I guess I forgot to include the fact that Scott (along with many other members of the GOP) are actively purging voter rolls, which causes previously registered voters to lose their eligibility.
You should probably then also add that any purging of voter rolls is always done in accordance with state law. It’s not a “GOP thing”.
The logical fallacy here (and we’ve seen it in Georgia also) is that left-leaning partisans infer (sometimes they just lie, but it’s usually an inference) that the purging is done by the “GOP” or “Scott/Kemp” when in fact the governor/sect of state is (a) ordering a purge, which is then done according to (b) state guidelines, which (c ) have already passed Constitutional muster to insure that nobody is unrightfully disenfranchised.
Then, of course, what’s also left out is the fact that when purges occur, close to 90% of the people actually removed from the roles are removed because they are dead. (Which seems to be a pretty good reason to remove them, as their existence on the roles creates the potential for fraud.)
So even when comparing these turnout numbers to 2014, the data supports that Rick Scott’s actions on not extending the voter turnout deadline likely suppressed the votes in these areas.
I have a new rule whenever the term “suppression” is used.
First, we must define the term. “Suppression” means “prevent”. It does not mean “complicate”. A government agency cannot “suppress” the vote by, for example. cutting back on early voting hours; doing so doesn’t prevent anyone from voting. You can only “suppress” the vote by telling somebody who has the right to vote that they cannot. More on that in moment.
Second, when the term “suppression” is used, I’d like to see a list of names of people who (a) wanted to vote, but (b) were denied their right to vote. As a data analyst myself, I am rather sick of seeing vague inferences like “well, THIS happened, and the government did or didn’t do THIS, so it stands to reason that more people would have voted.”
No, it DOESN’T “stand to reason” that “more people would have voted”, and it certainly doesn’t “stand to reason” that they would have voted for one particular party over another. (The general assumption is that events such as a hurricane impact the poor over other income brackets, and that the “poor” are minority and/or Democrats; what is commonly ignored is the fact that the “poor” break down pretty close to 50/50 white/minority, and they break down around 60/40 Dem vs GOP.)
That matters ….. A LOT …. because it means that if 100 people who wanted to vote couldn’t, then (in FL’s case), Bill Nelson would have picked up….. 20 votes.
From my look into the data, it looks like Scott’s decision to accommodate Floridians could have suppressed many voters from going to the polls.
As we’ve pointed out, “suppression” is not the right word here. But your analysis provides it’s own refutation. IF there was no statistically significant depression in the GOP turnout, THEN it logically follows that the hurricane and its aftermath did not prevent a person from registering or voting.
I’ll just add here a statement that is guaranteed to make any Dem partisan lose their shit:
Because nobody seems to be able to PROVE suppression by coming up with significant lists of people who will state categorically that they were denied their vote, I conclude that there is less evidence for “voter suppression” nationwide than there is for “voter fraud”; and that the “voter suppression” caterwauling is actually an enormous straw man being raised to cast doubt on the integrity of one party over another and on our entire electoral system in general.
I can understand why cynical partisans want to do the former. I can think of only one reason why anyone would want to do the latter.
And the reason is chilling.