Saying that the thoughts of people affected by policies you claim to support isn't "worth your time" really undermines the idea that you have their best interests in mind.
I don’t have the time or resources to interview all 235 million eligible voters in the US. I’ll have to rely on others to sample them. Any sample comes with the potential for bias or error so it needs to be done well. I see no reason to think that this four-minute video, whose description says it has interviews with people from Harlem, comes even remotely close. Am I wrong?
You're conflating a scientific study on who does and does not have a valid ID with what people think about people assuming they have no ID because of their skin color. They're orthogonal concepts.
All of the black people interviewed in that video found it ignorant and offensive that people assume that because they're black, they likely don't have ID or know how to get ID, and the white liberals had no problem making broad, negative assumptions about black people, if it supported their political views. That's the point I'm trying to make.
You start off speaking for a group and end saying you’re only speaking for a percentage of that group. You just totally invalidated the basis of your argument from earlier
I'll play along and pretend that you're a very unique individual who only considers peoples opinions as relevant when you know the exact statistical figures of how much to weigh them:
11/11 black people thought it was offensive, of a pop size of 37M, at a confidence level of 95% that gives a MOE of 30%, so as few as 70% of black people also think it's offensive at a 95% confidence.
Only if those 11 people were randomly selected. Was that the case?
I’ll go ahead and answer that one for you: no, it was not the case. The odds of selecting 11 black Americans at random and ending up with all 11 living in Harlem are infinitesimally small.