Gallup: Share of Democrats reaches record low

[Green Arrow]

Gallup: Share of Democrats reaches record low (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/poll-political-party-identify-217562):


The share of Americans identifying as Democrats dropped to a record low in 2015, according to the latest Gallup results (http://politi.co/1ZfT4L5) published Monday, in the latest indication that Americans’ attachment to either political party is at or nearing historical lows.
Overall, 42 percent over the course of the past year identified as independents, a slight drop from the 43 percent who identified as such in 2014. While Democrats maintained a small advantage over Republicans — 29 percent to 26 percent — the Democratic share is at its lowest in Gallup history.

Partisans for both parties represent a combined 55% of the electorate, yet both want us to believe they speak for all Americans.

[Cigar]

Suppression Works

[Green Arrow]

Suppression Works

What suppression, Cigar?

[Cigar]

What suppression, Cigar?

What Voter Fraud, Green Arrow?

[Ravens Fan]

Gallup: Share of Democrats reaches record low (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/poll-political-party-identify-217562):



Partisans for both parties represent a combined 55% of the electorate, yet both want us to believe they speak for all Americans.

They have no one to blame but themselves.

[Green Arrow]

What Voter Fraud, Green Arrow?

There is none. Or, at least, none significant enough to worry about.

[Cigar]

What suppression, Cigar?

12 Very Real Voter-Suppression Tactics Experts Now Worry Will Come Back
1. Changing polling locations. An election official can make this call just days before an election.
2. Changing polling hours or eliminating early voting days. This may be particularly problematic in urban counties where long polling lines are most likely, as Henry Grabar reported last fall (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2012/09/should-cities-be-able-pick-their-own-dates-early-voting/3251/).
3. Reducing the number of polling places. This raises the same problem as above, particularly when the eliminated polling places had disproportionately served minority communities.
4. At-large elections. At-large elections for school-board members or city councils often dilute the voting power of minorities who have greater influence in single-candidate district elections. In an at-large election, a cohesive voting block with 51 percent of the vote can elect 100 percent of the officials.
5. Packing majority-minority districts. Election maps drawn to push all of a community's minorities in one or a handful of districts can dilute their voting power.
6. Dividing minority districts. Similarly, election maps can slice minority communities into multiple districts so that they have no cumulative influence in any one place. The line between these two tactics is a fine one (and also illustrates why the VRA was useful for assessing facts on the ground).
7. Voter ID laws: This increasingly popular tactic, sometimes likened to a modern-day poll tax, has the potential to disenfranchise voters who don't have a driver's license, or who don't have the money or ability to obtain one (a disproportionate share of these people are minorities). Such laws can also have a disproportionate impact in cities, where many people don't own cars (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2012/08/unprecedented-urban-dynamic-pennsylvanias-voter-id-law/2893/).
8. Onerous candidate qualifications. In 2007, a Texas provision tried to limit those people eligible to become water district supervisors to landowners who were registered to vote.
9. Changing multi-lingual voter assistance. Making it harder for non-English language speakers to vote is a good way to dilute their power.
10. Changing election dates. Another trick that may not require legislative approval.
11. Creating new elections. In 2006, the DOJ objected to a plan in the Houston area that would have eliminated some joint elections and required voters to travel to multiple polling places.
12. Canceling elections. We're not even really sure how Kilmichael, Mississippi, thought they could get away with this.


http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/06/12-very-real-voter-suppression-tactics-experts-now-worry-will-come-back/6057/

Are you saying this isn't happening? :huh:

[Green Arrow]

12 Very Real Voter-Suppression Tactics Experts Now Worry Will Come Back


1. Changing polling locations. An election official can make this call just days before an election.
2. Changing polling hours or eliminating early voting days. This may be particularly problematic in urban counties where long polling lines are most likely, as Henry Grabar reported last fall (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2012/09/should-cities-be-able-pick-their-own-dates-early-voting/3251/).
3. Reducing the number of polling places. This raises the same problem as above, particularly when the eliminated polling places had disproportionately served minority communities.
4. At-large elections. At-large elections for school-board members or city councils often dilute the voting power of minorities who have greater influence in single-candidate district elections. In an at-large election, a cohesive voting block with 51 percent of the vote can elect 100 percent of the officials.
5. Packing majority-minority districts. Election maps drawn to push all of a community's minorities in one or a handful of districts can dilute their voting power.
6. Dividing minority districts. Similarly, election maps can slice minority communities into multiple districts so that they have no cumulative influence in any one place. The line between these two tactics is a fine one (and also illustrates why the VRA was useful for assessing facts on the ground).
7. Voter ID laws: This increasingly popular tactic, sometimes likened to a modern-day poll tax, has the potential to disenfranchise voters who don't have a driver's license, or who don't have the money or ability to obtain one (a disproportionate share of these people are minorities). Such laws can also have a disproportionate impact in cities, where many people don't own cars (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2012/08/unprecedented-urban-dynamic-pennsylvanias-voter-id-law/2893/).
8. Onerous candidate qualifications. In 2007, a Texas provision tried to limit those people eligible to become water district supervisors to landowners who were registered to vote.
9. Changing multi-lingual voter assistance. Making it harder for non-English language speakers to vote is a good way to dilute their power.
10. Changing election dates. Another trick that may not require legislative approval.
11. Creating new elections. In 2006, the DOJ objected to a plan in the Houston area that would have eliminated some joint elections and required voters to travel to multiple polling places.
12. Canceling elections. We're not even really sure how Kilmichael, Mississippi, thought they could get away with this.


http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/06/12-very-real-voter-suppression-tactics-experts-now-worry-will-come-back/6057/

Are you saying this isn't happening? :huh:

Nope. I'm asking you to explain what you have posted.

[Cigar]

Nope. I'm asking you to explain what you have posted.

Why is there an explanation needed, I'm saying those tactics are working.

[Green Arrow]

Why is there an explanation needed, I'm saying those tactics are working.

An explanation is needed because this is a discussion thread.

Besides, you're wrong. Gallup didn't poll people that vote Democrat, they polled people that identify as Democrats. Voter suppression would keep down the number of VOTES for a party, not the number of people that IDENTIFY with that party.

[Cigar]

An explanation is needed because this is a discussion thread.

Besides, you're wrong. Gallup didn't poll people that vote Democrat, they polled people that identify as Democrats. Voter suppression would keep down the number of VOTES for a party, not the number of people that IDENTIFY with that party.

Oh so we're talking about what people say to pollsters with some sort of statistical accuracy ... :laugh:

Here are some real numbers ....




How Groups Voted in 2012 - Roper Center (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/)
www.ropercenter.uconn.edu

[Green Arrow]

Oh so we're talking about what people say to pollsters with some sort of statistical accuracy ... :laugh:

Here are some real numbers ....




How Groups Voted in 2012 - Roper Center (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/)
www.ropercenter.uconn.edu




Cigar, I'm giving you a chance to carry on a serious discussion. If I were you, I'd take advantage of that offer and show that you can handle it appropriately.

So, try again.

[Matty]

12 Very Real Voter-Suppression Tactics Experts Now Worry Will Come Back


1. Changing polling locations. An election official can make this call just days before an election.
2. Changing polling hours or eliminating early voting days. This may be particularly problematic in urban counties where long polling lines are most likely, as Henry Grabar reported last fall (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2012/09/should-cities-be-able-pick-their-own-dates-early-voting/3251/).
3. Reducing the number of polling places. This raises the same problem as above, particularly when the eliminated polling places had disproportionately served minority communities.
4. At-large elections. At-large elections for school-board members or city councils often dilute the voting power of minorities who have greater influence in single-candidate district elections. In an at-large election, a cohesive voting block with 51 percent of the vote can elect 100 percent of the officials.
5. Packing majority-minority districts. Election maps drawn to push all of a community's minorities in one or a handful of districts can dilute their voting power.
6. Dividing minority districts. Similarly, election maps can slice minority communities into multiple districts so that they have no cumulative influence in any one place. The line between these two tactics is a fine one (and also illustrates why the VRA was useful for assessing facts on the ground).
7. Voter ID laws: This increasingly popular tactic, sometimes likened to a modern-day poll tax, has the potential to disenfranchise voters who don't have a driver's license, or who don't have the money or ability to obtain one (a disproportionate share of these people are minorities). Such laws can also have a disproportionate impact in cities, where many people don't own cars (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2012/08/unprecedented-urban-dynamic-pennsylvanias-voter-id-law/2893/).
8. Onerous candidate qualifications. In 2007, a Texas provision tried to limit those people eligible to become water district supervisors to landowners who were registered to vote.
9. Changing multi-lingual voter assistance. Making it harder for non-English language speakers to vote is a good way to dilute their power.
10. Changing election dates. Another trick that may not require legislative approval.
11. Creating new elections. In 2006, the DOJ objected to a plan in the Houston area that would have eliminated some joint elections and required voters to travel to multiple polling places.
12. Canceling elections. We're not even really sure how Kilmichael, Mississippi, thought they could get away with this.


http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/06/12-very-real-voter-suppression-tactics-experts-now-worry-will-come-back/6057/

Are you saying this isn't happening? :huh:






Well, you are comparing nuts to banana peels. Even if your lie about voter suppression were true and it isn't that has nothing to do with registering to vote.

[Tahuyaman]

The only thing which suppresses the vote is the lack of candidates nearly half the electorate are willing to support.

[Cigar]

Cigar, I'm giving you a chance to carry on a serious discussion. If I were you, I'd take advantage of that offer and show that you can handle it appropriately.

So, try again.

What do you mean you're giving me a chance ...

I'm "telling" you polls don't mean squat to me, have you been Polled?

I haven't, so I'm not putting any of my stock in it. If you swear by these polls, then that's you. I don't, so you don't have to give me anything, I'm giving you my opinion for free. My contribution to any discussion, is to give my opinions as I see them. Now if that's not the purpose of discussions in general, then so be it, because I don't need you to give me anything, because I'm providing this discussion my opinion for free.

So if you're saying polling and Voter turn-out for Democrats is low, well guess what, that ain't news to me.

[Cigar]

The only thing which suppresses the vote is the lack of candidates nearly half the electorate are willing to support.

That I can agree with, the candidates on both sides are not good.

It's just a matter of picking the least worst option.

[Common]

Gallup: Share of Democrats reaches record low (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/poll-political-party-identify-217562):



Partisans for both parties represent a combined 55% of the electorate, yet both want us to believe they speak for all Americans.

Yep I read this the other day and along with this I read gallup today that said that there is only a 3 % difference between Dems and GOP now the dems used to have a far greater margin. its 29% support for Dems and 26 for GOP.

Democrats imho are erring on the pulse of the country. Six of us went to dinner last night one buddy is a diehard Democrats can do NO wrong ever Democrat me and the other guy are independents.

The democrat believes, truly believes the republicans have no chance to win no matter who is the nominee and that hillary will walk right into the whitehouses, because he believes, All hispanics, All women, All blacks and 30% of whites are going to vote democrat. I didnt bother arguing with him, hes a great long time friend.

[IMPress Polly]

I tend to think that people exaggerate the implications of our long-term decline in partisan alignments. The media always speculates that there will soon be a great "centrist revolution" that sweeps America, but the reality of the matter is that it's the more ideological people who are leaving the major parties. It's hardcore leftists like me (I've never identified as a Democrat) who support Bernie Sanders and hardcore ultra-conservatives supporting Donald Trump we're talking about here. Those types of people, not the so-called moderates. As much is easy to tell because if you ask those independents whether they have a partisan leaning, they usually do. (Think: I've never been a registered Democrat, but that obviously doesn't mean I like the Republican Party equally, does it?)

More than 80% of the population is either registered with one of the country's two major parties or has a definite ideological leaning toward one or the other is my point. Things haven't really changed THAT much over the decades. In general, I think it's just that younger generations have developed more commitment issues in general, be it in this area or in terms of sustained relationships or in terms of a willingness to commit to this or that definite spiritual belief or even just in terms of willingness to play sports on a team anymore or in just about any other area of life; you name it, people can't commit to it. Now we're not even supposed to have careers anymore, in fact, because that entails too much commitment to a specific field. The decline in partisan alignments over the same period of time that all these other things have occurred does not strike me as purely coincidental.

People today, when surveyed, are revealed to distrust just about every institution in society. Such has our level of cynicism advanced in lock step with the growth in our wealth gap over the last several decades. Social disintegration is not necessarily an entirely good thing. It is, however, reflective of the natural ethos of the system we live under. Perhaps the realization of that is why, though not a Democrat or a Republican, I am not contented to superficially call myself an "independent", but rather identify with another political party.

My point is that we're pretty ideological really. We (especially poor and working class people) just feel sold out to the highest bidder, I think, to which end we don't trust anyone enough to associate ourselves with them anymore. Plus there's the general culture pressuring us into anti-social directions every day we live on top of that. It all adds up and makes us a more anti-social people almost by the day.

[Mac-7]

Most independent voters just want others to make the hard decisions for them so that the indies can claim to have clean hands for whatever goes wrong.

Removed at OP's request

[Common]

Most independent voters just want others to make the hard decisions for them so that the indies can claim to have clean hands for whatever goes wrong.

Horseshit

[Cigar]

I Look at it this way ... I get my sense of how things are going based on the people I personally interact with each and everyday of my life. Does it mean voting will go the way I see it, of course not. I'll just do like I normally do, Vote and wait for the tally on election night.

[Peter1469]

12 Very Real Voter-Suppression Tactics Experts Now Worry Will Come Back


1. Changing polling locations. An election official can make this call just days before an election.
2. Changing polling hours or eliminating early voting days. This may be particularly problematic in urban counties where long polling lines are most likely, as Henry Grabar reported last fall (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2012/09/should-cities-be-able-pick-their-own-dates-early-voting/3251/).
3. Reducing the number of polling places. This raises the same problem as above, particularly when the eliminated polling places had disproportionately served minority communities.
4. At-large elections. At-large elections for school-board members or city councils often dilute the voting power of minorities who have greater influence in single-candidate district elections. In an at-large election, a cohesive voting block with 51 percent of the vote can elect 100 percent of the officials.
5. Packing majority-minority districts. Election maps drawn to push all of a community's minorities in one or a handful of districts can dilute their voting power.
6. Dividing minority districts. Similarly, election maps can slice minority communities into multiple districts so that they have no cumulative influence in any one place. The line between these two tactics is a fine one (and also illustrates why the VRA was useful for assessing facts on the ground).
7. Voter ID laws: This increasingly popular tactic, sometimes likened to a modern-day poll tax, has the potential to disenfranchise voters who don't have a driver's license, or who don't have the money or ability to obtain one (a disproportionate share of these people are minorities). Such laws can also have a disproportionate impact in cities, where many people don't own cars (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2012/08/unprecedented-urban-dynamic-pennsylvanias-voter-id-law/2893/).
8. Onerous candidate qualifications. In 2007, a Texas provision tried to limit those people eligible to become water district supervisors to landowners who were registered to vote.
9. Changing multi-lingual voter assistance. Making it harder for non-English language speakers to vote is a good way to dilute their power.
10. Changing election dates. Another trick that may not require legislative approval.
11. Creating new elections. In 2006, the DOJ objected to a plan in the Houston area that would have eliminated some joint elections and required voters to travel to multiple polling places.
12. Canceling elections. We're not even really sure how Kilmichael, Mississippi, thought they could get away with this.


http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/06/12-very-real-voter-suppression-tactics-experts-now-worry-will-come-back/6057/

Are you saying this isn't happening? :huh:

How does that affect a poll about political identity?