US Politics: midterm elections are nigh: do you know where your voting rights are?

[MerenthaClone]

Olester McGriff, an African-American man, lives in Dallas. He has voted in several Texas elections. This year when he went to the polls he was unable to vote due to the new photo ID law. Mr. McGriff had a kidney transplant and can no longer drive; his driver’s license expired in 2008. He tried to get an ID twice prior to voting. In May, he visited an office in Grand Prairie and was told he could not get an ID because he was outside of Dallas County. In July, he visited an office in Irving and was told they were out of IDs and would have to come back another day.

Bullshit story. If he can get to the Grand Pairie DMV in one day, then he can get to 3 others in one day. The local dmv page shows that there are 3 other DMV's within 13 miles from the one in Irving. 13 miles isn't far. Hell, I'm getting ready to go to work and my office is just over 13 miles away.

I also doubt that the Irving DMV was "out" of ID's.

Here is a link for the Irving DMV that shows the distance between 4 DMV's.

http://local.dmv.org/texas/dallas-county/irving/1003-w.-sixth-st./dmv-office-locations.php

I also love how the voter fraud crowd says that incidence after incidence of proving voter fraud is deemed insignificant. Well it seems that every incidence of someone being denied an ID is insignificant.

For a man who cannot drive and has significant health issues, 13 miles is a pretty damn long way. How would you like him to get there?

[Seli]

...

I also doubt that the Irving DMV was "out" of ID's.

...

Which is the point, isn't it? In a country with a long history of denying people access to the rights and services they are owed that seems to smell as a lie.

[awesome possum]

I may be a more cheerful me

Indeed you may. And in 2 years when Hillary is sworn in, we'll laugh at the collective temper tantrum from the right. And in 6-8 years when the Democrats have another Super Majority (thanks in part to just how fucking awful your party is), we'll laugh at the crying and whining and gnashing of teeth as your dying party tries desperately to stay relevant.

So yes, enjoy a mid-term victory that means nothing thanks to Obama's veto pen, and start counting down the days. Because as your party's demographics die out, ours grow stronger. Your party can pretend to have the present thanks to gerrymandering and racism and hatred and fear, because the future belongs to progressives and liberals.

[Fez]

I'm sort of confused why there's a lot of talk about a runnoff in Louisiana. I was getting the impression that Landrieu was going to lose most heavily of all Dems defending seats.

I'd say Landrieu is actually in reasonably good shape right now. She's going to come in first on Tuesday, and while it looks like that will be with around 46% of the vote, there's a non-zero chance she could hit 50% if AA turnout is high enough, and then avoid a runoff entirely. If it does go to a runoff, she'll be the underdog (particularly if this is the race to decide Senate control), but runoffs can be tricky things.

For instance, in the 2002 election, Landrieu got 46% on election night, with three Republicans taking 52% and another Democrat getting 2%. She was considered the heavy underdog in the runoff, and Karl Rove was running "operation icing on the cake" to knock her off, but she ended up with 51.7% in the runoff and kept her seat.

Another wrinkle is the fact she chairs the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and is extraordinarily friendly with the oil and gas industry. If she loses, Maria Cantwell becomes Chair, or Ranking Member if the Dems lose the majority, and then Chair after 2016 when the Dems take the Senate back. Cantwell is extremely pro-environment and her replacing Landrieu would be a major blow to the oil & gas industry. So they are likely going to take the longview and go to bat to support Landrieu in the runoff; they already have given her double the amount of money they've given Cassidy, her likely runoff opponent.

ETA: She's certainly in better shape than Pyror, and probably better than Udall too (the CO one; the NM one is romping to a blowout re-election).

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Indeed you may. And in 2 years when Hillary is sworn in, we'll laugh at the collective temper tantrum from the right. And in 6-8 years when the Democrats have another Super Majority (thanks in part to just how fucking awful your party is), we'll laugh at the crying and whining and gnashing of teeth as your dying party tries desperately to stay relevant.

So yes, enjoy a mid-term victory that means nothing thanks to Obama's veto pen, and start counting down the days. Because as your party's demographics die out, ours grow stronger. Your party can pretend to have the present thanks to gerrymandering and racism and hatred and fear, because the future belongs to progressives and liberals.

Will Hillary get the nom? Or will they push her side again for Warren or some other "fresh" candidate? Maybe she can get another admin. job and not embarrass herself this time. As to the rest of your post, why wait 2 years, 6 years to win elections. Why not win the mid term. It's because your parties policies are the policies of failure. You know your screwed when you can't even get your uninformed base to vote! And why won't they vote...because they're not feeling any of your "progress" and still can't find a job. We've tried the liberal way and it failed miserably.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

Is there an exact dollar figure that constitutes a living wage? Or is it something that varies from place to place?

[Fez]

Is there an exact dollar figure that constitutes a living wage? Or is it something that varies from place to place?

Considering how much expenses, particularly housing, can vary from place to place, I'd think a living wage would have to vary too.

[1918me]

Is there an exact dollar figure that constitutes a living wage? Or is it something that varies from place to place?

I'd imagine it must, given the huge variability of residential costs.

ETA: ninja'd.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

When the fast food workers were demanding $15/hour I couldn't help but think about how much more it takes to live in New York.

[Commodore]

Why should the only legal jobs be those that one can live off of in perpetuity without supplementation?

And if minimum wage laws don't affect hiring, why are the mentally challenged exempt from them?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

This is all the libs have to run on. No wonder they are expected to shit the bed Tuesday.

[Summah]

And if minimum wage laws don't affect hiring, why are the mentally challenged exempt from them?

Those are extremely discriminatory and exploitative. It should be illegal. And it's not just people with intellectual disabilities, but also people with other disabilities who do not have intellectual disabilities.

[TrackerNeil]

This is all the libs have to run on. No wonder they are expected to shit the bed Tuesday.

If this is a demonstration of your understanding of politics, it's little wonder you find so much disagreement here. The Democrats are in a tough spot this year mainly because a) they are defending more Senate seats than Republicans; and b) mid-term elections are always difficult for Dems. The other explanations are really just dumb punditry.

[alguien]

Speaking of, I have heard hardly anything about how Seattle's minimum wage experiment is going for good or for ill. Anyone got any good info?

While living here for over a year, I haven't seen any major effects on pricing. Here's some anecdotal evidence that it's done well:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/09/14/15-now-seatac/

[TerraPrime]

Re: Tracker

Nit-pick - mid term elections are generally bad for the party who is in control. That's why 2006 the Democrats swept the elections. Historically, the oppositional party picks up seats during mid term elections and looks like the GOP is on track to do so. The question is how bad the damage will be.

I would also like to point out that the economy is doing better than it had been by all indicators and the PPACA is a success for the most part. The Democrats have a solid platform to run on if only they'd properly capitalize on it. There are races that the democrats shouldn't even be worrying, like in Iowa or for the governorship of MA, and yet they have to. Only blessing is that te GOP also has a good slate of surprising competitive races.

[awesome possum]

Will Hillary get the nom? Or will they push her side again for Warren or some other "fresh" candidate? Maybe she can get another admin. job and not embarrass herself this time. As to the rest of your post, why wait 2 years, 6 years to win elections. Why not win the mid term. It's because your parties policies are the policies of failure. You know your screwed when you can't even get your uninformed base to vote! And why won't they vote...because they're not feeling any of your "progress" and still can't find a job. We've tried the liberal way and it failed miserably.

Careful, your FoxNews is showing.

[alguien]

Regarding the economy, I realize it's the Daily Kos and biased, but this infographic seems pretty impressive, and the ones I checked seemed accurate:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10524653_10152718182699255_6446770212775836705_n.png?oh=c92f285d058572fb863aa1f3e89956d4&oe=54AAE68F&__gda__=1425016816_7f8338597a49f2140289ceaf8e48230e

ETA: these numbers seem pretty good. I mean, compared to the Conservative Disaster that was W, who failed in all these measures previously. People talk about Obama's approval rating as "plummeting" from 46% to %42. It's weird. What was W's approval rating round this time? High 20's, low 30's?

[Wee baby Shamus]

For a man who cannot drive and has significant health issues, 13 miles is a pretty damn long way. How would you like him to get there?

There are multiple ways to get him there. He can take a cab. He can take a bus. He can get a ride from a friend or family member. He can use Uber too. If I lived near him I would gladly give him a ride.

I also doubt that he couldn't get an ID from a DMV just because he was outside of Dallas county.

You can go to any DMV in one state and get the service you need. It doesn't matter what "county" you live in.

[The Fallen]

Why do most arguments against Libertarians include "in their world..." Am I mistaken, and in fact I've been communicating with Libertarians through an interdimensional fiber-optic network (You go Verizon!)

The problems, as Commodore alluded to earlier, Terra, are not the goals, per se. It's the means by which these goals are effectuated that presents a problem. In other words, it's the imposition. If people voluntarily gather and agree up on a wage for which they will submit their labor, there's no problem. When the government intervenes and imposes a price with which both employer and employee are forced to comply, there's a problem. Why must the liability of "undue economic pressure," however vague that is, forcibly be transferred from one party to another or shared by both parties? A better question: why would one espouse an ideology that seeks to impose and force obligations?

It's not imposing a price. It's setting a floor. So as to avoid exploitation. I assume you're against exploitation.

People can, and do, still negotiate agreements upon a wage for which they will submit their labor. Usually, the people privileged enough to actually negotiate are doing so for sums that wouldn't be affected by a minimum wage, as those sums are usually a lot higher than a hypothetical $15 per hour minimum wage.

And the $100 or $1,000 per hour minimum wage example is just silly. There are limits to everything. $15 an hour is clearly nowhere near that limit. The real dissension is not due to market interruptions or the such. It's due to greed. Don't bother asking for studies or research. This is my opinion. Even if I'm wrong, wouldn't it better to try it and find out? Just like with the disastrous trickle-down economics theory, which only managed to shift over 90% of the gains from economic growth to the top 10% of the population? Although I'm sure that to the proponents of trickle-down economics, it accomplished exactly what they wanted.

Talking about simple economics. Wouldn't people having more money to go out and spend do more for the economy - yes even creating jobs - than giving the wealthy more money to hide or horde?

As for businesses creating jobs, isn't the motivation of a businessman to make as much money as possible with as little cost as possible? The perfect scenario for a businessman would be to have as few workers as possible producing as much product as possible so they could keep as much money as possible. So it's in their interests to exploit the workforce as much as possible. Should we leave it to the businessman to decide those parameters? It would be like having the wolf decide security for the sheep.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

That sounds good and I'm sure it's what you tell yourself to feel better. But the truth is, dems are in a tough spot because they have done nothing to help their constituents and large segments of their base. Unemployment rates for AA and Latinos are still high. No balls to do anything about immigration. And the economy still stinks. The usual effects of liberalism