'd be looking at a landslide for Obama. Republicans will be lucky to do as well with the black vote as the did in 2004 either way though so even if black turn out is down, the difference still helps the Democrats. The question is how much.

[eric82oslo]

I find it deeply troubling that youth younger than me will be unable to enjoy the same ease of access to exercising their right to vote when the time comes.

Me too. I was 100% ready to vote when I was 15. Although, from a political view, I knew where I stood already from being about 11 years old, but only because my parents [dad] had told me so. Which in other words would have been a horrible choice, until I matured at the age of 15.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why have early voting? We can make election day a national holiday and have presidential elections once every 4 years and on the same day as it was intended.

"As was intended"?  You really don't know your history do you?  We didn't even have a national election day until the mid-19th century.  In the election of 1800, votes were cast as soon as April in some states and not until October in others.  When Lincoln called for a special session of Congress at the start of the Civil War, several States had to hold special elections because they had decided that rather than elect Representatives who normally wouldn't even meet until thirteen months later even tho they formally took office four months later they'd just delay Election Day a year and elect them a month before the first session was scheduled to begin, even tho technically they'd been in office for the nine months previous.

There are many reasons to favor a uniform election day, but "original intent" is definitely NOT one of them.

[eric82oslo]

A very great article on the voting rights assault all across the US (with particular emphasis on Texas, and North Carolina to a lesser degree): http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/02/voting-rights-act-civil-war-rematch

As noted in the article, it's pretty incredible to think about the fact that only 30% of Texas children under 5 are white (non-Hispanic). That could mean that in about 50 years or so, 70% of the entire Texas population could be minorities.

[barfbag]

Why have early voting? We can make election day a national holiday and have presidential elections once every 4 years and on the same day as it was intended.

"As was intended"?  You really don't know your history do you?  We didn't even have a national election day until the mid-19th century.  In the election of 1800, votes were cast as soon as April in some states and not until October in others.  When Lincoln called for a special session of Congress at the start of the Civil War, several States had to hold special elections because they had decided that rather than elect Representatives who normally wouldn't even meet until thirteen months later even tho they formally took office four months later they'd just delay Election Day a year and elect them a month before the first session was scheduled to begin, even tho technically they'd been in office for the nine months previous.

There are many reasons to favor a uniform election day, but "original intent" is definitely NOT one of them.

You got me on this one but I've laid out several reasons dealing with voter fraud to defend my position of having an election day every 4 years.

[MalaspinaGold]

I was going to point this out earlier too. If I remember correctly, for a while Maine had its elections in September (hence the catchphrase "As goes Maine, so goes Vermont").

[illegaloperation]

Two more articles:

http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/30/north-carolina-reverts-to-red/

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2148633,00.html

[opebo]

As noted in the article, it's pretty incredible to think about the fact that only 30% of Texas children under 5 are white (non-Hispanic). That could mean that in about 50 years or so, 70% of the entire Texas population could be minorities.

It is really very encouraging, in the sense that it makes it seem their disenfrachisement will come to naught.  However I think the masters will do whatever it takes, I really do.  I don't think those poor little babes-in-arms will ever vote even as we think we do.

[barfbag]

As noted in the article, it's pretty incredible to think about the fact that only 30% of Texas children under 5 are white (non-Hispanic). That could mean that in about 50 years or so, 70% of the entire Texas population could be minorities.

It is really very encouraging, in the sense that it makes it seem their disenfrachisement will come to naught.  However I think the masters will do whatever it takes, I really do.  I don't think those poor little babes-in-arms will ever vote even as we think we do.

What the hell are you talking about?

[opebo]

As noted in the article, it's pretty incredible to think about the fact that only 30% of Texas children under 5 are white (non-Hispanic). That could mean that in about 50 years or so, 70% of the entire Texas population could be minorities.

It is really very encouraging, in the sense that it makes it seem their disenfrachisement will come to naught.  However I think the masters will do whatever it takes, I really do.  I don't think those poor little babes-in-arms will ever vote even as we think we do.

What the hell are you talking about?

Work harder on your reading comprehension, young airhead.  I simply believe 'democracy' will not be allowed to continue if it threatens Capital.  Or even the pretense of democracy.

[barfbag]

As noted in the article, it's pretty incredible to think about the fact that only 30% of Texas children under 5 are white (non-Hispanic). That could mean that in about 50 years or so, 70% of the entire Texas population could be minorities.

It is really very encouraging, in the sense that it makes it seem their disenfrachisement will come to naught.  However I think the masters will do whatever it takes, I really do.  I don't think those poor little babes-in-arms will ever vote even as we think we do.

What the hell are you talking about?

Work harder on your reading comprehension, young airhead.  I simply believe 'democracy' will not be allowed to continue if it threatens Capital.  Or even the pretense of democracy.

What on earth makes you think one threatens the other?

[opebo]

What on earth makes you think one threatens the other?

You have a good point - voting does imply an acceptance of the yoke.

[barfbag]

What on earth makes you think one threatens the other?

You have a good point - voting does imply an acceptance of the yoke.

Voting determines the yoke. I'll agree it's always been and always will be about the lesser of two evils.

[illegaloperation]

A Sharp Turn to the Right in North Carolina

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/us/19iht-letter19.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[opebo]

What on earth makes you think one threatens the other?

You have a good point - voting does imply an acceptance of the yoke.

Voting determines the yoke. I'll agree it's always been and always will be about the lesser of two evils.

No you miss the point.

[barfbag]

What on earth makes you think one threatens the other?

You have a good point - voting does imply an acceptance of the yoke.

Voting determines the yoke. I'll agree it's always been and always will be about the lesser of two evils.

No you miss the point.

how so

[opebo]

No you miss the point.

how so

Read a book, man.  Its common on the left to be skeptical of liberal democracy (a capitalist subterfuge) and to prefer violent revolution of some sort.

[barfbag]

No you miss the point.

how so

Read a book, man.  Its common on the left to be skeptical of liberal democracy (a capitalist subterfuge) and to prefer violent revolution of some sort.

I'm well aware of that. It happened leading up to the Iraq War and with Occupy Wall Street. It's quite a shame.