Thread by @cliff_notes

Ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to introduce you to... white privilege.

There’s SO much wrong with this @nytopinion article, it’s hard to know where to start. But to begin, Cohn could have tried speaking w/ people who actually specialize in voter turnout.

https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1378393921529786369

If he had, he might understand the point below, which is from a longer thread that I recommend. Just looking at turnout data w/ no understanding of the forces that shape that data leads to dangerous conclusions 👇🏾

https://twitter.com/hill_charlotte/status/1378411353728159747?s=21

https://twitter.com/hill_charlotte/status/1378411353728159747

But when you start your analysis by stating you will ignore issues of origin, intent and election administration, perhaps you weren’t ready trying to draw accurate conclusions to begin with. There’s nothing scientific about ignoring the origins of a thing.

Finally, Cohn’s analysis ignores dozens of new restrictions. Where’s his data on what happens when you *criminalize* parts of the voter mobilization process? This thread presents dozens of elements that Cohn doesn’t touch.

https://twitter.com/esosa_osa/status/1378458660297441281

It’s reckless to tell people that having to count jellybeans in the jar won’t have an impact b/c we’ll be so motivated that we’ll overcome the restriction. But when you’re not directly impacted and you have nice spreadsheets, I guess it’s ok to be reckless.

At the end of the day, if the new GA law had been in place during the most recent elections, both the prez and the senate runoffs would have had different results. The photo ID, dropbox changes, provisional ballots and criminalization alone would easily have impacted 11k votes.

PS: some good background related to the article and this thread.

https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1378386173228412928