it was mentioned last night at the phila rally. one of the pa hopefuls had it in his speech.
Why would someone bother doing this, even? Nobody haded to the polls to vote for one candidate is going to see one last election sign and say “well, gosh, now I’ve completely changed my mind.”
Because they are stupid.
Why are there any partisan signs at a polling place? I thought even partisan clothing was disallowed.
Missed this earlier. claps
There’s a buffer zone, so as long as it’s outside the buffer zone, signs are fine. I think it’s 100 feet in Illinois. This varies by state. Hell, I’ve been handed sample ballots (sample ballots, that is, that tell you who the alderman wants you to vote for, not an actual sample of the whole ballot) just outside this zone.
Depends on the distance. 100 ft seems to be common.
Well, I ain’t takin’ the IWW button off my hat!
There are always signs outside the polling places here in PA, as well as people handing out flyers and sample ballots. As long as it’s at least a certain distance away it’s legal. I think it’s 100 feet here but I’m not positive. This is a school and the front walks, most of the parking lot, etc. are all far enough away from the entrance to the auditorium where the polling takes place.
You echo my thoughts on this, but it’s what they’ve always done so apparently they believe it influences people whether it does or not.
Our voting place is in the Junior H.S., and there’s a white arc painted on the sidewalk/parking lot at 50’ (though I don’t know if that’s from the booths or the check in point or the door, hmmm.)
Anyway, the police are pretty inflexible about enforcing it. I once saw a cop chase a toddler in an Obama t-shirt back across the line. 
Hardcore right there. Toddlers are pretty hard to catch!
I’m wondering now if this woman wasn’t simply removing signs that were too close. I can’t identify from the video where it is in relation to the door. It does appear that she put up one sign when taking down the others, but it’s a short video and it’s a bit ambiguous so I can’t be sure. It does seem unlikely that a party chair would do something illegal so publicly (there are people walking past as she does it).
He was campaigning for Trump in Kentucky just 5 or 6 days ago.
I doubt signs specifically have a measurable effect at that point, but I’ve read studies indicating that the polling place environment in general has an effect. It’s called the “Polling Place Priming Effect”; I posted a bit about it back in February. If voting in a church instead of a school can influence how people vote, then at least some people can still be moved at that point. In light of that, I suppose putting up a few signs wouldn’t be a crazy gambit, especially since they’re about to become worthless anyway.
But the people doing this almost certainly don’t know any of that. It’s like sports fans wearing lucky hats or waving banners: they do it because it makes them feel like part of the tribe, not because it will affect the outcome. (Or, in some case, I suppose they really believe in lucky hats and magic signs changing the course of history.)
Trump backs Clinton!: WATCH: {videotitle} Video | Jimmy Kimmel Live!
I voted a few hours ago here in Ohio. Here’s hoping for a decisive Clinton win AND the Dems taking back the Senate!
Now that the ads and mailings are over, here’s something of note; here in the San Francisco outer suburbs, I got zero mailings for the Presidential race (I am assuming that both sides know it’s a lock for Clinton and have better places to spend money), and not only were there no mailings for the Senate race (between two Democrats), but no mailings or phone calls for either candidate, and I was hard-pressed to find a sign for either one.
Speaking of mailings, does everybody else get these “voter guides” from various “organizations” with official-sounding names that are loaded with recommendations that were put there by someone who paid money to get them there? In California, they have to identify (usually with an asterisk) when a recommendation is there because someone not affiliated with the mailer paid for it.
Of course, as should be obvious now, if the Dems had nominated Bernie, we wouldn’t…hey, quit that!..no shoving!..that is so uncool, man!
According to this poll, 75% of blacks say all 4 grandparents were US born v. 58% of whites and 13% of Hispanics. In case of both Hispanics and Asians, which isn’t given but I guess would be even lower, some trace US ancestry way back but the bulk arrived since immigration was liberalized in the 1960’s. It doesn’t give figures for natives though obviously the % there would be high, not necessarily near 100% though because many people self-identifying as native have some non-native ancestors.
If the electorate is 69% white, 12% each black and Hispanic 4% Asian and 3% other (the current profile of eligible voters, not necessarily the turnout, but just for rough estimate) and assuming 2012’s %'s for the GOP, 59%, 6, 27 and 26, 38 for those groups and assuming 53% of ‘other’ are 4gpUS voters (the weighted avg of the other categories), the vote of 4gpUS voters would be 48.04% for the GOP v 46.85% for all voters, assuming no differing propensity within groups depending on whether 4gpUS or not.
So assuming no differing voting propensity within racial groups depending on 4gpUS, the statement that it would generate a 50 state landslide (pretty obviously hyperbolic to begin with) is BS.
It would seem to depend mainly on white 4gpUS voters being much more likely to vote Trump/GOP than whites with more recent immigrant ancestors. That might be true to some degree. It might be indirectly reflected for example in Trump’s poorer showing with white Catholics than whites in general under the reasonable (though I can’t prove it) assumption white Catholics are more likely to have recent immigrant ancestors than Protestant or unaffilated (most of whom have Protestant family backgrounds) whites. And just in general ‘blue’ states tend to be more diverse including whites having more diverse backgrounds than parts of the country were a large % of whites are WASP/Scots Irish with no recent immigrant ancestors.
It was part of the genius of the Framers that a person naturalized an hour ago is just much a U.S. citizen, with all of the rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, as someone whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower.