Home | About | Donate

Wisconsin ID Law Kept 200,000 Voters From Polls—And Trump Won by Just 22,748 Votes


#1

Wisconsin ID Law Kept 200,000 Voters From Polls—And Trump Won by Just 22,748 Votes

Nika Knight, staff writer

Wisconsin's voter ID law may have suppressed a stunning 200,000 votes in the 2016 presidential election, a study shown exclusively to The Nation has revealed, and the law disproportionately kept Democratic and African-American voters from the polls.

President Donald Trump won Wisconsin by a mere 22,748 votes.


#2

Add the ID law to help from the Russians, fake news from Macedonia, and the James Comey revelation to Congress, and Trump was able to squeak out a victory by flipping three blue states. It all adds up to perhaps the worst disaster in American history.


#3

Yup - it might be the last presidential election for while...


#4

And Clinton's crap campaign and warmongering neoliberalism had nothing to do with it?


#5

And, the Koch Bros. " are smiling all the way to the bank ", as they say.
Will Bill Maher be enlightening his audiences on this? Or, finally just join the traveling circus, billing himself as The World's Greatest Organic Cucumber Swallower?


#6

Only for those who were suckered by lefty film flam to give up control of the Supreme Court and give the hard right control of the federal government. Here's what you silly folks wanted:

I still can't see why you're not celebrating, following your logic. After all, you decided neoliberalism (whatever that means anymore) was worth ditching for hard right conservativism. Thank you.


#7

"Add the ID law to help from the Russians, fake news from Macedonia, and the James Comey revelation to Congress, and Trump was able to squeak out a victory by flipping three blue states. It all adds up to perhaps the worst disaster in American history."

Yes that about sums it up. An unfortunate collection of shady conspiracies and disconnected coincidences.

You have the kind of keen insight it takes to be a political strategist in the DNC. :relaxed:

(Except that you forgot Jill Stein and Susan Sarandon.)


#8

Yep. It's just not possible that Obama neglected organizing during his terms and Republican efforts to suppress votes could be reasons why the hard right has gained ground. Nope. Gotta be those neolibs.

In the meantime, here's what's really happening:

I'm sure this is happening because North Carolina's governor isn't hyper-progressive. We should blame him.


#9

I didn't say anything about neolibs. Most voters don't know (or care) what that means.

If you think that the Democrats are losing because they are not conservative enough, you may have a future in the DNC too. If you tack further to the right, I'll bet you'll even pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs, for every blue-collar Democrat you lose.

The Republican Party wants power, and they don't care how they get it. The Democratic Party appears to want to line its pockets, and not be "hyper-progressive." And they have been quite successful at both.


#10

Lefty flim-flam? Hillary's or Obama's? Are you forgetting that $5,000 a year deficit that middle class families aren't spending, boosting this very weak recovery, since OhBummer took office? Because, Wall St. sure hasn't. Or, are you spending the huge raise you got when he raised the minimum wage; seriously adjusted for inflation, and then passed it through reconciliation on an omnibus budget bill? Or, on a bill addressing additional DoD spending for the _________ ( fill in the blank ) War. Just askin'.
The soft coup will not be televised. And, I'm not talking about Putzie and Trumpster, et al, here.


#11

Not sure what your target is here of "lefty flim flam" is, but as to distinctions that can be drawn between the neoliberalism of Clinton, Obama, and the rest of the corporate servicing post DLC New Democrats and the likes of Paul Ryan, well there aren't that many distinctions to be drawn.

The problem is corporate power, and if you don't think that the Clintons, and Obama have ultimately brought us Trump, then you need to get up to speed on some of that "lefty flim flam" that informs of the corporate takeover of our country largely enabled by those corporate servicing Democrats.

As to you pointing to right wing Sinclair taking over markets…you do understand that such a takeover would not be possible, if it weren't for the neoliberal economic policy driving Clinton Administration pushing for the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and Bill's subsequent signing that Act into law, right?

More neoliberal economics during the Clinton Administration…

Financial Services Modernization Act (GLBA)....which among other things, repealed Glass-Steagall
Commodity Futures Modernization Act

Those three Acts, pushed for and signed by Bill Clinton consolidated corporate power in this country in huge measure.

Clinton's campaign that did everything it could to discredit a true populist backlash against such corporate governance is the reason we have Trump.

As you know, I'm just as annoyed as you by what I have deemed the "alt-left" who not only promoted Trump as a peace candidate and true populist, but even went so far as to vote for him.

I'm not arguing that a Clinton Administration would be doing what this fascist Administration is doing, but I'm just putting my two cents in regarding the fight that needs to be taken to the current corporate power structure at the center of today's Democratic Party, and that Paul Ryan and all other corporate servicing Republicans (which are all Republicans of course) have dependable allies in the Democratic Party in that corporate servicing club.

Clinton's corporate speech tour was done for a reason. It was to demonstrate to those corporations whose side she was ultimately on. Another reason, that she lost.


#12

Your insistent misrepresentations are despicable, and stupid.

It is despicable for you to assert that critics of Clinton "want" right-wing media consolidation. No, Dark Ages wants NOTHING OF THE SORT.

It is STUPID of you to ENDLESSLY side-step the key role Clinton and the DNC played in paving the road to a Trump presidency. THAT is what Dark Ages was pointing out. And it is simply true.

You're the silly folk here.


#13

Yes. It is not "either / or," it is "both / and."

The Republicans are a shameless power-hungry cabal that stops at almost nothing to rig the electoral map.

AND, the Democrats are craven sell-outs who pay scant real attention to the basic interests of their supposed "base" as they tack constantly toward the Republicans, and toward the interests of their corporate donors.


#14

Yes, a la

The tone deaf Democratic leadership seems to "see no evil and hear no evil" -- but they certainly know how to "speak evil."


#15

Republican Party strategy, at both national and some state levels, is to win with minority support of the electorate. They know the demographic realities in this country, so of course they suppress the vote. Of course they gerrymander. Trump won with a minority of the popular vote. Bush won with a minority of the popular vote. Young people despise the Republican Party.

If the Democrats weren't so busy running away from the working class and doing the bidding of the super-rich and corporations, they'd be winning by landslides. Instead they consistently lose to a party that most of the electorate considers extremist.

Blame Russia.:smiley:


#16

No. It didn't. Is should have been obvious to you that Trump would be an absolute catastrophe compared to Clinton. And why this obsession with "warmongering"? Imperialist US foreign policy has been a constant on both sides of the election equation going back at least as far as Madison in 1812 who tried to grab a big chunk of Canada. Yes, even your beloved JFK was a savage imperialist who brought humanity to the brink of annihilation. Yet, had he lived to run against Goldwater, who would you have voted for?

Which brings us to the point. Voting is not about expressions of narcissistic flair, or emotional catharsis. It is, like one's life itself, about eking a marginally better result out of a very imperfect condition.

It is also about staying informed and not falling for the clever mass psychological manipulation methods of modern big data. The mass hysteria over comparatively trivial aspects of Clinton's conduct (one version for the right, another for the left), was clearly a result of modern mind manipulation by both corporate (Cambridge Analytica) and government (Putin) sources - right out of a dystopian sci-fi novel.


#17

Pelosi shoots down good ideas a lot better than she lets good ideas shoot up. Probably why she keeps shooting herself in the foot. Vision issues, I'm thinking.


#18

I live in Trump country - and spend a lot of time in the epicenter of Trump Country (West Virginia) - and I can assure you that Democrats are losing like crazy because they are perceived as "too left". too pro-poor, too pro n**ger, too "warmist" - this perception being the product of years of hard-right propaganda indoctrination, but a perception nonetheless.

And no, had Sanders made it to the general election, he would have faced devastating red-baiting and welfare n**gger-loving-baiting, and "socialist-warmist-hoax" baiting, and "war on coal" baiting (like Bush I did to Dukakis, but worse) and the result would have been similar.

The is the reality of the situation right now, and it is going to be a very long hard slog to change that reality.


#19

I don't disagree with your points on the legislation you list--I especially opposed the CFMA. But, and maybe this is from living in red districts all my life, I disagree with the notion that Democrats lose when they don't go "left" enough. When Democrats retook the House in 2006, it was because moderates ran and won in red and swing districts. Most of these were the seats Democrats lost later. Such is the case in those districts where things are easy to tip.


#20

Had the Democrats enacted EFCA, (on which Obama campaigned), passed a single payer or public option health care bill (rather than the Heritage Foundation written ACA), showed support for the Occupy movement rather than moving to crush it, ended drone (and other types of) warfare rather than escalating it, among other policy choices, maybe - just maybe - enough people would have been sufficiently moved to vote for the Dems that all the b.s. would have been rendered moot. In other words had the Democrats acted like an opposition party, rather than appeasers or collaborators, then they would be electorally unbeatable.