3.This frame leads to battles over evidence of flipping rather than asking why state can burden voters for no good reason. And 4...
Show this thread
1.I don't think the social science evidence is close to proving voter ID flipped WI to Trump. 2. These laws are bad even if they didn't 3...https://twitter.com/ariberman/status/921042535795118080 …
-
-
-
4. It gives convenient excuses for Dems to explain loss in WI without asking why African-American voters were unenthusiastic to vote
Show this thread -
So people should fight voter ID laws as unconstitutionally burdensome without needing to show they changed election results.
Show this thread -
Lots of great original reporting in
@AriBerman piece, but framing does more harm than good and puts fight on wrong terrain.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I disagree 1. You're setting a higher bar than the allegations. It is the sum of the changes to WI laws, not just voter id 2. Turnout went down 3 points in WI while it went up elsewhere. Something went wrong in WI and election law changes are a reasonable suspect
-
Reasonable suspect is very different than cost the election, which is headline and framing on Twitter
-
You say "don't think...evidence is close" election could be flipped 1. If WI had same turnout rate as 2012, 150,091 more people would have voted 2. Trump margin 22,748 3. Dems would have needed ~57.6% of lost turnout to win 4. We know these laws disproportionately affect Dems
-
Now, I can't say with certainty that Clinton would have won WI with same turnout as 2012 (keep in mind turnout actually went up elsewhere), but this hypothetical closer than you suggest
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I agree normatively with all of the above. However, Dems are more likely to champion voter rights if they feel there's an electoral benefit
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Aren’t you simply assuming that Af-Am voters were unenthusiastic? Where is the evidence of that?
-
Shouldn’t the presumption be they wanted to vote but were prevented?
-
But what justifies that presumption?
-
The fact that the numbers were down from 2012 & that the GOP felt it necessary to pass voter suppression legislation?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't know how you make the argument that black voters were unenthusiastic when the issue is they were prevented from voting.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.