It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: In4ormant
If you guys had someone in YOUR house illegally it would be a big deal to you but when it's off in some sanctuary city it's ok for them to be here.
The fact that Democrats use these illegal people as a rallying cry and willingly accept the votes it garners makes them all traitors in my eyes.
If you can't uphold the law you don't deserve to be in any position that requires you to do so.
Among their complaints: The survey on which the research was based was an internet survey meant to include only citizens. In other words, any noncitizens who took the survey were included due to an error anyway,
That was Richman’s research, all right. The problem, says Richman, who identifies as a political moderate, is that the Trump administration’s interpretation of his report is totally off. “Trump and others have been misreading our research and exaggerating our results to make claims we don’t think our research supports,” Richman says. “I’m not sure why they continue to do it, but there’s not much I can do about that aside from set the record straight.”
originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: buster2010
So the study of 800,000 is not proving that illegals voted?
Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes.
“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”
January 24, 2017.
Although Press Secretary Sean Spicer claimed today that millions voted illegally in the November 2016 election, on November 28, 2016 I published the following statement indicating that our analysis does not support his claim. Since then, no new data, facts or analyses have emerged that require us to revisit or change the findings of the 2014 study to which Mr. Spicer refers. We stand by our findings.
If the assumptions stated above concerning non-citizen turnout are correct, could non-citizen turnout account for Clinton’s popular vote margin? There is no way it could have. 6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million non-citizen adults in the US would add only 834,318 votes to Clinton’s popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin.
Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin. Yes. Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.
December 1st Update Like so much on this issue, this posting has taken on something of a life of its own, and I want to emphasize and clarify some points that seem to be generating confusion as echo chambers pick this up and re-post it.
1. This post is not intended to make a specific claim on my part concerning how many non-citizens voted in 2016. It has a much narrower aim. My goal was to show that an extrapolation from my coauthored work on the 2008 election to the 2016 electiondid not support the arguments some seemed to be making that the entire popular vote margin for Clinton was due to illegal votes by non-citizens.
2. There are a number of reasons why one should be cautious about extrapolating from the 2008 CCES data to 2016.
a. Many things can and have changed over the course of eight years. For example, a number of states have made efforts to use matching of records to remove non-citizen registrants from voter rolls. For example, on this blog I have recently highlighted data from Virginia and North Carolina concerning such matching efforts. These non-citizens are no longer on voter rolls. There are other states that have been even more aggressive about the issue of attempting to verify that registered voters are citizens. Furthermore, although the evidence from our 2014 paper suggests that it is only partially effective, many states have moved to adopt tighter identification requirements.
b. The 2008 estimate is inherently uncertain. It depends upon a number of assumptions including assumptions about the validity of the survey data. Our critics have made a variety of arguments and I encourage readers to evaluate those arguments along with our responses to them.
The WikiLeaks dump of Clinton campaign manger John Podesta’s emails contained one message on directing immigrants to vote
In some of the millennial groups we did recently, we had several participants who said they haven’t used stamps or put anything in a mailbox for years.
Agree with Teddy that universal online reg is good place to start. Very few concerns on that, but many more concerns about online voting across the electorate.
I do think we should explore ways to Co-opt GOP's argument for photo ID which has enormous appeal. Even among some Dem voters. We should think of high tech solutions ( ie everyone is issued a voter card with a chip when they turn 18) that embrace som form of universal citizen I'd linked to automatic registration.