Originally Posted By KongKongFuey Maybe next time you won't say the word $ALL$ Because you were wrong and can't admit it. Choose words that reflect what you want to say and we won't have misCommunication in fUTurE postings.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Republicans currently have superior strength in voter turnout and seek to preserve that situation in any way they can." But if Republicans can only have that advantage through suppressing turnout of certain people, then that's cheating.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Maybe next time you won't say the word $ALL$" Oh I'd say it again. Because only a fool would not understand that "all voters "doesn't include people not eligible to vote in the first place, like five-year-olds.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<But if Republicans can only have that advantage through suppressing turnout of certain people, then that's cheating.>> It's not like they are trying to specifically restrict Black voters. The ID requirement would apply to everyone, not just Black people. And large numbers of poor, young or Black people CHOOSE not to vote. I'm not sure that requiring an ID would make much difference one way or the other. The great majority of people in those groups already have one. You need one to drive, cash a check, apply for Medicaid, Food Stamps or Unemployment benefits. I think in most cases people in these groups don't vote because they feel it will make no difference. They feel they have little stake in the system and that their interests will not be represented no matter who wins, and to a large extent they are 100% correct. That is the cause for low voter turnout... not lack of an ID. But it has become one of those "pissing match" political issues where both sides rigidly line up on one side or the other even though it really makes very little difference. Meanwhile, nothing of consequence is ever accomplished. And so it goes...
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But it has become one of those "pissing match" political issues where both sides rigidly line up on one side or the other<< Except of course, that's not what happened at all. What happened is Republicans created a fake issue entirely, then actively legislated to "fix" the fake issue as a means to restrict people from not voting who tend to note vote Republican. Democrats said that's B.S. and they shouldn't do it. Democrats did not try to legislate anything (ironic, right, since Republicans are all about "small government") and didn't try and restrict anything. Democrats just point out voter ID laws for what they are. But in the intellectually lazy world of the "moderate," Republicans actively legislating to make it harder to vote and Democrats saying "Wait a minute" is exactly the same thing. That makes perfect sense! Yup, both parties are totally the same.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip It has become all tangled up because of the undocumented alien issue. If they would get to work and solve that, I think the whole ID thing would go away. Democrats want law changes and then increased enforcement. Republicans want increased enforcement and then law changes. There has to be a way to find a compromise position. But I'm not convinced either side really wants one. They both want it their way.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<It has become all tangled up because of the undocumented alien issue. If they would get to work and solve that, I think the whole ID thing would go away.>> No, it wouldn't. If you didn't watch my previous link to the Paul Weyrich video from the Reagan era, you should. In it, Weyrich explains that the "Goo-Goo Syndrome" meaning "good government" in which all eligible citizens vote in every election, is bad for the GOP. It's bad because they don't win when the moderates and progressives -- most of the country -- vote. Therefore, it's of the utmost importance that the GOP do what it can to keep the voting rolls down. The following is an excellent well-written article in The New Yorker magazine. It spells out why conservatives love the "poll tax": <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/how-conservatives-justify-poll-taxes.html">http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...xes.html</a> How Conservatives Justify Poll Taxes By Jonathan Chait <> During the Obama era, the Republican Party has made the modern revival of the poll tax a point of party dogma. Direct poll taxes have been illegal for 50 years, but the GOP has discovered a workaround. They have passed laws requiring photo identification, forcing prospective voters who lack them, who are disproportionately Democratic and nonwhite, to undergo the extra time and inconvenience of acquiring them. They have likewise fought to reduce early voting hours on nights and weekends, thereby making it harder for wage workers and single parents, who have less flexibility at work and in their child care, to cast a ballot. The effect of all these policies is identical to a poll tax. (Indeed, a study found that the cost they impose is considerably greater than existing poll taxes at the time they were banned.) It imposes burdens of money and time upon prospective voters, which are more easily borne by the rich and middle-class, thereby weeding out less motivated voters. Voting restrictions are usually enacted by Republican-controlled states with close political balances, where the small reduction in turnout it produces among Democratic-leaning constituencies is potentially decisive in a close race. The simple logic of supply and demand suggests that if you raise the cost of a good, the demand for it will fall. Requiring voters to spend time and money obtaining new papers and cards as a condition of voting will axiomatically lead to fewer of them voting. It is precisely because the effect is so obvious that conservatives must labor so strenuously to deny it. National Review editor Rich Lowry, writing in Politico, scoffs at arguments against the Republican poll tax agenda. Lowry offers three arguments for voter identification laws. The first is that we can’t prove that they reduce voting (“its effect can’t reliably be detected by the tools of social science”). It is indeed difficult to prove the impact of vote restrictions, because we cannot run natural experiments. If you could hold an election with vote restrictions in place, and then go back in time and hold it again without them, you could reliably measure the effect. In real life, no two elections are ever identical, which makes it impossible to “reliably” pinpoint the magnitude of the impact. The Government Accountability Office surveyed ten studies of the effects of voter-identification laws, only four of which found decreases in turnout. Lowry trumpets this finding. The GAO also studied the impact of vote restrictions in Kansas and Tennessee and found significant reductions in the African-American vote. Lowry says that the Republicans in those states “dispute the methodology,” and takes their side. What the dispute over methodology really shows is that the impact of one change in voting laws is extremely hard to prove. A natural response would be to fall back on the intuitive premise that raising the cost of voting reduces voting. But conservatives seem reluctant to apply their normal beliefs in markets to this question. Lowry suggests that a better measure of the effect of voter-identification laws is “How many voters are showing up to vote, only to realize that they have been denied their rights by the ID requirement?” Not many, it turns out, prompting Lowry to sneer: "That means in Kansas and Tennessee, altogether about 1,000 ballots weren’t counted (and perhaps many of them for good reason), out of roughly 3.5 million cast. There you have it ladies and gentlemen, voter suppression! It is of such stuff that Jim Crow was made." Is it possible that some of the prospective voters who lacked the requisite identification did not show up at the polls at all? Lowry does not consider the possibility. Lowry’s final argument compares voting rights to the right to obtain a gun, stay at a hotel, and purchase a marriage license. “No one goes around complaining that these requirements infringe on the rights of minorities to own a firearm, get married, or avail themselves of public accommodations,” he argues. But these other activities confer a direct and tangible benefit: You get a gun or a spouse or a hotel room. People are more willing to endure cost and inconvenience if they get something out of it in return. Voting does not offer concrete benefits. It is an abstract expression of civic engagement. There’s a limit to the inconvenience and cost a person will undergo to do it, especially when their life is already stressed. People make marginal decisions about voting all the time, balancing their generalized desire to fulfill a civic duty against the hard demands of a day-to-day schedule. The entire purpose of the new poll taxes are to tilt that calculus away from voting for a small but hopefully decisive bloc. It is revealing that Lowry, like most conservative defenders of modern poll taxes, does not defend the Republican Party’s fervor for reducing early and weekend voting. It is easier to defend voter identification laws independently as a necessary inconvenience to ward off the mostly theoretical problem of voter impersonation. Restrictions on early voting cannot be defended in these terms. And if you consider them together, it makes it all too obvious that both these things serve the identical purpose of raising the inconvenience of voting for a small chunk of Democratic voters. There is something even more revealing about Lowry’s comparison between voting and other licenses: It proves too much. To drive home the equation, Lowry suggests that marriage, gun ownership, and staying in a hotel are “important rights,” just like voting. But those are also rights that you have to pay for with money. That is to say, if voting is simply a right on par with buying a gun or renting a hotel room, why should one cost money and the other be free? Why should people have to pay the government directly for marriage or gun licenses, and get to vote for free? Lowry repeatedly scoffs at the idea that vote restrictions amount to a poll tax. But the poll tax is precisely what he is advocating. <> Chait makes a good point about the true motivation behind the voter I.D. card, in the form of Republican election officials reducing or eliminating early voting, and restricting vote-by-mail/absentee ballots, and voting out of precinct. The arguments being made for the validity of having voter I.D. cannot be used to justify the reduction in voting availability. So what's the argument for scaling back early voting times and locations, and not allowing voters to cast ballots in different precincts that are more convenient for them, like where they work? Truthfully, there are none. Nada. So the whole house of cards comes crashing down, exposing the true motivation for conservatives wanting to restrict the voting base: eliminating the Goo-Goo Syndrome so the white rich guys can remain in control.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/10/24/3583565/south-dakota-native-american-voter-suppression/">http://thinkprogress.org/elect...ression/</a> How A South Dakota County Is Suppressing The Native American Vote by Kira Lerner Posted on October 24, 2014 at 10:29 am Updated: October 24, 2014 at 6:37 pm <> FORT THOMPSON, SOUTH DAKOTA — The Crow Creek Indian Reservation lies along the Missouri River in central South Dakota, an area marked by rolling hills of corn fields, a government-constructed dam and a Native American town centered around the tribe’s casino. While South Dakotans across the state have been voting for weeks — the state offers 46 days of early absentee voting — the Crow Creek Sioux have yet to see their ballots. The closest early voting site is a 50 mile roundtrip away in Gann Valley, a town with a population of 14. The Buffalo County auditor, a white resident of the town, has refused to set aside federal funds to open a satellite office for early voting on the reservation this year. That 50-mile trip is effectively impossible for many people on the reservation. Sixty-five-year-old Crow Creek resident Sylvia Walters lives in a government-subsidized apartment building for the elderly and disabled in Fort Thompson, the largest town on Crow Creek. She told ThinkProgress that because she doesn’t have a car, she has to pay someone to drive her if she wants to leave her immediate part of town. “I stay home a lot. Let’s put it that way,” she said. Although she plans on voting in November, she said she would have preferred having the option to vote early. “Sometimes you forget on the day or you’re busy,” she said. “This way when you’re thinking about it you can get it done.” Native American voting rights group Four Directions has been fighting since 2002 to give Indians the same voting opportunities as other South Dakotans. Over breakfast at the Lode Star Casino in Fort Thompson, executive director OJ Semans, his wife Barb and Buffalo County Commissioner Donita Laudner told ThinkProgress the county’s refusal to open an early voting center is an attempt to suppress Native American votes. “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that if you’re given 46 days to vote, you are going to have more people vote than if you’re given one day,” Semans, a Rosebud Sioux, said. “[The auditor] says there’s six different ways to vote, but we don’t want six different ways. We just want what you have, which is a satellite office.” The reservation crosses three counties, with a majority of the 2,000 Crow Creek Sioux tribal members living in Buffalo County and making up 85 percent of the county’s population. Twenty-six miles east, the 14 people who live in Gann Valley form the smallest county seat in the country — and Semans said last time he checked, someone had crossed off 14 on the population sign and wrote 11 in marker. Without a local polling place, the residents of the Crow Creek reservation will either have to travel the 30 minutes to Gann Valley to take advantage of early voting or wait to vote at the polling place that will operate at the reservation’s Catholic church on Election Day. With most of the reservation living below the poverty line and no public transportation in the area, the 26 mile distance can be enough to prevent much of the population from voting. “They may have a vehicle, but the vehicle may not have a license on it or they may not have insurance,” Laudner said. “And have you seen our gas prices? People don’t venture off.” Greg Lembrich, a New York attorney who also serves as legal director of Four Directions, told ThinkProgress that driving an hour to vote early is not an option when people are living in deep poverty. “Given the transportation difficulties, the levels of poverty, the rural nature, the distance between communities, the more time people have to get the polls, it becomes much more likely that we’re going to get them to participate and cast their ballots,” he said. The federal government passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002 to provide funding for states to meet minimum election standards. Elaine Wulff, the county auditor, told ThinkProgress that Buffalo County has HAVA funds available, but they are not replaceable once they are used. “It’s a limited supply and they won’t last very long,” she said, but then added the county was reimbursed after the 2012 election. “If we used this money for an early voting center, it would take away from the Buffalo County budget funds.” Laudner estimates the office would cost the county approximately $5,000 and the money would be reimbursed from the state’s HAVA fund of more than $9 million in interest-bearing accounts. South Dakota’s 2014 HAVA plan specifically states that funds can be used to set up an additional in-person satellite absentee voting location if the particular jurisdiction has 50 percent more individuals below the poverty line than the rest of the county, and if the residents live 50 percent farther from the county seat than the rest of the county — both conditions that Fort Thompson meets. During a state Board of Elections meeting in July 2013, Four Directions requested that South Dakota use HAVA funds for satellite voting centers on three Sioux reservations. Secretary of State Jason Gant (R) said he’d ask the federal Election Assistance Commission for permission. But Stephanie Woodward, a journalist covering Native American issues, reported at the time that Gant knew the request would not be answered because the EAC didn’t have staff to respond to such a query. When Laudner questioned the lack of a satellite office at this month’s Buffalo County Commissioners meeting, she said she was told that Wulff didn’t want to expend the HAVA funds because they would run out. However, “if they spend the money, they get it back,” Laudner pointed out. “A measly $5,000 for early voting is not going to break you.” The county is refusing to designate HAVA funds because they’d rather use the money for other purposes, Lembrich said. “Which really begs the question: what other things? The funds are to help Americans vote and the Americans in Buffalo County that need help voting are the 1,300 Native American residents who live and around Fort Thompson, not the 14 people in Gann Valley who can walk across the street any day of the week and vote.” Four Directions has fought for and won early voting centers on other reservations across the site in past election cycles, including Buffalo County in 2012. As a result of early voting in Fort Thompson, Native American voter turnout rose from 55 percent in 2008 to nearly 75 percent in 2012, the largest increase among the state’s 66 counties. “While voting on the rest of the state has gone down, voting on tribal communities and the reservations has actually gone up,” Lembrich said. Looking to continue its successful efforts before the midterm election this year, Four Directions filed a lawsuit this month on behalf of four Native Americans in the western Jackson County, South Dakota, home of the Oglala Sioux tribe, alleging that the lack of a satellite polling center on the reservation prevented Native Americans from voting. The suit claimed that Indian citizens in Jackson County have to travel almost two hours on average — twice as long as the round-trip travel time required for white citizens — to reach their polling location. Last week, a federal judge granted the Native Americans’ motion for a preliminary injunction, forcing the county to open an early voting polling center on the tribe in Wanblee, Jackson County on October 20 for both voter registration and early voting. “Previously the early voting was available only at the county seat in Kadoka, which is 90 percent white and not on the reservation,” Eileen O’Connor, an attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, who represented the Jackson County Native Americans in the litigation, told ThinkProgress. At this point, all of the counties Four Directions has worked with have early voting sites except Buffalo County, where much of their get out the vote effort is now focused. Both Laudner and Semans know the power of the Native American vote. Laudner led Senator Tim Johnson’s Buffalo County office during his 2002 campaign while Semans’ wife led the office in her county. When Johnson won by just 524 votes, many South Dakotans blamed the Native Americans for “stealing the vote,” Laudner said. “We’re such a small, minute number. But that small, minute number is going to make it and push them over,” Laudner said. But while progress is being made across the state by Four Directions and other Native vote advocates, Buffalo County has regressed. Like Walters, other elderly and disabled Crow Creek residents said it would be difficult or impossible for them to travel to Gann Valley to vote. Joy White Mouse has been in a wheelchair for much of her life since she suffered serious injuries in a car accident. She also lives in Fort Thompson’s subsidized housing and requires constant care from her children and other aides. Laudner is working to certify tribal members as notaries so people can vote absentee, but if White Mouse isn’t able to vote by mail, she’ll have to have assistance to get her wheelchair down the road to the polling center or to the notary’s office– a difficult task in a town without sidewalks and with unevenly paved roads. Even if she could drive to Gann Valley, the polling center isn’t wheelchair accessible. Semans said it’s too late for the county to open an early voting center in Fort Thompson for the midterms, so Four Directions and Laudner will focus on get out the vote efforts before election day. “I have no doubt in my mind that the only reason the county isn’t setting up a satellite office out here is because they are Native American Indians,” Semans said. The county’s unequal treatment of Native Americans extends beyond early voting– as a commissioner, Laudner said she represents close to 1,000 Buffalo County residents while the two other commissioners each represent fewer than 200 people. That’s why she became involved in the county government and Native votings rights efforts– to fight to equalize their voting opportunities. “Whatever happened to one man, one vote?” <> Did you catch this little tidbit: "Both Laudner and Semans know the power of the Native American vote. Laudner led Senator Tim Johnson’s Buffalo County office during his 2002 campaign while Semans’ wife led the office in her county. When Johnson won by just 524 votes, many South Dakotans blamed the Native Americans for 'stealing the vote,' Laudner said." The Republicans blamed the Native Americans for 'stealing the vote'? Really? As if they're a bunch of undocumented immigrants? Hells bells... we're the immigrants compared to them! No mystery why the Republican controlled election officials refused to set up early voting and voting registration on tribal land. Say it with me: SUPPRESS. THEIR. VOTE. BECAUSE. THEY. STEAL. ELECTIONS!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/10/19/3581575/with-id-law-on-hold-wisconsin-republicans-vow-to-challenge-voters-at-the-polls/">http://thinkprogress.org/elect...e-polls/</a> With Voter ID On Hold, Here’s What Wisconsin Republicans Have Planned For Election Day by Alice Ollstein Posted on October 19, 2014 at 12:09 pm Updated: October 19, 2014 at 1:17 pm <> MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN—Less than one week after the Supreme Court delayed the implementation of Wisconsin’s voter ID law until after the midterm elections, a GOP official urged Republican activists to take matters into their own hands to prevent voter fraud. Milwaukee County’s Republican Elections Commissioner Rick Baas warned a crowd of volunteers and supporters Friday night to be “concerned about voter fraud,” and urged the hundreds of attendees to take an “extra step of vigilance.” “You as a Wisconsin resident can challenge people who are not supposed to be voting,” he said at the Milwaukee County Republicans event. “You’ve got to do that.” Under state law, voters, election workers, official observers, or any member of the public can challenge the validity of someone’s vote, but to do so, they must swear under oath that they have firsthand knowledge that the person is not qualified to vote. A challenge cannot be based on a mere suspicion or hunch. “Providing those parameters would be important to any discussion related to voter challenges,” Milwaukee City Election Commission Director Neil Albrecht told ThinkProgress. “Failure to provide has the potential to incite unsubstantiated challenges and a disruption to voting.” Others echoed this concern that Baas’ invocation for “challenging” at the polls would hurt legitimate voters. “There’s a fine line by legitimate questions and harassment and intimidation,” said Darryl Morin, the Midwest vice president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). Morin told ThinkProgress that as a Republican it is “disappointing” to see such rhetoric coming from “a party that claims to be reaching out to minorities.” Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) signed a law earlier this year allowing poll observers to be as close as three feet to a voter. Democratic lawmakers and progressive organizers have expressed concern that the measure could lead to greater harassment and intimidation and Morin said that some of LULAC’s Wisconsin members have already experienced such treatment when going to cast a ballot. “We completely agree that the vote is a very precious thing, but to put barriers before people who are eligible to vote just should not be allowed. When you look at the law that was passed in Wisconsin and the people who were impacted—the majority of them Hispanics or African Americans—it’s hard to believe that it happened just by chance,” Morin added. LULAC, which has been involved in voting rights struggles since the days of the poll tax, has been battling Wisconsin’s voter ID law for the past few years on behalf of its Latino members who would be disenfranchised by the measure. Morin said he’s frustrated by politicians who feed “the false impression that if you have a dark tint to your skin, you’re obviously illegal and a criminal and you’re dealing drugs.” Commissioner Baas was one of many officials at the Milwaukee County Republican Party event to lament the recent Supreme Court ruling putting Wisconsin’s voter ID law on hold for this November’s election. Republican Dan Sebring, who is running for the fourth time against Gwen Moore (D-WI) for her seat in the House of Representatives, said that the ruling “stinks,” while the Republican candidate for Attorney General, Brad Schimel, called it “bad news”—prompting the whole crowd to boo the high court. He then counseled them: “The best way you can prevent someone from stealing your vote is if you use your vote. Make sure no one can go in and take your line in the ballot box.” Schimel and others at the event said repeatedly that they were concerned about voter fraud. But countless studies in Wisconsin and around the country have found in-person voter impersonation to be nearly non-existent. And the kinds of fraud that are more common—like fake absentee ballots, vote buying, fake registration forms, and ballot box stuffing by officials in on the scam—would not be prevented by a voter ID law. And most ironically, the one case of voter fraud cited in court is against an elderly supporter of Walker. <> Gov Walker signed a bill allowing "poll observers" to be within 3 feet of someone casting a ballot. The message is quite clear: "Morin said he’s frustrated by politicians who feed 'the false impression that if you have a dark tint to your skin, you’re obviously illegal and a criminal and you’re dealing drugs.'" Do you want some stranger standing 3 feet behind you when you sign in at the polling place? Or standing 3 feet behind you when you're casting your ballot? That's harassment, pure and simple. But the ticked off Republicans who didn't get their precious voter I.D. card law to go into effect before the election don't see it as harassment. They're doing it to make sure that the "wrong type of people" don't actually vote. And by the "wrong type of people," of course, they mean minorities voting for Democrats.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "It has become all tangled up because of the undocumented alien issue. If they would get to work and solve that, I think the whole ID thing would go away." You can't be serious. Are you really this naïve?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip There are undoubtedly many reasons for low voter participation, and I'm sure difficulty of voting may be a small part of it. But the problem is far bigger than that. Largely, I believe people don't vote because they just don't care or the candidates don't appeal to them. The turnout rate in 2008 (56.8%) was the highest it has been since 1968. Source: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/...453.html</a> The increase was entirely among those who traditionally have low turnouts. Turnout by Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and young people all increased in 2008 over 2004. Turnout by Non-Hispanic Whites decreased. Source: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf">http://www.census.gov/prod/201...-568.pdf</a> When a candidate holds greater appeal for specific groups, turnout rate for those groups increases. Imagine that!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Voter suppression: OK since other factors have more influence!>> That's exactly the message I'm getting from RT as well, Yookeroo. Seriously? It's OK to make the "wrong kind of people" jump through endless hoop after endless hoop in order to vote because, "Hey! They ain't gonna vote anyway!" 8^P Voter fraud doesn't exist. Only 31 cases over the past 14 years have been found that could have possibly been prevented with voter I.D: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10746">http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10746</a> ONE BILLION votes were cast since 2000, and fewer than 100 votes were found to be fraudulent. Even if -- even if -- that number was increased ten thousand times, it would still be less than 1/1000th of one percent of the total vote. Voter fraud and the subsequent voter I.D. issue was never a problem for the GOP until lots and lots and lots of dark-skinned folks turned out to vote for Obama. =8^0 And because of Obama's victory, the GOP fears that lots and lots and lots of non-voting young women are going to turn out to vote for Hillary in 2016. That's why these voter I.D. measures are being put into place by the Republican state legislatures right now. They don't have any credible candidates who can appeal to young women. So they're going to do what they can to keep them from voting for Hillary.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip No, it does make a difference morally. But it makes virtually no difference in election outcomes, so there is no reason for the GOP to pursue it so strongly. I just think showing the GOP how little difference it makes in election outcomes would do far more to get them to drop it than the whole moral outrage thing.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I've never liked moral outrage much. It is probably the #1 thing I dislike about Conservatives.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "It's not like they are trying to specifically restrict Black voters" Of course they are. In their candid moments, they even admit as much.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip They are trying to specifically restrict historically Democratic voters... Blacks, the poor, the young.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip They are trying to specifically restrict historically Democratic voters... Blacks, the poor, the young.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip They are trying to specifically restrict historically Democratic voters... Blacks, the poor, the young.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes. So they're specifically trying to restrict black voters. As well as some other groups. But there's no demographic more loyal (or lopsided) to the Democrats than black voteres.
