After writing a lengthy note regarding this post, I went back to check
on something, and POOF! the note simply disappeared. So I set out to
find it. After all, I wrote it, so it must be there. I tried my
Trash, and my Sent and All Messages. Nothing. So I went back to
Erica's post, and of course Miriam's comments were there. But my post
was not listed. So I said, "I'll just write it again".
When Cathy and I took Winston, the Wonder Cat to the vet, he said,
I'll give him an old cat shot. Man! that cat sat straight up after
the shot, and was lively for days. That's what I need right now, an
old Carl shot. Because I have no idea of what I wrote, or why.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/18/20, Erica R <ericarosemotz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As I sent that reply it occurred to me that I haven't seen any reports of
the photo ID law disproportionately impacting people with disabilities but
I would imagine that it does.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 5:46 PM Erica R <ericarosemotz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thank you for your reply, Miriam. I agree that it seems like many young
people and people of color do not see any purpose to voting because they
are not included in the process and therefore don't see it as impacting
their lives. I also have anecdotally experienced the phenomenon of many
people previously uninterested in politics wanting to vote for Bernie
Sanders because they felt included in his campaign and platform. I should
add for context that Wisconsin also has a law requiring photo ID to vote,
which is estimated to have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of
voters
in the state, disproportionately minorities, elderly people of color, and
young people.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 5:21 PM Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
This article reminds me of a brief discussion I had with my home health
aide this morning. My knowledge of poor and working class black and
brown
people, for the past few years, is first hand, and comes from what these
aides say to me. They have little education. I had two, briefly, who
were
African American and since I've been living here, two who emigrated from
Jamaica. This one had been attracted by what she heard Bernie Sanders
say
many many months ago when I was listening to Democracy Now and they
played
a clip of one of his speeches. I don't think she'd ever heard him
before.
By the way, she's 25, and a high school graduate. This morning again, I
was
listening to Democracy Now and she said in a sort of startled voice, "Oh,
I
didn't realize that the elections are soon." I asked how she could have
avoided hearing all the election talk. She said that she isn't
interested
in politics. She isn't. She's interested in gossiping with other family
members and friends on her I phone. Along with the 4 hours, five mornings
a
week that she works for me, she's a child care worker at a Catholic
agency
that cares for troubled kids and kids who've been removed from their
homes
for one reason or another. She has her own three year old child who
lives
back in Jamaica with her mother, and a boyfriend with kids with whom she
lives here. Her friend, who is much brighter and more caring, worked for
me
previously, but she joined the army. The point is that all of these
people
whom the Left sees as potential voters, are socially and emotionally
detached from this society. They're here because they want to better
their
lives but they don't feel included, nor do they especially want to be.
Back
in 2016, I had a very young, very bright, extremely marginal African
American aide briefly: 20 years old, unmarried with a 2 year old. She
planned to vote for Bernie Sanders. Then there was an African American
woman in her 30's who was nice, but less intelligent and was not
interested
in voting. If you want to have a Democracy with an active engaged
citizenry, then you need to provide for the people, help them feel that
they are important, and provide education. You need to be reaching out
to
people continuously on a personal basis. It doesn't happen in a mass
society where everything is impersonal and everyone communicates by
smart
phone.
Miriam
*From:* blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <
blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On Behalf Of *Erica R
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 18, 2020 5:50 PM
*To:* blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [blind-democracy] Wisconsin State Senate Race
We had an interesting primary election for our state senate
representative here in Madison, Wisconsin last week. It was a 7-way
split
with nobody taking the majority. The winner was a democrat, and the
strongest competitor was a young progressive from a black, Muslim,
immigrant family. Turnout was two times as high as it was for the last
state senate primary election at 38%.
The progressive candidate was endorsed by Ilhan Omar, Democratic
Socialists of America national and local chapters, The People for
Bernie,
and many more organizations. Unfortunately she received almost no
coverage
in the mainstream Wisconsin press. Madison is heralded as a liberal
paradise, but is home to the worst disparities in educational outcomes
and
incarceration between black and white residents. A lot of focus has been
paid in recent years to awareness for this issue with little progress or
substantive measures taken. Despite Madison's outward pro-diversity
image,
the progressive candidate was lambasted for her vocal and unapologetic
support of Black Lives Matter. She was present at and spoke at some
protests.
A local independent arts and culture news outlet, Tone Madison, summed
up
the race and turnout. There is some reference in the text to images of
maps
that show the turnout in different neighborhoods, but the results shown
in
the images are explained in the text. Also note the introduction says
that
the primary winner will be the next state senator, she will be unopposed
in
the general. Full text below and here's a link:
https://www.tonemadison.com/articles/mapping-turnout-and-power-in-madisons-big-state-senate-primary
Mapping turnout and power in Madison's big State Senate primary
Andrew Sernatinger
politics
What the results in the 26th District reveal about Madison's political
geography and the chances for upstart candidates.
The votes from the August 11 primary are in and Madison will have a new
State Senator in the 26th District: Kelda Roys. The competitive
seven-way
Democratic primary was basically unheard of in Madison politics, and had
candidates genuinely representing different interests in the city.
On the one side you had candidates representing segments of the
Democratic establishment, with its interest in modest socially liberal
policies and capital-friendly economics: Kelda Roys, John Imes, and
Amani
Latimer Burris. On the other, you had grassroots “progressive” Madison,
represented by Nada Elmikashfi, Brian Benford, and Aisha Moe. Then there
was William Henry Davis III, an underdog even among underdogs.
For the two “sides” in the election, each candidate represented a subset
of their base: Roys, for example, was able to win the real estate and
technology interests of the Democratic Party, while Benford could tap
into
the progressivism of the 1990s that’s been pushed aside as Madison has
tried to lock down a neoliberal development model for the city, and
Elmikashfi appealed more to the younger crowd of millennials and
zoomers,
as well as an impressive coalition of local community groups,
nonprofits,
unions, and environmentalists. (I am a member of Madison's Democratic
Socialists of America chapter, which endorsed Elmikashfi.)
With so much going on in the race, the voting data can tell us a great
deal about the ongoing showdown between establishment Democrats and
leftist
upstarts. Despite COVID-19, it was the highest turnout for the 26th
District in at least 20 years. Just shy of 50,000 voters
participated—more
than double the number of ballots cast in 2016, when long-serving State
Senator Fred Risser ran unopposed. This year, Roys took the lead with
19,789 votes (40.2%), followed by Elmikashfi (26.8%), then Benford
(9.5%),
Latimer Burris (8.9%), Moe (7.4%), Imes (6.2%), and lastly Davis (0.8%).
Roys took a plurality, but not a majority—60 percent of the votes cast
in the race were for someone other than the winner.
The race came down to Roys and Elmikashfi, who pulled ahead of the rest
of the pack as the only candidates with double-digit support. Roys and
Elmikashfi were the only two candidates to win wards in the district:
Roys
55 to Elmikashfi’s 24.
Is this a vindication of establishment liberalism in Madison? If we pick
apart the numbers beyond the overall percentages, it reveals a much more
nuanced picture of Madison's political geography.
The above ward map shows the level of support for either Roys or
Elmikashfi (dark blue is strong Roys, dark orange is strong Elmikashfi).
The first thing you’d see is a typical east-west divide, but east-west
doesn’t tell us anything about the people who voted other than where
they
live.
Pair that instead with a map of income in the district, and you see
something much more interesting: the lower income wards tended to go to
Elmikashfi, and the higher income ones went for Roys. But there are more
poor people than wealthy people, so shouldn’t that have carried
Elmikashfi?
Sure, if everyone voted, but they don’t: the less money you make, the
less
likely you are to vote.
If we look at how many ballots were cast by ward, we’ll see something
else interesting: The poorest wards and the wards with the most Black
and
brown residents had the lowest turnout in the city. What’s more, the
wards
covering and adjacent to the UW-Madison campus had absolutely miserable
turnout: some as low as 48 votes total cast. Whether that’s from
COVID-19
keeping students from sticking around or the fact that the primary
happened
right before move-in week, it had the effect of suppressing the student
vote. The highest turnout was along the Isthmus (downtown and the
near-east
side) and the west side closer to Middleton.
That should give us pause when thinking about the results. Even with
double the turnout, who turned out played out according to your class
and
race. This isn’t to say only rich people voted, but the turnout doesn’t
reflect the city—it over-represents white people and people with more
money. Madison’s no different than the rest of the country in this
respect.
For those who voted, why did they pick one candidate over another? We
don’t have any polling information to draw from. We could speculate
about
how the Black Lives Matter movement, the Presidential election, or
attitudes to the candidates’ policies influenced the outcome, but
actually
the strongest determinant of the outcomes was how much money each
candidate
raised.
There’s a 94% correlation between the money a candidate raised (as a
percent of total funds raised) to the percent of votes won. Basically,
the
more money you raised, the more votes you got.
If we sort the candidates by the two sides (establishment/centrist vs.
grassroots/progressive), you notice something else. Grassroots
candidates
outperformed compared to the establishment candidates: they won a share
of
votes above their portion of the funds raised. The establishment
candidates
(Roys, Latimer Burris, Imes) all got a lower return for their money. So
grassroots campaigns are more effective, dollar for dollar, but that
doesn’t matter if you’re running against someone with a shitload of
money
to burn. Roys actually had among the worst ratios of money
raised-to-votes
won, but she had so much money that she still won out over the other
candidates.
Why should this matter? We like to think that money isn’t everything,
and
it is not the only thing; Brian Benford performed exceptionally well
considering his shoe-string budget. But in modern US politics without
publicly funded elections, you gotta pay to play. Money buys exposure
and
the appearance of a professionalism that many voters look for to signal
who
is a legitimate candidate and who isn’t.
Given the spread, one might ask if the election was “spoiled” by having
too many candidates. Would Elmikashfi have won if this race was just her
and Roys? Sadly, no. Assuming the two-sides dynamic holds up, it would
have
been 56-44 for Roys—a much better spread for Elmikashfi, but there’s no
silver medal for second place. This is comparable to the April
Presidential
Primary in Dane County, where Bernie Sanders took 40% to Joe Biden’s
55%.
Both Sanders and local grassroots candidates have the same problem: even
if
your perspectives are widely popular, it's extremely difficult to
activate
the new voters you’d need to win. Still, this is a testament to
grassroots
organizing that they could provide a real alternative to
business-as-usual
politics.