The Ferguson Effect

[Drop.Tine]

Pretty spot on if ya ask me.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...fect-new-crime-wave-hits-democrat-run-cities/



Sunday The Wall Street Journal crunched the numbers on America’s startling new crime wave (after a two-decade decline) and listed seven cities that have seen noticeable, and sometimes shocking, spikes in murders and other violent crimes.
Seven cities were worthy of note. To no one’s surprise, all seven of those cities are run by Democrats. With the exception of New York City, Democrats have enjoyed one-party rule in these cities for decades. [emphasis is mine]:

Gun violence is up more than 60% compared with this time last year, according to Baltimore police, with 32 shootings over Memorial Day weekend. May has been the most violent month the city has seen in 15 years.

The last Baltimore Republican mayor left office in 1967.

In Milwaukee, homicides were up 180% by May 17 over the same period the previous year. Through April, shootings in St. Louis were up 39%, robberies 43%, and homicides 25%. “Crime is the worst I’ve ever seen it,” said St. Louis Alderman Joe Vacarro at a May 7 City Hall hearing.

Milwaukee’s last Republican mayor left office in 1906.

The last Republican mayor of St, Louis left office in 1949.

Murders in Atlanta were up 32% as of mid-May. Shootings in Chicago had increased 24% and homicides 17%. Shootings and other violent felonies in Los Angeles had spiked by 25%; in New York, murder was up nearly 13%, and gun violence 7%.

Democrat mayors have run Atlanta since 1942.

Chicago hasn’t seen a Republican mayor since 1931.

Rudy Giuliani, the first Republican mayor of New York in nearly 30 years, cleaned up the city. He left office in 2001. The crime spike in that city can be directly connected to Bill de Blasio, who campaigned in 2013 on ending Guiliani’s (and Michael Bloomberg’s) most effective policing techniques.

Those citywide statistics from law-enforcement officials mask even more startling neighborhood-level increases. Shooting incidents are up 500% in an East Harlem [New York] precinct compared with last year; in a South Central Los Angeles police division, shooting victims are up 100%.

Los Angeles hasn’t seen a Republican mayor in 22 years.

The Wall Street Journal calls this spike in crime “The Ferguson Effect.” After two years of Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, and the mainstream media waging a relentlessly dishonest hate campaign against law enforcement (starting with the Trayvon Martin lies and leading straight through to the serial lies surrounding Michael Brown), fearing media and political persecution, some law enforcement officers are understandably less proactive and aggressive, while criminals have been emboldened.

The obvious and predictable result is a rise in violent crime that only hurts predominantly poor, black, inner-city neighborhoods.

The rise in crime is, of course, all part of the Left’s Cloward-Piven strategy to further empower central government, and the elite few who benefit from it, by stoking despair and fear — which only increases dependence on the same federal government intentionally causing the problem.

The fact that this rise in crime is occurring in seven out of seven cities currently run by Democrats is no accident.

If these were all Republican-run cities, you can bet the media would have connected the political dots to this sudden increase in violent crime. The fact that the media has chosen not to is also no accident.

 

[Bogey Man]

Maybe there would be more Rep mayors if the GOP stood for something besides making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Democratic mayors and increased city violence have no correlation, unless you believe the Bloods and Crypts are a strong voting democraphic.

 

[Drop.Tine]

Maybe there would be more Rep mayors if the GOP stood for something besides making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Democratic mayors and increased city violence have no correlation, unless you believe the Bloods and Crypts are a strong voting democraphic.

Yes, yes I do believe they vote democraphic.

 

[ag-man]

I agree Drop, democrats love to keep the minorities down and out. Keep them on welfare and make them think their giving them something to buy their votes. Then blame their plight on the rich for not paying their fair share.

 

[runyouover]

This is the most biased, cherry picked statistic filled bullship in the history of the WSJ. There is statistical evidence that the party affiliation of the mayor has a big influence over criminal behavior? No.

 

[Neutron Monster]

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

 

[Neutron Monster]

I agree Drop, democrats love to keep the minorities down and out. Keep them on welfare and make them think their giving them something to buy their votes. Then blame their plight on the rich for not paying their fair share.

Or, you know, maybe they vote for a party which advocates for the interests of poor and minority Americans?

The idea that poor black Americans vote Democrat because they want welfare is silly. They vote Democrat because they are the only party that speaks to them in a meaningful way. The R party has been focused on white Southerners for 40+ years now; is it really a shocker that black Americans would not find that appealing when the core of the white Southern vote is directly opposed to their interests?

 

[oldroundballer]

Or, you know, maybe they vote for a party which advocates for the interests of poor and minority Americans?

The idea that poor black Americans vote Democrat because they want welfare is silly. They vote Democrat because they are the only party that speaks to them in a meaningful way. The R party has been focused on white Southerners for 40+ years now; is it really a shocker that black Americans would not find that appealing when the core of the white Southern vote is directly opposed to their interests?

Just curious, other than lip service to get votes, what exactly has the Dems done to try to improve the poor black Americans lives? Where have they been while all the killing is going on in those neighborhoods all over the country? Where have they been while babies with no fathers continue to be made and born in those communities? Where have they been while riots have destroyed property and businesses of hard working people in those communities?

I'm not saying Reps have done much better. But Reps haven't been the ones telling them they'll take care of them like Dems have. Dems talk about it but what do they actually do? And more government assistance isn't the long term answer. Anyone with a functioning brain should know that. They have to stop killing each other and take education more serious and make more effort to help themselves. The opportunities are there. But the Dems don't seem to want to talk about taking responsibility and helping themselves. I'd hoped Obama would use his platform to do some of that but all he's done as far as their concerned is complain about cops. When is he going to Baltimore and make a scene and say enough killing each other???

 

[Neutron Monster]

Let's see...

- One party advocates for anti-discrimination legislation; the other advocates to repeal parts of the Voting Rights Act
- One party supports anti-poverty programs, the other wants to gut them
- One party has candidates who talk in dog-whistle terms about black Americans; the other does not
- One party supports gun control legislation (something massively supported by black voters who are most affected by gun violence); the other does not
- One party supports national health care, including health care for poor children. The other does not
- One party is focused on the day to day needs of the poor and middle class. the other is focused on cutting taxes on businesses and rich people
- One party supports family planning and abortion; the other supports limiting access to contraception and abortion
- One party has long had a significant amount of minority faces in its ranks; the other has not
- One party is in America's poor urban centers on a day to day basis; the other is not
- One party is focused on gutting education in many states and is opposed to policies which desegregate school systems; the other is focused on improving education in minority districts

The idea that black Americans vote Democrat solely for welfare is silly. On a fundamental level, the Democratic Party is heavily aligned with the interests of black America, most notably in having a focus on the issues that matter in the day to day lives of the average black American. It is not a shock that black Americans vote overwhelmingly for the D party.

If you're going to run as the party of the evangelical South, like the Rs are, you have to accept that you're going to poll terribly with black voters.

 

[oldroundballer]

Let's see...

- One party advocates for anti-discrimination legislation; the other advocates to repeal parts of the Voting Rights Act
- One party supports anti-poverty programs, the other wants to gut them
- One party has candidates who talk in dog-whistle terms about black Americans; the other does not
- One party supports gun control legislation (something massively supported by black voters who are most affected by gun violence); the other does not
- One party supports national health care, including health care for poor children. The other does not
- One party is focused on the day to day needs of the poor and middle class. the other is focused on cutting taxes on businesses and rich people
- One party supports family planning and abortion; the other supports limiting access to contraception and abortion
- One party has long had a significant amount of minority faces in its ranks; the other has not
- One party is in America's poor urban centers on a day to day basis; the other is not
- One party is focused on gutting education in many states and is opposed to policies which desegregate school systems; the other is focused on improving education in minority districts

The idea that black Americans vote Democrat solely for welfare is silly. On a fundamental level, the Democratic Party is heavily aligned with the interests of black America, most notably in having a focus on the issues that matter in the day to day lives of the average black American. It is not a shock that black Americans vote overwhelmingly for the D party.

If you're going to run as the party of the evangelical South, like the Rs are, you have to accept that you're going to poll terribly with black voters.

Yes they should just keep doing what they're doing. It's obviously working well.

 

[Drop.Tine]

- One party advocates for anti-discrimination legislation; the other advocates to repeal parts of the Voting Rights Act LOL
- One party supports anti-poverty programs, the other wants to gut them Anti Poverty programs? Has that helped East STL or STL in general?
- One party has candidates who talk in dog-whistle terms about black Americans; the other does not That's important lol.
- One party supports gun control legislation (something massively supported by black voters who are most affected by gun violence); the other does not Gun control has worked well on criminals.
- One party supports national health care, including health care for poor children. The other does not More handouts.
- One party is focused on the day to day needs of the poor and middle class. the other is focused on cutting taxes on businesses and rich people
- One party supports family planning and abortion; the other supports limiting access to contraception and abortion More free handouts.
- One party has long had a significant amount of minority faces in its ranks; the other has not True, so whites are racist? Should it matter what skin color is in office. #doublestandard
- One party is in America's poor urban centers on a day to day basis; the other is not That's all it takes?
- One party is focused on gutting education in many states and is opposed to policies which desegregate school systems; the other is focused on improving education in minority districts I agree, we should adopt the STL public school system plan ran by democrats. That seems to be working.

Guess I can sum it up. Aslong as you tell them what they want to hear or promise them handouts, you'll win their vote?

 

[Black&Gold82]

Let's see...

- One party advocates for anti-discrimination legislation; the other advocates to repeal parts of the Voting Rights Act
- One party supports anti-poverty programs, the other wants to gut them
- One party has candidates who talk in dog-whistle terms about black Americans; the other does not
- One party supports gun control legislation (something massively supported by black voters who are most affected by gun violence); the other does not
- One party supports national health care, including health care for poor children. The other does not
- One party is focused on the day to day needs of the poor and middle class. the other is focused on cutting taxes on businesses and rich people
- One party supports family planning and abortion; the other supports limiting access to contraception and abortion
- One party has long had a significant amount of minority faces in its ranks; the other has not
- One party is in America's poor urban centers on a day to day basis; the other is not
- One party is focused on gutting education in many states and is opposed to policies which desegregate school systems; the other is focused on improving education in minority districts

The idea that black Americans vote Democrat solely for welfare is silly. On a fundamental level, the Democratic Party is heavily aligned with the interests of black America, most notably in having a focus on the issues that matter in the day to day lives of the average black American. It is not a shock that black Americans vote overwhelmingly for the D party.

If you're going to run as the party of the evangelical South, like the Rs are, you have to accept that you're going to poll terribly with black voters.

Sounds like you are saying one party is focused on having the government taking care of people and one party does not.

 

[Stevedangos]

Yes they should just keep doing what they're doing. It's obviously working well.

What I can not understand is why the Black comunity fails to understand that in 1964 the majority of reps and senators voting against extending them full civil rights were Democrats

There were 130 NO votes in the House ,,,97 of the NO votes came from democrats with only 37 republicans voting no.


In the Senate there were 27 NO votes. 21 of the no votes were from democrats and only 6 republicans voted no.

 

[Neutron Monster]

What I can not understand is why the Black comunity fails to understand that in 1964 the majority of reps and senators voting against extending them full civil rights were Democrats

There were 130 NO votes in the House ,,,97 of the NO votes came from democrats with only 37 republicans voting no.


In the Senate there were 27 NO votes. 21 of the no votes were from democrats and only 6 republicans voted no.

It's best not to advertise that you're brain dead.

Because, gosh, nothing could possibly have happened in the last 51 years that changed voting patterns.

Ask yourself a simple question - if they voted on the Voting Rights Act today, what % of current Rs and current Ds would vote for it? The answer is 100% of Ds and not 100% of Rs.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Sounds like you are saying one party is focused on having the government taking care of people and one party does not.

Black Americans are consistently more supportive of a larger government, especially anti-poverty programs.

But, it's much more than that which makes them a natural fit in the D party. Notably, the discrimination policies and the social policies.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Yes they should just keep doing what they're doing. It's obviously working well.

I don't disagree with that thought process on a number of levels.

But, the challenge is, what do you do instead? The R party's "do instead" includes almost nothing whatsoever that appeals to poor Americans, both in terms of polling results and actual substance. It's a party which focuses on the interest of business, the military, rich people, and white conservative Christians. It's not a party which is focused on what else to do about poverty in America; it's focused on the interests of its voting blocks.

 

[Neutron Monster]

- One party advocates for anti-discrimination legislation; the other advocates to repeal parts of the Voting Rights Act LOL
- One party supports anti-poverty programs, the other wants to gut them Anti Poverty programs? Has that helped East STL or STL in general?
- One party has candidates who talk in dog-whistle terms about black Americans; the other does not That's important lol.
- One party supports gun control legislation (something massively supported by black voters who are most affected by gun violence); the other does not Gun control has worked well on criminals.
- One party supports national health care, including health care for poor children. The other does not More handouts.
- One party is focused on the day to day needs of the poor and middle class. the other is focused on cutting taxes on businesses and rich people
- One party supports family planning and abortion; the other supports limiting access to contraception and abortion More free handouts.
- One party has long had a significant amount of minority faces in its ranks; the other has not True, so whites are racist? Should it matter what skin color is in office. #doublestandard
- One party is in America's poor urban centers on a day to day basis; the other is not That's all it takes?
- One party is focused on gutting education in many states and is opposed to policies which desegregate school systems; the other is focused on improving education in minority districts I agree, we should adopt the STL public school system plan ran by democrats. That seems to be working.

Guess I can sum it up. Aslong as you tell them what they want to hear or promise them handouts, you'll win their vote?

A much more accurate summing up would be "when you have a party that advocates for your interests and one party that doesn't advocate for your interests, which party would you vote for?"

And LOL at your LOL on the Voting Rights Act; the R party's treatment of voting rights for the last 5 years has been absolutely deplorable. They have consistently focused on disenfranchising poor black Americans. It's one of the top five worst things going on in politics in America. All they care about making it harder for Democratic voters to get to the polls.

 

[Drop.Tine]

A much more accurate summing up would be "when you have a party that advocates for your interests and one party that doesn't advocate for your interests, which party would you vote for?"

And LOL at your LOL on the Voting Rights Act; the R party's treatment of voting rights for the last 5 years has been absolutely deplorable. They have consistently focused on disenfranchising poor black Americans. It's one of the top five worst things going on in politics in America. All they care about making it harder for Democratic voters to get to the polls.

Yes requiring an ID to vote is god awful. Turrible.

 

[Neutron Monster]

It's about far more than an ID.

There's no reason, in 2015, that voting should be handled in as archaic a fashion as it is.

 

[oldroundballer]

A much more accurate summing up would be "when you have a party that advocates for your interests and one party that doesn't advocate for your interests, which party would you vote for?"

And LOL at your LOL on the Voting Rights Act; the R party's treatment of voting rights for the last 5 years has been absolutely deplorable. They have consistently focused on disenfranchising poor black Americans. It's one of the top five worst things going on in politics in America. All they care about making it harder for Democratic voters to get to the polls.

But they don't advocate for the "best" interests. They advocate more government assistance not more personal responsibility. Which one would do them personally the most good in the long run if they acted accordingly?? I'll give you a hint, it ain't more assistance.

And I'll LOL right back at you over voting. Don't give me the crap on making it harder to vote. Voting is one the most important things we do in this country. We're electing the most powerful person in the entire world. It's simply ridiculous that we don't require proper identification to do so. We require it to drive a car, to buy a beer, to get unemployment, I assume to get food stamps, and on and on and no one complains about any of those. But suggest the same for the most important thing for the country and world a person can do and you're immediately labeled a racist because it would disenfranchise poor black Americans. Poor people of any color don't have any problem doing any of the above and they wouldn't have any trouble getting proper ID to vote either.........if it was important enough to them to do so...... That's the whole problem. Dems don't want to lose that vote because they're afraid it wouldn't be important enough to those folks to make that effort. So they come with this "disenfranchising" phrase. I call BS. If you're going to vote on stuff that affects everyone else then you should at least show enough interest to make an effort...

 

[Drop.Tine]

It's about far more than an ID.

There's no reason, in 2015, that voting should be handled in as archaic a fashion as it is.

Really so what else do "republicans" do to hold the minority man down as you say with voting?

 

[Neutron Monster]

Really so what else do "republicans" do to hold the minority man down as you say with voting?

- Slashing early voting periods
- Limiting absentee ballots
- Laws making it harder for community groups to register voters
- Laws to reduce the number of voting precincts, making it harder for those with limited access to transportation to vote
- Laws extending the time period before an election in which new voters cannot register to vote in the current election
- Laws limiting access to provisional ballots

Basically, everything they can possibly think of.

There's been a lot of good reporting on this. Notably, the Brennan Center is a quality source of information on changes in voter laws.

These are just the retrograde actions; this ignores other opposition to good policies that would move our election process into the 21st century.

 

[Black&Gold82]

- Slashing early voting periods
- Limiting absentee ballots
- Laws making it harder for community groups to register voters
- Laws to reduce the number of voting precincts, making it harder for those with limited access to transportation to vote
- Laws extending the time period before an election in which new voters cannot register to vote in the current election
- Laws limiting access to provisional ballots

Basically, everything they can possibly think of.

There's been a lot of good reporting on this. Notably, the Brennan Center is a quality source of information on changes in voter laws.

These are just the retrograde actions; this ignores other opposition to good policies that would move our election process into the 21st century.

So wouldn't that affect poor white voters also?

 

[Neutron Monster]

But they don't advocate for the "best" interests. They advocate more government assistance not more personal responsibility. Which one would do them personally the most good in the long run if they acted accordingly?? I'll give you a hint, it ain't more assistance.

And I'll LOL right back at you over voting. Don't give me the crap on making it harder to vote. Voting is one the most important things we do in this country. We're electing the most powerful person in the entire world. It's simply ridiculous that we don't require proper identification to do so. We require it to drive a car, to buy a beer, to get unemployment, I assume to get food stamps, and on and on and no one complains about any of those. But suggest the same for the most important thing for the country and world a person can do and you're immediately labeled a racist because it would disenfranchise poor black Americans. Poor people of any color don't have any problem doing any of the above and they wouldn't have any trouble getting proper ID to vote either.........if it was important enough to them to do so...... That's the whole problem. Dems don't want to lose that vote because they're afraid it wouldn't be important enough to those folks to make that effort. So they come with this "disenfranchising" phrase. I call BS. If you're going to vote on stuff that affects everyone else then you should at least show enough interest to make an effort...

"Personal responsibility", as pushed by Republicans in America, is code for not doing anything.

I'm all for improving anti-poverty programs and for finding ways to use the money we have right now more effectively. That should be the #1 goal of every politician in America in either party.

But, you cannot tell me with a straight face that this is the goal of the Republican Party. Far too much of the party is focused on shaming poor people for being poor and on keeping that money for the rich and for businesses. There are some really good voices in the party working to fix this, and I give credit to those people. But, to start, certain things have to be acknowledged:

- The private market is not equipped to fix this problem on its own; governmental action is required if you want to address poverty in a meaningful way
- The government, overall, has played a substantial role in limiting poverty and lowering inequality; to pretend otherwise is to ignore mounds of data
- The focus should be on alleviating long-term poverty to lower the burden on the system and on society
- Dollars should be spent in the most efficient way possible

There is no "right" level of anti-poverty dollars, nor a perfect answer to what to do. Neither party has great answers here, but only one party acknowledges the real problem and attempts to put forth real solutions. "Personal responsibility" is a nice talking point but that's it.

Lastly, the point of voter ID laws, as pushed in America, is to disenfranchise black voters. Period. It has nothing to do with making voting like buying beer. Republicans are not pushing these laws out of concern for voter fraud. The goal is to make it harder for Democrats to vote.

If Republicans pushed a reform of the voting system that included voter ID but also a number of ways to make voting easier and more up to date, I wouldn't oppose that. But, that's not at all what they are doing - it's all about denying citizens their right to vote. That's distasteful.

 

[Neutron Monster]

So wouldn't that affect poor white voters also?

It does, but that's also not a core Republican voting group.

The average person impacted by a voter ID law is heavily likely to be a Democratic voter, which is why Republicans are pushing the laws everywhere.

 

[Black&Gold82]

It does, but that's also not a core Republican voting group.

The average person impacted by a voter ID law is heavily likely to be a Democratic voter, which is why Republicans are pushing the laws everywhere.

Look up the voting record for Bates County. You might be surprised.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Look up the voting record for Bates County. You might be surprised.

I don't doubt that, but take a look at the population of Bates County versus the population of St. Louis County, Jackson County, and St. Louis City.

 

[oldroundballer]

It does, but that's also not a core Republican voting group.

The average person impacted by a voter ID law is heavily likely to be a Democratic voter, which is why Republicans are pushing the laws everywhere.

So what you're saying is a much higher percentage of Democratic voters probably don't care enough to make much effort to get the proper ID if it was required. OK. Thanks.

 

[Black&Gold82]

I don't doubt that, but take a look at the population of Bates County versus the population of St. Louis County, Jackson County, and St. Louis City.

Population wasn't necessarily what I was talking about. How many rural counties went republican in the last election and how many of those are predominantly white? I would think that might make it a core group.

 

[Veer2Eternity]

Guess I can sum it up. Aslong as you tell them what they want to hear or promise them handouts, you'll win their vote?

Worked for Reagan and we see what an epic disaster his presidency was.

 

[Neutron Monster]

Population wasn't necessarily what I was talking about. How many rural counties went republican in the last election and how many of those are predominantly white? I would think that might make it a core group.

Even in white areas the population you are describing skews more Democratic than the rest of the population.

I don't have the data in front of me, but you wouldn't see Republican state legislatures pushing for voting restrictions all over the country if they didn't think the laws disproportionately affected Democratic voters.

There's plenty of good polling data that non-voters are much more likely to be Democrats; intuitively, it makes sense that the marginal voter in most places likely leans D.

 

[Neutron Monster]

So what you're saying is a much higher percentage of Democratic voters probably don't care enough to make much effort to get the proper ID if it was required. OK. Thanks.

Partly this, but also it's more of a burden. The poor are less likely to drive, use banks, and use other services which require IDs. They are also more likely to lead transient lives where the address on their ID doesn't match their current residence.

Also, they had to prove their identity when they registered to vote, it's not like we don't know who they are.

Voting fraud is, functionally, a non-existent problem in the US. The politicians pushing for voter ID laws know this. But, they know it helps their party win elections.

Personally, I find that incredibly distasteful. We are better than disenfranchising our own citizens to win elections.

 

[Black&Gold82]

"Even in white areas the population you are describing skews more Democratic than the rest of the population. "

Bates is 96.6% and 68% voted Repug in the last presidential election. 18.6% are below the poverty level compared to 15.5% for the state. I didn't go through every rural county but I'm guessing that trend would hold.

 

[Neutron Monster]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/02/rand-paul-voter-id-push-d_n_6090042.html

this is pretty well aligned with what I mean - it's about keeping poor people from voting.

Look, if you want to mandate voter ID, whatever, but do it as a part of an honest update of the system that makes it easier in other ways:

- Increase early voting
- Allow mail-in balloting like Oregon
- Move elections to the weekends where they belong when people are off work
- Automatically add people to the voter registry when they turn 18
- Make it so that people without IDs can vote provisionally and come back with an ID at a later point in time
- Start investing in a way to do it all electronically. The security needs to be managed but it's surely the long-term plan
- Re-evaluate laws which disenfranchise felons
- Allow same-day registration for voting (no reason this doesn't exist everywhere in 2015)
- Tie postal change of address forms to voter registries
- Allow online voter registration if you're going to ID people at the polls
- Send an election reminder in the mail
- Extend polling hours

 

[Neutron Monster]

"Even in white areas the population you are describing skews more Democratic than the rest of the population. "

Bates is 96.6% and 68% voted Repug in the last presidential election. 18.6% are below the poverty level compared to 15.5% for the state. I didn't go through every rural county but I'm guessing that trend would hold.

It's not going out on a limb to suggest that the electoral result for the 81% above the poverty line differed from the result of the 19% below.

If Missouri's white poor votes 60/40 for R (higher than the national average won by Republicans among the white poor) and the minority poor votes 90%+ D (reasonable in MO which has a low % of Hispanics), it's still a great deal to disenfranchise as many poor people as possible if you're Republican when you look at the percentage of people in Missouri under the poverty line who are black.

 

[Neutron Monster]

To add, St. Louis city is about 50/50 white and black. It has a 30% poverty rate, and a significant majority of those in poverty are black.

The number of marginal voters here that vote 90%+ Democrat exceeds anything that the poor white vote in out state Missouri would do.

 

[Black&Gold82]

To add, St. Louis city is about 50/50 white and black. It has a 30% poverty rate, and a significant majority of those in poverty are black.

The number of marginal voters here that vote 90%+ Democrat exceeds anything that the poor white vote in out state Missouri would do.

Not disputing that. All I was saying is that a majority of poor, white, rural people still vote repug so that any voting restrictions would also effect a major supporter of the party here in Missouri.

 

[Drop.Tine]

Rumor have you been to Illinois lately?

 

[millerbleach]

Why should such an important responsibility for a citizen be easy? Getting rich shouldn't be easy, getting promotions shouldn't be easy, winning a game shouldn't be easy and the most important.......voting.......shouldn't be easy. It should be available and free to all with the same requirements to all to be eligible.

 

[wcowherd]

Voting shouldn't be easy?