Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Retrograde

(10,852 posts)

8. What does the Department of Agriculture have to do with this?

Reply to uponit7771 (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 05:39 PM

Nov 2016

And what does redlining - a (I hope) former practice of banks to deny mortgages in certain areas - have to do with a general election? Now, gerrymandering does play a big role in who gets elected to Congress and to state legislatures, but one would think its effect would not be as evident in processes that take place at county levels (like running the elections, for example) or statewide.

And surely the 40% plus of the registered voters who didn't bother to show up bear some of the blame.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

23 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Greg Palast on AM Joy yesterday [View all] octoberlib Nov 2016 OP

Yeap, Voter suppression efforts taking full effect. FUCK GOP they can kiss my black ass till I die!! uponit7771 Nov 2016 #1

1million! octoberlib Nov 2016 #2

I did send Rachel an email about this when Joy was subbing for her. triron Nov 2016 #3

Wouldn't much of that effect both candidates equally? stopbush Nov 2016 #4

It would matter WHERE it would take place, the USDA kept blacks and Hispanics from rural areas uponit7771 Nov 2016 #5

What does the Department of Agriculture have to do with this? Retrograde Nov 2016 #8

It was former till around 2000, also if they can effect the provisionals of he urban areas more than uponit7771 Nov 2016 #9

Unrealistically high turnout in rural areas. triron Nov 2016 #6

Yeap, I've stated it looks like the rural voting population increased by 3.5% across the board... uponit7771 Nov 2016 #10

Ever heard of Kris Kobach's Interstate Crosscheck? octoberlib Nov 2016 #7

Palast said yesterday it could have been as many as 100,000 but no less than 35,000 KewlKat Nov 2016 #14

yes, it's insane, and I'm so glad to hear this getting proper attention Fast Walker 52 Nov 2016 #17

Just to be clear, I was asking about the following (and I quote): stopbush Nov 2016 #12

Palast may have a point here, but he was saying a similar thing about California during the still_one Nov 2016 #11

This is correct. Mr.Bill Nov 2016 #18

I do not know if this is still correct, but In the 2004 Ohio recount mackdaddy Nov 2016 #21

This is what the Wisconsin recount manual says about these points dragonlady Nov 2016 #22

California will count them regardless how close the results are. All states should still_one Nov 2016 #23

Here was my post on this yesterday morning. KewlKat Nov 2016 #13

I missed your post yesterday. Thanks for the link! octoberlib Nov 2016 #15

I sure hope they find those votes in the recount! Fast Walker 52 Nov 2016 #16

Wait, Greg Palast is on the Russian propaganda list!!11! Arazi Nov 2016 #19

I'd be very concerned about the rural ballots bucolic_frolic Nov 2016 #20