Citizenship question not to be included with the 2020 census (For now)

  • 99 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#1 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (10786 posts) -

'The Trump administration has decided to print the 2020 census forms without a citizenship question and the printer has been told to start the printing process, Justice Department spokesperson Kelly Laco confirms to NPR.

The move comes shortly after the Supreme Court ruled to keep the question off census forms for now and just a day after printing was scheduled to begin for 1.5 billion paper forms, letters and other mailings.

In recent days, President Trump had said he wanted to delay the constitutionally mandated head count to give the Supreme Court a chance to issue a more "decisive" ruling on whether the administration could add the question, "Is this person a citizen of the United States?"

It's unclear whether the decision to start printing forms without the question means that the administration has dropped all plans to continue pushing for its addition.

Justice Department attorneys are expected to provide more details about the administration's plans at a hearing later with a federal judge who is presiding over recently reopened lawsuits in Maryland regarding the question.

Advocates worried including the question would suppress participation in the census, especially among immigrant households and communities of color. The bureau's own research in 2018 found the question to be a "major barrier" to participation in the head count by every household in the country. Test forms that include the citizenship question have already been sent to a quarter million households.'

Link.

Will this be the last we hear of it? Apparently printing off 1.5 billion forms takes a while and the window to add it would impose an enormous burden in distribution. I'm hoping that this effectively kills the question being added for 2020.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#2 Posted by mrbojangles25 (44045 posts) -

Why 1.5 billion forms in a country with only a few hundred million?

Avatar image for watercrack445
#3 Edited by watercrack445 (1666 posts) -

@mrbojangles25: Trump sometimes like to thinks of himself of being Xi Jingping ruling China. I think he forgot which country he lives in.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#4 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10786 posts) -

@mrbojangles25 said:

Why 1.5 billion forms in a country with only a few hundred million?

Extras I suppose? Like printing off a resume, bring some copies. Some are bound to be lost in en route.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#5 Posted by joebones5000 (2372 posts) -

Good. If you count only citizens, I pay higher taxes. No thanks.

Avatar image for watercrack445
#6 Posted by watercrack445 (1666 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan: yeah, like some groups might sabotage some of these forms so it's better to prepare for extras.

Avatar image for npiet1
#7 Posted by npiet1 (2318 posts) -

@watercrack445: Yeah cause trump's the one working out the numbers they need. lol

@mrbojangles25 said:

Why 1.5 billion forms in a country with only a few hundred million?

It's just not census forms. It's 1.5 billion paper forms, letters and other mailings. So it makes sense, 4 items per census.

https://www.tpr.org/post/trump-administration-print-2020-census-without-citizenship-question

Avatar image for zaryia
#8 Edited by Zaryia (9055 posts) -

I'm fairly certain they are only doing this due to the redistricting and pure politics. Unpopular? No problem, cheat to win!

Also this is taking so many wild turns:

The Census Case Just Took an Even Stranger Twist

In the real world, the fact that the executive branch plans to offer “a new rationale” is proof it has been lying. In the legal world, however, this maneuver might yet succeed.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/trump-plans-new-rationale-census-citizenship-question/593383/

Judge To Review Claims Of Census Citizenship Question's 'Discriminatory' Origins

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/05/739033701/judge-to-review-claims-of-census-citizenship-questions-discriminatory-origins

Trump may use executive order to include citizenship question on census

https://nypost.com/2019/07/05/trump-may-use-executive-order-to-include-citizenship-question-on-census/

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#9 Posted by burntbyhellfire (268 posts) -

curious, but why do you want people not here legally to be able to take the census so bad?

Avatar image for n64dd
#10 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -

Why are you guys against it?

Avatar image for Serraph105
#11 Posted by Serraph105 (33854 posts) -

So much for it being so important.

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#12 Posted by burntbyhellfire (268 posts) -

why are american citizens against non citizens determining the law in this country?.. you really have to ask that question?

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#13 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10786 posts) -

@n64dd The very department that issues the census determined that adding it would drive down turnout. It's linked in the original OP. The question does not serve any purpose, the reason being they did not overturn the lower court's ruling.

The 'Why' was not substantiated by the administration.

Avatar image for zaryia
#14 Posted by Zaryia (9055 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire

@n64dd

This is easy.

1. The discovery of hard drives from a Republican operative that included a study on the effect of drawing state legislative districts based on the citizen population pointed to another political advantage Republicans could gain and added to a pile of evidence about the administration’s original intent. With census data on citizenship, the Republican operative, Thomas Hofeller, wrote, conservative states with large immigrant populations could vote to exclude non-citizens from the count they use to draw state legislative districts, consolidating Republican statehouse control.

2. Records exposed in a New York lawsuit over the census question made it clear that their skepticism was well founded, because Wilbur Ross and the Commerce Department, at least, hadn’t been telling the public the whole truth about the process.

Emails showed that for months, Ross himself had already been asking around about adding a citizenship question, and Commerce Department officials had tried to get other agencies involved to “clear certain legal thresholds.” In fact, Ross and the Department of Commerce had to askthe DOJ to send them that letter giving the Voting Rights Act rationale.

Furthermore, the emails showed, Ross was warned about potential downsides of adding a new question — most notably, concerns that it would warp the census results by discouraging noncitizens from responding. But the question was added anyway.

3. The constitution never said anything about citizens. Only people living in the USA. The question hasn't been in the census for 70 years.

You guys should read up on this topic.

Avatar image for zaryia
#15 Posted by Zaryia (9055 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire

@n64dd

I almost forgot,

4. The Census Bureau’s own experts have said a citizenship question would discourage immigrants from participating in the survey and result in a less accurate census that would redistribute money and political power away from Democratic-led cities where immigrants tend to cluster to whiter, rural areas where Republicans do well.

Avatar image for n64dd
#16 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -

@zaryia They're excluding illegals, legals or both?

Avatar image for zaryia
#17 Posted by Zaryia (9055 posts) -

@n64dd It doesn't "exclude" anyone. It discourages them from taking the census, which is the goal of the Republicans for redistricting/funding purposes.

That's the whole point of this, as we saw from Hofeller's private files and Ross's emails. And we all knew this BEFORE the 2 leaks, due to common sense and statistics.

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#18 Posted by burntbyhellfire (268 posts) -

it may discourage people here illegally who have no right to be represented as citizens from answering the census, as it should, legal immigrants would be completely unaffected.. stop trying to muddy the waters by referring to illegals, as immigrants

the only reason it matters to you, people like you, and the DNC as a hole is because over the last few years those states have lost a LOT of citizens.. with skyrocketing costs of living and more and more and more taxes on middle class have sent many packing to other states.. this means that they're at risk of a census showing a smaller population which would result in fewer representatives and electoral college votes in upcoming elections.. it means the DNC will lose power if they cant cram as many people as they can into those states to be counted, and this is the only reason sanctuary states exist, none of these people give a damn about illegals outside of how they can use them for political gains

dont pretend trying to keep such questions of the census has any altruistic motives behind it, it doesnt

Avatar image for zaryia
#19 Posted by Zaryia (9055 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire uh huh.

The only reason it matters to people like you is because the GOP is shrinking, and it's the same reason they gerrymander so much. You need every advantage you can get.

The Constitution dictates citizenship isn't relevant in the census. It hasn't been in there for 70 years. The SCOTUS agreed, and found the entire reasoning bogus.

The Constitution requires that the census taken every ten years must be a total “enumeration” and that has long been understood as counting everyone living in America at the time the census is performed – citizens and non-citizens, legal residents and immigrant residents living in the United States without legal permission.

Avatar image for zaryia
#20 Posted by Zaryia (9055 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire,

P.S.

Hofeller, who wrote that adding the question would “clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats” and “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,” was on the RNC payroll from June 2009 until his death last August. He had previously worked as a redistricting consultant for the RNC between the 1980s and early 2000s.

Between this and gerrymandering and voter suppression.....cheat at all costs!

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#21 Posted by Jacanuk (18608 posts) -

@zaryia It doesn't "exclude" anyone. It discourages them from taking the census, which is the goal of the Republicans for redistricting/funding purposes.

That's the whole point of this, as we saw from Hofeller's private files and Ross's emails. And we all knew this BEFORE the 2 leaks, due to common sense and statistics.

Why would it exclude anyone legally in this country from taking part? come on you need to try harder with the arguments.

What people who are against a very reasonable question means is that it will exclude illegals from who often live together with relatives from partaking which means that states like California, New Mexico, Texas would have a couple of millions of people less registered.

Avatar image for zaryia
#22 Posted by Zaryia (9055 posts) -

@Jacanuk

I never said it will exclude anyone. I'm just stating it will discourage immigrants from participating, resulting in a less accurate census.

The constitution doesn't say anything about citizens.

The Constitution requires that the census taken every ten years must be a total “enumeration” and that has long been understood as counting everyone living in America at the time the census is performed – citizens and non-citizens, legal residents and immigrant residents living in the United States without legal permission.

All this would do is deter immigrants from participating, resulting in a skewed measure that would be “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.”

Remember,

The Census Bureau’s own experts have said a citizenship question would discourage immigrants from participating in the survey and result in a less accurate census that would redistribute money and political power away from Democratic-led cities where immigrants tend to cluster to whiter, rural areas where Republicans do well.

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#23 Posted by burntbyhellfire (268 posts) -

they cant even explain how voter ID is racist, but its the same crap they scream every time you bring that up to.. they dont have an answer for any of this because CNN never gave them one... his problem is he doesnt know the difference between an immigrant, and an invader which is EXTREMELY insulting to actual immigrants who work their asses off to pay to come here, find work, stay gainfully employed, and contribute

Avatar image for zaryia
#24 Posted by Zaryia (9055 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire

I'm quoting the Constitution. Not CNN.

The Constitution requires that the census taken every ten years must be a total “enumeration” and that has long been understood as counting everyone living in America at the time the census is performed – citizens and non-citizens, legal residents and immigrant residents living in the United States without legal permission.

I'm quoting Census Experts. Not CNN.

The Census Bureau’s own experts have said a citizenship question would discourage immigrants from participating in the survey and result in a less accurate census that would redistribute money and political power away from Democratic-led cities where immigrants tend to cluster to whiter, rural areas where Republicans do well.

I'm quoting Hofeller and Ross. Not CNN.

Hofeller, who wrote that adding the question would “clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats” and “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,” was on the RNC payroll from June 2009 until his death last August. He had previously worked as a redistricting consultant for the RNC between the 1980s and early 2000s.

Furthermore, the emails showed, Ross was warned about potential downsides of adding a new question — most notably, concerns that it would warp the census results by discouraging noncitizens from responding. But the question was added anyway.

A good faith discussion would be nice.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#25 Posted by Jacanuk (18608 posts) -

I never said it will exclude anyone. I'm just stating it will discourage immigrants from participating, resulting in a less accurate census.

The constitution doesn't say anything about citizens.

All this would do is deter immigrants from participating, resulting in a skewed measure that would be “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.”

Remember,

Ok, so why would it discourage legal immigrants from participating?

And as to the constitutional argument which is just dumb in itself, the constitution does not specify that you have to immigrate legally into the country either, so technically you could just move here and be "considered American"

And Hoffer is 100% correct, illegals are a big part of the base for Democrats so of course not counting them will be bad for democrats and good for Republicans and all of legally Americans alike.

Avatar image for zaryia
#26 Posted by Zaryia (9055 posts) -

@Jacanuk

Ok, so why would it discourage legal immigrants from participating?

Not exactly sure. It's what Census Experts and the GOP have concluded that it will be advantageous to non-Hispanic whites and Red Districts. Their words.

And as to the constitutional argument which is just dumb in itself, the constitution does not specify that you have to immigrate legally into the country either, so technically you could just move here and be "considered American"

Okay I'm just telling you what the constitution says. The census looks at everyone living in the US. This question gives a less accurate recording of that measure.

Avatar image for zaryia
#27 Posted by Zaryia (9055 posts) -

Basically the party is dying, which is why they gerrymander so much and which is why they NEED this question to go through.

Avatar image for n64dd
#28 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -

@zaryia I'm not good with it discouraging legal immigrants. Illegals i'm fine with.

Avatar image for zaryia
#29 Posted by Zaryia (9055 posts) -

@n64dd

The constitution isn't good with it. Which is why it hasn't been included in 70 years.

The Constitution requires that the census taken every ten years must be a total “enumeration” and that has long been understood as counting everyone living in America at the time the census is performed – citizens and non-citizens, legal residents and immigrant residents living in the United States without legal permission.

The Census wants to look at all living people in USA. No matter what. This question makes that measure inaccurate. They could not give the SCOTUS a legitimate reason for this question (because they can't say the real reason: For more GOP wins due to redistricting) and as such it was turned down.

But Trump doesn't really seem to care about the Constitution or SCOTUS on this one.

Avatar image for n64dd
#30 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -

@zaryia

It's not constitutional for illegal immigrants to be here either.

Avatar image for jeezers
#31 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@zaryia: they are here illegaly, I dont agree that illegals should have any impact on the political wieght the area has. Foreigners that are not american citizens, should be given no political power.

Avatar image for zaryia
#32 Posted by Zaryia (9055 posts) -
@n64dd said:

@zaryia

It's not constitutional for illegal immigrants to be here either.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the Constitution's statements on the Census.

The Constitution requires that the census taken every ten years must be a total “enumeration” and that has long been understood as counting everyone living in America at the time the census is performed – citizens and non-citizens, legal residents and immigrant residents living in the United States without legal permission.

The question would give an inaccurate reading of that measure.

The reasoning for the question was not good enough for the SCOTUS. Everyone knows they want it so they can have more seats. Not so they can have an accurate census.

Avatar image for n64dd
#33 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -
@zaryia said:
@n64dd said:

@zaryia

It's not constitutional for illegal immigrants to be here either.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the Constitution's statements on the Census.

The Constitution requires that the census taken every ten years must be a total “enumeration” and that has long been understood as counting everyone living in America at the time the census is performed – citizens and non-citizens, legal residents and immigrant residents living in the United States without legal permission.

The question would give an inaccurate reading of that measure.

The reasoning for the question was not good enough for the SCOTUS. Everyone knows they want it so they can have more seats. Not so they can have an accurate census.

You said he didn't care about the constitution. I said he's upholding in my comment.

Avatar image for zaryia
#34 Edited by Zaryia (9055 posts) -
@n64dd said:
@zaryia said:
@n64dd said:

@zaryia

It's not constitutional for illegal immigrants to be here either.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the Constitution's statements on the Census.

The Constitution requires that the census taken every ten years must be a total “enumeration” and that has long been understood as counting everyone living in America at the time the census is performed – citizens and non-citizens, legal residents and immigrant residents living in the United States without legal permission.

The question would give an inaccurate reading of that measure.

The reasoning for the question was not good enough for the SCOTUS. Everyone knows they want it so they can have more seats. Not so they can have an accurate census.

You said he didn't care about the constitution. I said he's upholding in my comment.

That makes no sense, the census question isn't going to stop illegal immigration. He's not upholding the constitution or the verdict of the SCOTUS on this specific subject. He's doing the opposite.

The census is for a count of living people in the US, as per the Constitution. This partisan question taints this measure. They only want it to get more GOP seats. You and Jackanut seem to forget Hofeller was a life long gerrymanderer, to the extreme. When he said this would be advantageous to Red Districts and non-Hispanic Whites he meant that as a good thing, and the entire GOAL of this.

Aiding an unpopular and dying party isn't the goal of a Census. They couldn't give a good reason for wanting the question, so SCOTUS threw it out.

Avatar image for n64dd
#35 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -
@zaryia said:
@n64dd said:
@zaryia said:
@n64dd said:

@zaryia

It's not constitutional for illegal immigrants to be here either.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the Constitution's statements on the Census.

The Constitution requires that the census taken every ten years must be a total “enumeration” and that has long been understood as counting everyone living in America at the time the census is performed – citizens and non-citizens, legal residents and immigrant residents living in the United States without legal permission.

The question would give an inaccurate reading of that measure.

The reasoning for the question was not good enough for the SCOTUS. Everyone knows they want it so they can have more seats. Not so they can have an accurate census.

You said he didn't care about the constitution. I said he's upholding in my comment.

That makes no sense, the census question isn't going to stop illegal immigration. He's not upholding the constitution or the verdict of the SCOTUS on this specific subject. He's doing the opposite.

The census is for a count of living people in the US, as per the Constitution. This partisan question taints this measure. They only want it to get more GOP seats. You and Jackanut seem to forget Hofeller was a life long gerrymanderer, to the extreme. When he said this would be advantageous to Red Districts and non-Hispanic Whites he meant that as a good thing, and the entire GOAL of this.

Aiding an unpopular and dying party isn't the goal of a Census. They couldn't give a good reason for wanting the question, so SCOTUS threw it out.

Sounds like they're just not supporting illegal immigrants, which you shouldn't either.

Avatar image for jeezers
#36 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@zaryia said:
@n64dd said:
@zaryia said:
@n64dd said:

@zaryia

It's not constitutional for illegal immigrants to be here either.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the Constitution's statements on the Census.

The Constitution requires that the census taken every ten years must be a total “enumeration” and that has long been understood as counting everyone living in America at the time the census is performed – citizens and non-citizens, legal residents and immigrant residents living in the United States without legal permission.

The question would give an inaccurate reading of that measure.

The reasoning for the question was not good enough for the SCOTUS. Everyone knows they want it so they can have more seats. Not so they can have an accurate census.

You said he didn't care about the constitution. I said he's upholding in my comment.

That makes no sense, the census question isn't going to stop illegal immigration. He's not upholding the constitution or the verdict of the SCOTUS on this specific subject. He's doing the opposite.

The census is for a count of living people in the US, as per the Constitution. This partisan question taints this measure. They only want it to get more GOP seats. You and Jackanut seem to forget Hofeller was a life long gerrymanderer, to the extreme. When he said this would be advantageous to Red Districts and non-Hispanic Whites he meant that as a good thing, and the entire GOAL of this.

Aiding an unpopular and dying party isn't the goal of a Census. They couldn't give a good reason for wanting the question, so SCOTUS threw it out.

Loading Video...

It has a direct impact on how many electoral votes a state has, you inflating your political power of your state with people who aren't even Americans. Normal people with common sense can see through this BS.

Avatar image for ad1x2
#37 Posted by ad1x2 (7569 posts) -

The same people that are absolutely outraged over the fact that a few Russian trolls may have convinced a few swing state voters to vote for Trump because of it being foreign interference seem to have no problem with millions of illegal aliens who can’t legally vote filling out the Census, resulting in the mostly blue states they reside in getting more electoral votes and representatives in the House. I’m sure the second scenario is a lot more related to foreign interference than the first.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#38 Posted by comp_atkins (35747 posts) -

why not just make the question optional?

Avatar image for zaryia
#39 Posted by Zaryia (9055 posts) -
@n64dd said:

Sounds like they're just not supporting illegal immigrants, which you shouldn't either.

I don't. But I do support the Constitution and the SCOTUS decision on this.

@jeezers said:

It has a direct impact on how many electoral votes a state has, you inflating your political power of your state with people who aren't even Americans. Normal people with common sense can see through this BS.

Apparently the SCOTUS and Constitution aren't normal people with common sense.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#40 Posted by Sevenizz (3911 posts) -

Why on earth would citizenship be off a census form? It offends illegals? Who cares? They shouldn’t be there anyway.

Avatar image for n64dd
#41 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -
@zaryia said:
@n64dd said:

Sounds like they're just not supporting illegal immigrants, which you shouldn't either.

I don't. But I do support the Constitution and the SCOTUS decision on this.

@jeezers said:

It has a direct impact on how many electoral votes a state has, you inflating your political power of your state with people who aren't even Americans. Normal people with common sense can see through this BS.

Apparently the SCOTUS and Constitution aren't normal people with common sense.

As much as I don't like it, I will concede you are right it is in the constitution and should be upheld that way.

Avatar image for zaryia
#42 Edited by Zaryia (9055 posts) -
@ad1x2 said:

The same people that are absolutely outraged over the fact that a few Russian trolls may have convinced a few swing state voters to vote for Trump because of it being foreign interference seem to have no problem with millions of illegal aliens who can’t legally vote filling out the Census, resulting in the mostly blue states they reside in getting more electoral votes and representatives in the House. I’m sure the second scenario is a lot more related to foreign interference than the first.

These are nice opinions, but you're going to have to get the constitution changed for them to matter. You're also going to have to get Trump and Co. to actually give a legitimate reason for the change, as CJ Roberts pointed out.

Census Bureau experts who had found that a citizenship question would compromise the census’ integrity—“arbitrary and capricious.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/statistics-expert-testifies-census-citizenship-question-would-harm-count/2018/11/05/ee0a489a-e144-11e8-b759-3d88a5ce9e19_story.html?utm_term=.a46bcaab6a3d

Avatar image for jeezers
#43 Posted by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

The same people that are absolutely outraged over the fact that a few Russian trolls may have convinced a few swing state voters to vote for Trump because of it being foreign interference seem to have no problem with millions of illegal aliens who can’t legally vote filling out the Census, resulting in the mostly blue states they reside in getting more electoral votes and representatives in the House. I’m sure the second scenario is a lot more related to foreign interference than the first.

True that!

foreign interference in elections..... its here , that's what it is and that's why you have Booker and and Beto now campaigning in Mexico. The democratic debates made it even more obvious of who they are counting on as their new favorite voting block.

Its insanity. I hope they loose by a landslide, the democratic party needs to burn down and then be reborn as something entirely different, like a phoenix, they have gone off the rails. I'm no fan of the Republican party either but this has gotten ridiculous with the left. They are supposed to be representatives of America, that is their job. Start talking about what they are going to do for Americans, what your going to do for illegal aliens shouldn't even be a thing. This is truly a clown world.

Avatar image for zaryia
#44 Edited by Zaryia (9055 posts) -
@jeezers said:
@ad1x2 said:

The same people that are absolutely outraged over the fact that a few Russian trolls may have convinced a few swing state voters to vote for Trump because of it being foreign interference seem to have no problem with millions of illegal aliens who can’t legally vote filling out the Census, resulting in the mostly blue states they reside in getting more electoral votes and representatives in the House. I’m sure the second scenario is a lot more related to foreign interference than the first.

Its insanity. I hope they loose by a landslide, the democratic party needs to burn down and then be reborn as something entirely different, like a phoenix, they have gone off the rails.

Disagreed. I hope far more Americans vote for Democrats, again. Just like they did in 2016 and 2018. Because they agree with Dems a lot more on most issues, hence millions of more votes.

Then again with the EC and Gerrymandering, that might not mean much again. Empty Farm Land > Voters.

Avatar image for jeezers
#45 Edited by jeezers (3018 posts) -

@zaryia: Hillary ignored the rust belt in 2016 and they will ignore it again in 2020. Instead they choose to focus on illegal immigrants. They will win states like California and New York with this strategy, but good luck turning the rest of the country with this sort of rhetoric. Democrats will loose with moderates and independents with their current strategy.

The Dems better get some more caravans over the border before 2020.

Avatar image for zaryia
#46 Edited by Zaryia (9055 posts) -
@jeezers said:

Democrats will loose with moderates and independents with their current strategy.

Dems had 10-12 million more votes in 2018.

Keep whining about voting when your party is the one who screws over the most voters by being the kings of gerrymandering and using out-dated rules designed for 1800s farmers.

Lets stop pretending the guy who thought up this citizenship question wasn't one of the biggest gerrymanderers in history.

Avatar image for n64dd
#47 Posted by N64DD (11925 posts) -
@zaryia said:
@jeezers said:

Democrats will loose with moderates and independents with their current strategy.

Dems had 10-12 million more votes in 2018.

Keep whining about voting when your party is the one who screws over the most voters by being the kings of gerrymandering and using out-dated rules designed for 1800s farmers.

Lets stop pretending the guy who thought up this citizenship question wasn't one of the biggest gerrymanderers in history.

It will be closer this time. Honestly the biggest competition to democrats this time around is their in-fighting between candidates.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#48 Posted by joebones5000 (2372 posts) -

I don't understand why anyone who can think critically would want the citizenship question included. It's going to mean higher taxes for homeowners and higher rents for renters. We know for a fact the citizenship questions suppress response rates. Schools are going to get less federal money and non-citizen kids and even the citizen kids of non-citizen parents who aren't going to fill out the census are still going to go to school and are still going to cost money. Schools are going to be forced to raise taxes to cover the deficits. Imagine how bad that is going to be in states like Texas. Wow. You republicans really know how to screw yourselves with your votes. SMH

Avatar image for joebones5000
#49 Posted by joebones5000 (2372 posts) -

@jeezers said:

@zaryia: Hillary ignored the rust belt in 2016 and they will ignore it again in 2020. Instead they choose to focus on illegal immigrants. They will win states like California and New York with this strategy, but good luck turning the rest of the country with this sort of rhetoric. Democrats will loose with moderates and independents with their current strategy.

The Dems better get some more caravans over the border before 2020.

Democrats have PA on lock, Trump won Wisconsin by less than .08%, and Hillary won Maine in 2016. I don't see how Trump wins without PA and ME.

Avatar image for watercrack445
#50 Posted by watercrack445 (1666 posts) -

Sooo, how do the homeless take the census?