General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsspooky3
(38,727 posts)In VA, the most ambiguous question tomorrow is the attorney general race. If the (incumbent) R wins, that will complicate things for Spanbergers agenda. For example, he kept VA from joining other states in suing TSF over SNAP.
D_Master81
(2,614 posts)It sounds like from a quick search that its a GOP effort to make voting more difficult. Photo ID required among other things to be stricter on absentee voting
yorkster
(3,889 posts)and most people I reached were very eager to vote No on Question 1. A No vote keeps things as is. A yes vote would mean much more than showing a photo id and in particular it would put constraints on absentee voting and much more. People seem to recognize it for the sneaky move it is. so I'm hoping it will be defeated, 🤞 .
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)yorkster
(3,889 posts)I said I was hoping for a good result.
I also heard a lot of anger that this was even on the ballot and I reached people who in fact were disabled and would be directly affected by this passing.
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)However, it is true you wrote "People seem to recognize it for the sneaky move it is", which is a kind of conclusion drawn from sampling.
yorkster
(3,889 posts)many of whom commented on the weasel wording of the ballot question itself as designed to cause voter confusion.
BaronChocula
(4,641 posts)I think most people here appreciate your initial comment for what it was without the need for any superfluous overcritical commentary from anybody else.
Cha
(319,610 posts)you read my mind only Better... Mahalo!!
I mean, we're all on the same side here according to the tagline.

Cha
(319,610 posts)that. I don't think I'm the only one.
yorkster
(3,889 posts)Well, in spirit anyway. To be frank, I decided
to make calls because I'm so angry about the current state if affairs and had to do something in addition to protesting.
I also called offices of our 2 senators and 2 reps to grant a public hearing before Congress to Jack Smith I think that was due to a suggestion in a post from H2O man, iirc.
Good luck to all tomorrow. We need it
BaronChocula
(4,641 posts)for tomorrow, but of course we won't know until we know. Even in close races, this regime has so readily tilted the odds in our favor. In any event, we keep standing up.
yorkster
(3,889 posts)she said hopefully....
LoisB
(13,143 posts)yorkster
(3,889 posts)I barely did anything, but several people over the sessions told me they were clearer about the ramifications of this passing and would definitely vote no.
Plus, the primaries and next November lie awaitin'.
TommyT139
(2,425 posts)...and they told two friends....
You can't know how many more people you helped nudge with your calls.
🙏🏻
yorkster
(3,889 posts)on DU.
LoisB
(13,143 posts)dflprincess
(29,366 posts)A "YES" vote supports changing election law to:
require voters to present a photo ID for in-person voting, with an exception for those with religious exemptions;
require voters to present a proof of photo ID for absentee voting, with an exception for those with religious exemptions;
require the secretary of state to provide free photo ID cards to voters without a driver's license upon request;
prohibit requesting an absentee ballot through a family member;
limit the number of election drop boxes in a municipality to one;
mandate a bipartisan team of election officials to collect ballots from drop boxes; and
eliminate the option to request an absentee ballot automatically for each election without a separate request, among other changes.
spooky3
(38,727 posts)pat_k
(13,517 posts)...because the asshole Republican AGs in those states refused to stand up for their people. Those states joined the 23 members of the Democratic AGs association.
ALL the Plaintiff's in the lawsuit heard by Judge Talwani were Democrats. A fact that seems to never be mentioned in reports about 25 states suing.
Democrats, and only Democrats, forced this lying administration to do what the regime KNEW they had to do as a matter of law.
We know that they knew it because page 15 of their own plan said so -- a plan that was at the following url. A plan that was replaced with a moronic statement of filthy lies on October 27.
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy2026-usda-lapse-plan.pdf
Here is the plan from the archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20251009082455if_/https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy2026-usda-lapse-plan.pdf#page15
The first appearance of their moronic statement was October 27. (At least that is the date the first snapshot appeared.)
From the archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20251027060523/https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy2026-usda-lapse-plan.pdf
The same statement appeared yesterday at the plan's original url. Today it is page not found.
Their clumsy attempt to cover up their guilty knowledge should be getting front page coverage -- along with these other headlines:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220772034
Easterncedar
(6,387 posts)I have been campaigning for No on 1 here in Maine. I want to win this. And the school board, which I am not optimistic about. Thats turned into such an evil clown show.
UTUSN
(77,795 posts)Ollie Garkie
(356 posts)The wide spread in the polls for Mamdani have me nervous with recent tightening to only 5 points ahead.
SSJVegeta
(2,903 posts)Wednesdays
(22,836 posts)WarGamer
(18,748 posts)W_HAMILTON
(10,380 posts)MichMan
(17,257 posts)DrMJG10
(74 posts)your mouth to God's ear!