Arizona Democrats and even the state's GOP gov. are angry about primary delays; HRC and DWS are not

[brentspeak]

Five hour-long waits to vote in Arizona's primary. Untold thousands of Arizona voters turned away from the polls.

Arizona Democrats are up in arms about this, and are calling for DOJ investigation. Even Arizona's Republican governor Doug Ducey called the fiasco "unacceptable".

Where is the DNC on this? This is one of DWS' jobs, isn't it -- to make sure that voters are able to vote without a problem? Or at least to take the side of voters and lodge a protest?

Notice that, on this issue, Hillary Clinton hasn't expressed any solidarity whatsoever with frustrated Arizona voters -- something that primary voters in all subsequent states should be reminded of.

[jillan]

1. Well someone from the Clinton legal team posted to reddit!

[Metric System]

2. Do you seriously think only Sanders supporters were affected?

[Matt_in_STL]

6. It doesn't matter who was affected

It could have been 100% Hillary supporters for all we should care. The fact is, this was voter suppression and a warm up for the GE in November. If we don't stand up to it now, there is no way we can when it happens again. The fact that Hillary and DWS have remained silent on it is disappointing to say the very least.

[morningfog]

10. Of course not! Which makes their acceptance of it worse.

[ViseGrip]

17. Sure it affected Hillary too. But I want to see those early AB ballots. eom

[Bodych]

11. Seriously? Yes, Indeedy.

How come you don't seem to know much about how effective voter suppression works?

Anonymous had the most concise explanation:

"Hillary’s plan to steal Arizona was remarkably simple: Suppress voting on election day, and rely on her large lead with early voters to secure a win."

Her early voters were mostly older women, BTW.

So the law of averages works out in Clinton's favor, and it's averages that matter, at least when it comes to scientific methodology. Me personally, I'm not sure I would use the word "win" in this case.

So yes, many of us seriously think that mostly Sanders supporters were affected; I'm pretty sure the Clintons and Schultzes are onboard with this thinking, too, but they can't go there for obvious reasons.

[rbrnmw]

18. Welcome to DU

[Bodych]

45. Hi. Thanks.

I'm really not new here. Joined mostly to upvote others.

I agree: BLM.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. Except when you take into consideration common sense, your theory completely falls apart

The problems were mostly in densely populated areas with higher proportion of minorities. Maricopa county and downtown Phoenix specifically.

Hillary has been winning densely populated urban areas over Bernie Sanders. Hillary won Houston, Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, Boston etc. That held true on Tuesday as Hillary blew away Bernie in Maricopa County 58.1% to 39.8%.

Hillary wins in more densely populated urban areas with more minorities. Bernie wins more suburban and rural areas with more whites.

So it would make sense that the problems in Arizona actually hurt Hillary more than Bernie.

Arizona primary:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/primaries/2016-03-22#AZ-Dem

[Bodych]

39. Nice Try, But No.

Well if "my" (?) theory falls completely apart, then you better take it up with a lot of organizations who don't see it your way. You could start with the clerk in Maricopa County, who is either incompetent after 30 years (doubtful), or knows exactly what she's doing in a state known for voter suppression (likely).

My focus is on Arizona. There is clear evidence that voter suppression happened, and it's completely unrelated to Detroit, Boston, Atlanta, etc. Nice diversion, however. This isn't open to debate or to opinions: Voter suppression happened in Arizona.

I've seen your posts here for years, so I know your leanings. Telling me that my "theory" falls apart doesn't wash in this case.

[Chasstev365]

25. Who influences the Party apoeratious more:

Bernie Sanders or the Clintons? Do you real think cutting polling places was not by design?

[WhiteTara]

27. Ted Cruz

he is a republican. Republicans run AZ

[Matt_in_STL]

3. I actually had someone on another thread tell me this was all lies

There were no delays and that it didn't affect minorities. Also, that these people should have just voted by mail like they were given the chance to. They really don't care about voter suppression and have even blinded themselves to it.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

4. She got her Arizona delegates

She's done with those voters now. They served their purpose.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

52. yes

[stopbush]

5. That ultra-right-wing establishment rag Mother Jones

is reporting that a lot of the delays were caused by Indy and unaffiliated voters who were not legally allowed to vote in the closed primary but clogged up the lines nonetheless.

www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/arizona-primary-long-lines-voting-restrictions

[Cobalt Violet]

15. figures. so glad I unlike them from my facebook months ago.

You're right. They have moved toward the right.

[Dragonfli]

7. Not to worry, the champion of the people™ will swoop in and save the Day! soon, any day now

With an army of lawyers to make sure at the very least the broken laws (like properly registered Dems, unlawfully being told they could not vote, get to) and making the county allow the POC that were not allowed to vote to receive their right to do so!!

,,,soon..

.....

...Well it's a busy day for rich people shopping for giant pearls, and the line is long today......she'll be right along soon with her sidekick bullhorn Bill in tow to tell them what's for .....


...Or maybe she forgot to wash her champion of the people™ superpower pantsuit, and without it lacks the courage and leadership strength required to battle the Republicans today is all...



Never mind, I just learned that the Republican voter fraud affected mostly only Latinos, you know, POC, "the help" to those as pearled up as her majesty, so help isn't coming, either that or she is too weak to fight for us as "our champion"™ against the much stronger Republicans in AZ. I sure do hope they treat her with kid gloves if she is elected, she's not strong enough to be our "champion" if it involves fighting for us against scary Republicans that are just too powerful for her weakness in chief

[ibegurpard]

8. course not

She "won". Who gives a shit right?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Hold it, I was told by many here

That this was a figment of our collective imaginations and never, ever happened. And if it did, damn voters!!!

[Cobalt Violet]

12. HRC and DWS are busy thinking up of new ways to screw working people and enrich the corporate class.

Why the hell would they care if lowly voters got to vote?

[Turn CO Blue]

13. One measure of a true progressive is that they feel that the republicans who had to wait for 5 hours

or even more than one hour, to vote are also entitled to vote and should NOT be shafted by a system that intentionally disenfranchises people for any reason regardless if the disenfranchising was intentional (redlining, caging, purging, misinformation) or through incompetence, miscalculation or "disenfranchisement by spreadsheet" (aka budget cuts or cost savings).

I am not a fan by any measure of Trump or Cruz, but any average citizen who was willing to stand there with a hurting back and legs, probably having to pee, probably very thirsty, for that long is a champion for democracy, even if they're voting for that dumbass Trump.

That's conviction, and people have been beaten, bullied, and even DIED to get people the right to vote for dumbasses like Trump if the voter wants to do so.

Okay, that was tongue-in-cheek, but I have registered a lot of voters, and many of them I assisted in good faith and cheerfully even though I KNEW were going to be new Republicans, but I BELIEVE IN THE PROCESS BEING FAIR FOR EVERYONE.

I mean, if we really look at it, probably over 50% of the people in those longs lines that night were going to request a REPUBLICAN ballot - is that why people don't seem to give a shit?

I ask again, is that why many people on the left don't seem to give a shit?

Speaks volumes about values and fairness to me.

[arcane1]

34. Well-said!

[VulgarPoet]

76. +1, amigo.

[noretreatnosurrender]

80. I Agree

Thank you for posting this.

[JoePhilly]

14. Hillary should suspend her campaign !!!!!!!

Until the perpetually disgruntled are satisfied.

Which will be never.

[ThePhilosopher04]

16. Hillary's silence is telling, if not damning.

[Uncle Joe]

20. CNN has all but ignored this issue, I haven't seen any coverage on television, whenever I check them

out if they're not talking about the terrorist attack in Belgium, they're covering the Trump/Cruz wife shining bauble.

Apparently democracy in the U.S. doesn't rank high on CNN's priority list.

I imagine Hillary will eventually condemn it as her campaign views the increased political liability of not doing so and at that point the corporate media conglomerates will cover her statement and the issue to high heaven.

It's all just Kabuki Theater for them.

Thanks for the thread, brentspeak.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. CNN is not going to cover this

Neither will MSNBC.

[Uncle Joe]

24. They will when Hillary finally condemns it and she will eventually, as the "political" liability

for not doing so, becomes increasingly apparent to her tone deaf campaign.

The corporate media conglomerates will then make her out to be a "heroine" for voting rights or something along those lines.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. I don't think she will

Honest

[Uncle Joe]

29. Hillary is in a box and realistically has no choice, I don't believe she

will do it "eventually" for altruistic reasons, but the political repercussions for not doing so will continue to grow whether the corporate media conglomerates cover this issue or not.

From a purely cynical political standpoint, I hope you're right and she doesn't, but she will, of this I have no doubt.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. I will give you my reasons

This is last Tuesday. She moved on to the next primary. Outside AZ most people have no idea that it happened. Partly thanks to national media.

It is like the kid who asked to apologize in NC. It was huge here and on Twitter. Unless you are in AZ, ask your next door neighbor you'll see what I mean

[Uncle Joe]

35. I do believe the disenfranchisement in Arizona was much bigger than any previous caucus or primary.

Many people waited for hours to vote only to have the doors closed on them and not given their right to vote, thousands if not numbering in the tens of thousands simply couldn't wait that long.

When they cut the polls from 200 to 60 most of the people affected were poor, working class, Latino and Hispanic, if Hillary doesn't address this massive injustice by the time California and perhaps New York get around to the vote, she will pay a heavy political price.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. I agree

I just don't expect this to become an issue.

I posted a story. The usual suspects laughed it up. And my regular readers did not give two shits about it. It is at the level of city budget. Now if I can combine suppression with missing child or kitty up a tree. Hmmm.

[Uncle Joe]

38. I promise you, Nadin, this will become an issue, if it doesn't I will buy you a beer.

Or the beverage of your choice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Coffee. I am addicted to the stuff

[Uncle Joe]

42. Coffee it is.

[Progressive dog]

21. Express anger over it; because if you don't

do it loudly, be first, and do it often, you'll be blamed for it. That's what passes for logic in the minds of some Bernie supporters.

[Uncle Joe]

22. "The silence of our friends."

[Progressive dog]

30. I don't think that MLK meant that mindless anger is

required of friends.
The Arizona official responsible has already admitted that she caused a disaster and promised to correct it. There are no sides claiming that there were enough polling places.

[Uncle Joe]

33. Apparently Hillary and Schultz are silent on this issue, I haven't seen corporate media conglomerate

coverage either.

Bernie has called it a disgrace, which it was, the Governor of Arizona said it was wrong, the Mayor of Phoenix has called for the Attorney General to launch an investigation, over 100,000 Arizonians have signed a petition for the Federal Government to investigate and yet crickets from Hillary and Schultz on Americans; thousands if not tens of thousands being disenfranchised from their right to vote.

Perhaps you consider this "mindless anger" but the right to vote is the bedrock of democracy.

[Progressive dog]

41. Both CNN and MSNBC covered this extensively

This was done by Arizona, under their laws, it has nothing to do with the DNC or with Hillary. Arizona supposedly is going to correct this for the next primary.
Mindless anger does not solve problems, no matter what reason you claim to have for being angry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Don't know about MSNBC but CNN has been stuck

On Brussels and "print" is not where most tv watchers go to

[Progressive dog]

54. So Brussels shouldn't be onTV because

Hillary and the DNC haven't shown anger over "voter suppression" in Arizona primary.
I really don't get how that is relevant, but I guess you must.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. If you do poltics, you should have a story on this

we can all chew gum and walk a the same time.

And CNN proves this repeatedly on CNN-I... they can, they even do extremely good reporting on CNN-I, but that is because international audiences have choices and they can turn CNN-I off and go to BBC, Deuche Welle, local news, you mention it. And most of those services are not this biased. Oh and they can chew gum and walk at the same time.

I guess International audiences are more sophisticated and well, DEMAND news.

[Progressive dog]

60. TV stories don't run for days

unless they are ongoing. The story is over, there is no controversy over what happened.

[Uncle Joe]

46. I don't get MSNBC but I haven't seen any coverage by CNN on television, if you Google

Arizona Voter Suppression, CNN has a couple of articles, I don't see anything from MSNBC or the major national networks.

It makes no difference who was responsible, the question is who is condemning it and who is remaining silent.

[Progressive dog]

47. No the question was about anger

Arizona authorities have admitted this was wrong. If they have violated federal law, the DNC and the candidates are not in charge of enforcing it.
Just because Bernie displays anger does not mean that Hillary or the DNC has to.

[Uncle Joe]

48. Why shouldn't Hillary or the DNC express anger over massive voter suppression?

[Progressive dog]

50. Because anger doesn't prevent it from happening again

[Uncle Joe]

53. Anger goes a lot further to prevent this from happening again than silence.

What do you believe Martin Luther King was talking about in my post above?

[Progressive dog]

56. There is no silence,

the actual people who caused this have admitted it was wrong and claim that it was a mistake. If it was illegal, the justice department can act. MLK certainly was not talking about anger.

[Uncle Joe]

58. There is total silence from Schultz's DNC and Hillary, if the Democratic Party is to live up

to its legacy of being a party for the people, not speaking up when their inherent and fundamental right to vote is violated, this is a disservice to their constituents no matter how you wish to paint it.

Martin Luther King was most certainly about speaking up when the peoples' civil rights were violated.

[Progressive dog]

62. Hillary and the DNC did not prevent anyone from voting.

The state of Arizona did.
BTW This was a primary where there is no fundamental right to even have one.

[Uncle Joe]

66. Hillary and Schultz's DNC have been silent, that's what matters, they simply don't care because

Hillary "won" that state but what happened in Arizona was an obvious Civil Rights violation.

Phoenix Mayor Asks Justice Department to Investigate Alleged Voter Suppression in Arizona

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton has called on the Justice Department to launch an investigation into alleged voter suppression tactics that led to excessively long lines of voters in some areas on the night of the Arizona primary. In some areas, lines stretched around several blocks and took five hours to clear after polling closed on Tuesday night.

In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch Wednesday, Stanton described election night at polling stations throughout Maricopa County, which encompasses Phoenix, as a "fiasco." Stanton is a Democrat who endorsed Arizona primary winner Hillary Clinton.

"Throughout the county, but especially in Phoenix, thousands of citizens waited in line for three, four, and even five hours to vote," Stanton wrote. "Many more simply could not afford to wait that long, and went home. This is unacceptable anywhere in the United States, and I am angry that [c]ounty elections officials allowed it to happen in my city."

"My request comes on the heels of consistent activity that has created a culture of voter disenfranchisement in the state," he added.

Stanton said that polling sites quickly became overwhelmed, in part because there were significantly fewer locations than in past elections. County officials cut polling locations by some 85 percent from 2008 to save money, Stanton claims, and disproportionately distributed those sites to mainly white communities while setting up fewer in areas representing higher minority populations.

"In Phoenix, a majority-minority city, county officials allocated one polling location for every one in 108,000 residents," he wrote. "The ratios were far more favorable in predominantly Anglo communities: in Cave Creek/Carefree, there was one polling location for 8,500 residents; in Paradise Valley, one for 13,000 residents; in Fountain Hills, one for 22,500 residents; and in Peoria, one for every 54,000 residents."

(snip)

https://news.vice.com/article/phoenix-justice-department-voter-suppression-arizona-primary

[Progressive dog]

67. The DNC is involved

in investigating this. Look it up, rather than just showing your anger. Hillary was harmed by this but doesn't choose to whine about not winning by more.

[Uncle Joe]

68. It's not whining to speak up against injustice and civil rights violations. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

70. P. S. Perhaps you have a link to this involvement? n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Mindless anger over voter suppression

I hope you realize how that choice of words looks

[Progressive dog]

49. Mindless anger never solves problems,

in fact it is much more likely to be the cause of problems.
If this actually was voter suppression then it is much more likely that Bernie was helped rather than hurt by it. This was the area of Arizona that went heavily for Hillary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Re-read it again

some of us take voter suppression really seriously, It does not matter if the candidates were the man on the moon and santa clauss. I admit, I might not care if they were the Prince of Darkness and Chtullu, but in this case they were not.

Again, re-read what you wrote, because it reads like you do not give a shit about democracy.

[Fairgo]

57. yeah, thats my take

I am dismayed when people fail to see the pattern emerging...seeing events as isolated from the trend of time or in relation to other dynamics in the moment. Complex, critical thinking is written off these days and lumped in with "conspiracy theory" - and we are left with vacuous commentary that is little more than wishful thinking.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. I know, and the sad part is that this is the prodcut of hyper partisanship

mixed with a horrendous educational system.

Right now spending some quality time with Trumpism. Yes, he does have a philosophy and damn it, it is even more dangerous than I thought... nor is he a loon. And those who do not take him seriously, will be in for a nasty surprise.

[Fairgo]

63. To quote David Byrne

This ain't no party! This ain't no disco! This ain't no fooling around...

[Progressive dog]

74. So complain to the people who ran the election

not about those who didn't demonstrate mindless anger.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. Jesus

[VulgarPoet]

78. Save yourself the headache; did you expect them to actually /read/ the point you were trying to make

eom

[cui bono]

71. Being upset about disenfranchised voters is a far cry from "mindless anger".

Priorities, people, priorities. Voting rights are far more important than picking sides and defending your chosen one in a primary.

.

[Progressive dog]

73. The thread is not about disenfranchising voters

It is about making the DNC and Hillary responsible for not running an election that they didn't run and blaming them for not demonstrating mindless anger.

[cui bono]

86. This thread is absolutely about disenfranchising voters. And I don't hear Hillary supporters

or Hillary being very upset about that. Funny how it always goes against Bernie, isn't it. Just like D.C.

.

[Progressive dog]

88. Bernie's campaign is looking for an issue,

the voters were in the polling places that Hillary won. It is funny how Bernie's supporters claim that everything is against Bernie.

[cui bono]

89. actually, no. it's not funny at all.

It's tragic that there are so many election and voter registration issues in a Democratic Party primary.

Even more tragic that Hillary supporters see fit to dismiss and ridicule it.

.

[MuseRider]

28. Imagine that!

DWS has shown herself again and again as incapable of doing her job for anyone but the few she supports or is close to. How many seats, governorships have we lost under her guidance? She should be angry and in that state right now finding out what in the hell happened but she is not. She does not seem to care about our votes. Imagine that.

[VulgarPoet]

79. And yet Obama endorsed her.

And we're supposed to be okay with this.

[MuseRider]

81. The good thing is

that we NEVER have to be OK with any of this.

[Tarc]

31. Why does this lie continue to be told?

The voter issues affected far more potential Clinton voters, given her strong Latino support.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. What lie

Please kindly link to the statement from the Clinton campaign. I can give you the rest of them though. This is no lie. She has not said a word. And we agree, voter suppression is wrong. I just don't expect her to say a word. I hope to be proven wrong

[Agnosticsherbet]

59. The GOP caused it,

And are angry at being caught.

[w4rma]

84. Clinton benefited,

And is angry about being caught.

[Agnosticsherbet]

85. Bullshit. Clinton voters were also disenfranchised. GOP caused it.

The onus is on them.

[w4rma]

87. Clinton won the early vote. Sanders won the election day vote.

Therefore, Sanders lost delegates, not Clinton.

[tabasco]

64. Speaks volumes.

Yes it does.

[marions ghost]

65. K&R

for election reform and voting rights.

[fun n serious]

69. UTAH!!!

*crickets*

[Scuba]

72. In 2009, Democrats in DC had an opportunity to protect our votes and voting rights.

The passed. Not any laws, they passed on the opportunity.

Just like 2000 never happened.

Just like 2004 never happened.














A more cynical person would be suspect of their motives.

[think]

77. Excellent point. /nt

[w4rma]

83. Here’s how one man hacked Latin American elections for nearly a decade

The 31-year-old started his nefarious career back in 2005, initially completing much smaller, less substantial tasks. He would deface campaign websites, break into opponents’ donor bases — you know, your more run-of-the-mill illegal online activity.

But as his expertise and reputation grew, so too did the size of his jobs. He began putting together entire teams who ran digital smearing, hacking, and other unsavory campaigns. And then, in 2012, operating under a $600,000 budget, Sepúlveda says that the zenith of his career came with the Enrique Peña Nieto election in Mexico. “He led a team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peña Nieto, a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory,” Bloomberg reports.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/andres-sepulveda/