General Discussion

nmmi

(248 posts)

75. Sorry, but as I patiently pointed out, not everyone who is over 18 can legally vote - e.g. non-citizens. a lot of felons

Reply to ancianita (Reply #74)

Mon Nov 18, 2024, 04:02 PM

Nov 18

Thanks for the sources of registered voters and voting age population. We've hashed all of this before, and I'm happy for any statistics. But again,

#47

Ineligible to vote are those under 18, non-citizens, and ineligible felons (in some states felons who have completed their sentences are eligible, in some states they are not)

(bolding added to the original)

Again, I'm looking for a better source of the number who are ELIGIBLE TO VOTE,

In my #73 -

Anyway, I just think we should include people who can legally vote (or who can legally register to vote), when looking at voting percentages.

As for just registered voters, the Trump vote is 40.6% using your numbers (see #73). Is that who "we" are or are not or whatever? (Still not getting that part).

Perhaps a better approach might be to start with Kamala Harris's percentage and discuss ways to build up from there in the next election (with whoever the next Democratic candidate is), including improving on the voter turnout.

I could pick through the op-ed and give examples, but I won't even though I'm not giving an inch on the audience most writers imply when they use "we." Unless they specifically name their audience. Just sayin'.

Edited a couple minutes later
OK, some of the "we" is over broad. She's not conflating "we" with Trump voters but, from the OP:

Mr. Trump’s voters are granted a level of care and coddling that defies credulity and that is afforded to no other voting bloc. Many of them believe the most ludicrous things: babies being aborted after birth and children going to school as one gender and returning home surgically altered as another gender even though these things simply do not happen. Time and again, we hear the wild lies these voters believe and we act as if they are sharing the same reality as ours, as if they are making informed decisions about legitimate issues. We act as if they get to dictate the terms of political engagement on a foundation of fevered mendacity.

We must refuse to participate in a mass delusion. We must refuse to accept that the ignorance on display is a congenital condition rather than a choice. All of us should refuse to pretend that any of this is normal and that these voters are just woefully misunderstood and that if only the Democrats addressed their economic anxiety, they might vote differently. While they are numerous, that does not make them right.

I added the bolding. The "we" above sounds like she means non-Trump voters, especially Democrats. But not all (or even most) Democrats have the characteristics bolded in the above.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

84 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A NYT opinion column that nails it. [View all] crud Nov 17 OP

Thanks for this 😊 Blue_Tires Nov 17 #1

that one is a few years too late. rampartd Nov 17 #2

They can never undo all of their sane-washing wolfie001 Nov 17 #23

"liberal new york times" rampartd Nov 18 #40

Judith Miller barf wolfie001 Nov 18 #48

oh NOW they say it Skittles Nov 17 #3

"They" aren't saying it. This is a Roxanne Gay Op-Ed. maxsolomon Nov 18 #56

The NY Times encouraged and supported, actively, Trump, both in 2016 and in 2024. Fuck that "but her emails..." "old... NNadir Nov 17 #4

For ALL practical purposes, simply put DENVERPOPS Nov 18 #51

Oh wow NOW a warning? mountain grammy Nov 17 #5

Since its an Opinion/Editorial by Roxanne Gay maxsolomon Nov 18 #53

And yet, somehow, they couldn't endorse Harris. Grumpy Old Guy Nov 17 #6

I'm pretty sure NYT DID endorse VP Harris Seeking Serenity Nov 17 #8

False Shrek Nov 17 #13

It was the Washington Post that didn't endorse her radical noodle Nov 17 #14

I stand corrected. Grumpy Old Guy Nov 17 #30

And yet you did not correct the post that accused them of not endorsing Harris maxsolomon Nov 18 #52

No, the Washington Post refused endorsements, whathehell Nov 18 #49

Wtf?? WE'VE been saying the exact same B.See Nov 17 #7

Great piece by Contributing Opinion Writer Roxane Gay. Pinback Nov 17 #9

This piece makes a too-common, WRONG assumption about who "we" are. 22% of Americans is NOT who 78% of Americans are. ancianita Nov 17 #10

Thank you for that. If only we could convince more to vote. Hermit-The-Prog Nov 17 #18

YW. Just mapping it out helps. ancianita Nov 17 #21

Brilliant response - thank you! jmbar2 Nov 17 #24

Absolutely! ancianita Nov 17 #25

I really like your fighting spirit jmbar2 Nov 17 #26

Awwww, hell to the YEAH !!! Seinan Sensei Nov 17 #28

i love what you wrote but where are you getting the 22% number (and the 78% number)? nt orleans Nov 17 #32

Thanks. Sure. ancianita Nov 17 #33

got it! thank you! orleans Nov 17 #35

29% of US voting age population voted for Trump in 2024. SomewhereInTheMiddle Nov 18 #42

Exactly. ancianita Nov 18 #44

76,510,127 / 244,666,890 eligible-to-vote equals 31.3% of those eligible to vote voted for tRump nmmi Nov 18 #47

If you want to use a university from Florida, run by Sasse/Fuchs, I'm not going to argue about eligible vote numbers. ancianita Nov 18 #57

If you have any other source, I will gladly use that. nmmi Nov 18 #73

Sure. I live in Florida and since covid, don't trust Florida's govt or RW universities. I use other sources. ancianita Nov 18 #74

Sorry, but as I patiently pointed out, not everyone who is over 18 can legally vote - e.g. non-citizens. a lot of felons nmmi Nov 18 #75

If you want the electorate population, you have to do the math as shown in my posts above. ancianita Nov 18 #76

Uh, err, you forgot that many felons can't vote. And the undocumented population is a subset of non-citizens nmmi Nov 18 #77

I think the "electorate" as the denominator... reACTIONary Nov 18 #50

I do, too, since it's the bigger population that, divided into Trump votes, shows them as a percent of ancianita Nov 18 #58

Sorry, but no Cosmocat Nov 18 #43

Worth considering, so here goes. ancianita Nov 18 #45

but 346,134,190 is not of voting age mahina Nov 18 #81

Right F'ckn On! montanacowboy Nov 17 #11

No thanks mcar Nov 17 #12

Where were they in the last days before the election? brush Nov 17 #15

They had their heads buried in the sand sakabatou Nov 17 #16

Did you read the same NYT I did in the last days before the election? maxsolomon Nov 18 #55

I watched NYT staffers on cable constantly bash Biden/Harris. brush Nov 18 #61

I'm defending it because I don't believe its the malign actor that you do, maxsolomon Nov 18 #62

Oh please. The NYT is ust about as complicit in not going after the 'weaving', white supremacist asshole that is tsrump. brush Nov 18 #63

What am I supposed to subscribe to? The Daily Worker? maxsolomon Nov 18 #68

Seems to me the NYT bashed Biden/Harris as much as you allege it declared trump unfit. brush Nov 18 #70

The NYT has been an active participant in the propaganda network. Hermit-The-Prog Nov 17 #17

Exactly. ancianita Nov 17 #27

Dietrich Bonhoeffer said stupid prople are the most dangerous Beck23 Nov 17 #19

Yes, and Bonhoeffer knew why. ancianita Nov 17 #29

A NYT opinion column that nails it. MLWR Nov 17 #20

Too little, too late. Fuck the NYT. (nt) Paladin Nov 17 #22

IMO, Harris still had the best chance. Any other dem would have done much worse AlexSFCA Nov 17 #31

Agree. ancianita Nov 17 #36

Roxane Gay, a contributing Opinion writer, continues... Hekate Nov 17 #34

I wonder... kevinore Nov 17 #37

Archive littlemissmartypants Nov 17 #38

Day late and several dollars short relayerbob Nov 18 #39

Too little, too late. Old Crank Nov 18 #41

To my knowledge PennRalphie Nov 18 #46

Said it the other day... krkaufman Nov 18 #54

Another good piece... krkaufman Nov 19 #84

There were several excellent op-ed columns in yesterday's NYT bif Nov 18 #59

That's the most important thing. maxsolomon Nov 18 #60

I still subscribe to the NYTimes because they have some great writers and reporters (and the crossword and games), but LymphocyteLover Nov 18 #65

Can you point at a single mainstream US newspaper whose priorities weren't "warped"? maxsolomon Nov 18 #69

Actually our Detroit Free Press is pretty decent. bif Nov 18 #71

In what way? maxsolomon Nov 18 #78

Do you work for them? JustAnotherGen Nov 18 #80

I don't work for them. Are you serious? maxsolomon Nov 18 #82

I don't know. My local paper avoids partisan politics as much as they can. Seemed like the Philadelphia Enquirer LymphocyteLover Nov 18 #83

OMG yes! The people most under-represented in the media are regular sane Democrats like us!!! LymphocyteLover Nov 18 #64

I love the NYT's Sunday Edition bif Nov 18 #66

Where were they JustAnotherGen Nov 18 #67

Tell me you don't read the NYT without telling me you don't read the NYT. maxsolomon Nov 18 #72

Ah - yeah i didn't and won't JustAnotherGen Nov 18 #79