Will the Voter Suppression we Saw in Arizona Be Repeated in New York?

[Time for change]

Yesterday evening my daughter brought to my attention Facebook accounts of several Bernie supporters who were registered Democrats, and, worried about the accounts of voter suppression in Arizona, decided they’d better check to find out if they are still registered. And guess what? They were not. So I thought I’d better look into it.

What I found was an article titled ”New York Election Fraud: Is Arizona Happening Again?”

For those of you unfamiliar with what happened in the Arizona primary: Voter suppression in Maricopa County, which includes about half or more of the population of Arizona, was so bad that only 14.7% of Democratic voters who voted in that county voted on Election Day. This was extremely important to Bernie’s chances in Arizona because more than 60% of Maricopa County voters who voted on Election Day voted for Bernie, while more than 60% of early voters voted for Hillary. In other words, because of voter suppression on Election Day, the election was virtually decided prior to Election Day.

The article that I referred to above talks about something very similar to what my daughter is finding in the Facebook accounts she’s reading: previously registered Democratic voters finding out that they are no longer registered. It concludes: “The more you look, the more stories are reported”. The article provides information to voters on how to check to see if they are still registered, and how they can still rectify the situation if they find out that they are not.

But how many prospective voters won’t read that article and won’t find out until Election Day that they are no longer registered, when it will be too late to do anything about it? We don’t know the answer to that. But Bernie’s campaign can ill afford another episode, in a large state like New York, of what went down in New Mexico. That could very well be a death blow to his campaign. And this whole thing has ominous implications for our democracy.

[Time for change]

3. Sorry about that. I edited it to correct it

I had the wrong state in the title, but the rest of the article had the right state. It was Arizona. I changed it to reflect that. Thank you for pointing that out.

[DURHAM D]

2. New Mexico and Arizona are not interchangeable. nt

[Half-Century Man]

4. Most likely attempted.

All sides need to be alert for.....irregularities, and record and report them.

[Time for change]

7. Yes

This needs to be fixed before Election Day. Taking care of it one voter at a time won't do. The whole system needs to be investigated and fixed.

[revbones]

103. Agreed. nt

[HumanityExperiment]

5. NY is a big target, delegate wise...

So knowing the stakes are that high you can guarantee that something hinky is afoot

[Jackie Wilson Said]

28. Are you accusing the Clinton Campaign of election fraud?

[HumanityExperiment]

38. Gray area...

Ahhh here we go, shall we rummage around this vast gray area within politics and those things that occur behind the scenes during ANY election cycle?

Let's stick to the facts and let real investigative reporting work out the details and vetting accusations shall we?

[Dragonfli]

59. I am /nt

[Jackie Wilson Said]

77. Your comment is a. unsupportable by the facts b. belongs on a right wing board, not here

[Dragonfli]

79. It is supported by my own experience having been purged from the primaty rolls regardless of

38 years of uninterrupted Democratic enrollment.

Your posting encouragement that favors voter purges and disenfranchisement belongs on whatever right wing board you recently migrated from.

Member since: Sat Jan 16, 2016, very telling, you guys come here to disrupt every election cycle only to disappear back into the woodwork after the election, it has been thus since I joined here 12 years ago and I will no doubt see you again in two years.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

80. Nonsense, nothing supports your allegation that the conditions were caused by Clinton

[Dragonfli]

81. That these changes in party affiliation only appear to happen to Sanders supporters

Along with the fact that she had 24 hour access to Sanders' donation and email list data for 24 hours while the database was left open and he was shut out and not her, combined with an unexplained barrage of Hillary campaign emails the days and weeks after the breech to Sanders donors is hardly something that would encourage me to believe otherwise.

Besides, it comports well with her Rovian campaign strategy, plus well known penchant and firmly held reputation by most Americans for lying has me firmly convinced.

YMMV

Now go back to the Brock staff headquarters or whatever other Conservative place sent you here so recently to mess with real Democrats that have been in the party and on this site for so long. (in my case 38 years a Democrat and 12 years a site contributor)

[Jackie Wilson Said]

82. Alleging I am the conservative and not real Democrat is actually funny.

No person who claims to be a liberal or Democrat doesnt support whoever the Democratic candidate is.


period

[Dragonfli]

83. There are two Democrat candidates and it is a time old RW troll tactic you are using

If, and as soon, as the site ,members start to overwhelmingly favor Clinton over Sanders, you will accuse Clinton supporters of anything you are told to in order to disrupt.

If you are a Brock plant you will be placed elsewhere to discourage and accuse Sanders supporters of "belonging on right wing sites" as needed. It all depends on who holds the troll leash, speaking of which, I am allowing you to grow too fat on kibble, and will stop feeding you.
WTI

(that means I won't have to look at your posts anymore)

[Jackie Wilson Said]

84. And yet not one of my posts alleges I wont support the candidates nor is one of my posts

disruptive in anyway.

In not a single one of my posts will you find attacks of either candidates, either.


So, who is the plant now?

[Dragonfli]

6. "and how they can still rectify the situation if they find out that they are not."

My understanding is they can not rectify the situation. When I found out my party registration had been changed, I was told by the worker at the voter registration office that I could re-register and correct it that way, but the change back to my previous Democratic registration would not be active until after the Nov. election, (she actually rolled her eyes while saying this, so I asked to speak to a supervisor) her supervisor told me the same thing, and this was before the registration deadline, which is now over for the General election this cycle.

What is the secret they either did not know or refused to share? (I actually did re register just in case, but all they did was send me a new card without the usual "D" attached.)

[Time for change]

8. What state are you from?

[Dragonfli]

9. NY, wasn't that obvious regarding the post I replied to? I should have stated so outright however

in order to avoid confusion. I apologize.

[Time for change]

10. I thought it was NY

Just wanted to clarify it.

[Time for change]

11. Thanks for sharing your story

That makes it even worse than I thought. That is outrageous.

[Bohunk68]

36. I work the polls as an Election Inspector and I can verify what the worker said.

Changing party registration is not easy to do in NYS. There is a time factor involved. Sorry you did not understand that. Most people do not. I and many others would prefer that it were otherwise, but it was a state level rule. You cannot just change your registration today and expect it to go into effect at the next election. Truly sorry for you.

[Hortensis]

45. If only there was a website or a phone number to call

so voters could know this stuff in time. If only newspapers wrote about voting requirements and how to change registration. If only the state elections commission sent people around to knock on the doors of every household to tell people.

[Dragonfli]

56. I did not change my voter registration, I tried to change it back to what it was before someone

besides me, human or computer, decided to change my registration for me, did you even bother to read my post? I never had to check my status before this year and had no clue it could be changed without my knowledge until warnings to check were posted on social media, warnings that came too late to fix the fraud perpetrated on me.

I hope the Irony God's see fit to leave you finding out when you try to vote in the primary that your status had been changed to Independent without your knowledge, perhaps then you won't be so flippant and dismissive.

[Dragonfli]

51. Did you miss the part where I was already a Democrat (for 35 years) until it changed without my

input, BEFORE I DECIDED TO CORRECT THE UNSANCTIONED CHANGE! It is my fault that I didn't think to check if I was still a Democrat until the database tampering warnings were were made on social media?

Why would it be my fault to expect to have to check if I was still a Democrat earlier than I did since I had never had to check before election fraud became a multi-State and now, apparently common issue?

Way to blame the victim,, I suppose that a rape victim has to check first to see if the rapist called it consensual before the trial when the rapists word is the only one valid because, I said no the first time, but did not say no AGAIN in time before the arraignment.

[Time for change]

65. But we're not just talking about people who want to change their registration

We're talking primarily about people who were registered as Democrats, were worried about the stories they heard coming out of Arizona, decided to check to see if they were still registered, and found out that their registration status had disappeared.

[jwirr]

44. THIS is the reason we need open primaries.

[Dragonfli]

58. Or UN oversight as this was clearly fraud, at least in my case and many others in what 4 States now?

[jwirr]

78. Totally agree.

[DebDoo]

12. My husband got a screen shot

With the date just in case it changed on him

My registration did change. I've been an independent my entire voting life - 23 years. Now suddenly I'm listed as "not enrolled in a party". It doesn't make much of a difference, I couldn't vote I the primary either way but it's weird. Especially considering I checked it two days before I noticed the switch and I was an independent then.

[Time for change]

13. It sounds like someone is messing with voter registration in New York

[ISUGRADIA]

100. Independent is not an option in New York

voter registration form here :

http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/download/voting/voteform.pdf

[JoePhilly]

14. Does the GOP control elections in NY?

Because that's the root cause of what happened in AZ.

[Uncle Joe]

15. I'm curious about that, why would the GOP care about what happens in a Democratic Primary?

The vast majority of people disenfranchised by the massive voter suppression in Arizona were Democrats; the poor, working class, Latinos and Hispanics.

[JoePhilly]

16. Because its what the GOP does.

[geek tragedy]

18. the vote suppression also hurt Republican voters

Trump and Cruz supporters had to stand in the same line as Clinton and Sanders supporters.

Republicans do not care about their own.

[Uncle Joe]

22. Yes but the vast majority of voters disenfranchised to vote were Democratic Voters.

The more affluent have a greater ability stand in a line for five hours than people needing to work.

Furthermore the county most adversely affected is where Latinos and Hispanic heavily reside and the majority of them vote Democratic as well.

[geek tragedy]

23. which is why we need to fix that before the general election.

no doubt.

but that's not what's happening in New York. It didn't happen in 2008 when Clinton ran against Obama.

[Uncle Joe]

26. That's correct but during the primaries between Senators Obama and Clinton wasn't

there a major dispute regarding Michigan and Florida?

[geek tragedy]

31. that was a fight between the DNC and the states.

The states were all trying to jump ahead of each other in order to make their state go first.

Florida and Michigan got punished by moving their primaries up so far it threw everything off in the primary calendar schedule--so the DNC refused to recognize the delegates chosen in those primaries.

The Iowa caucuses were held January 3 that year.

Clinton, of course, seized on this as a pot of delegates she could use since she won those states (Obama, Edwards et al didn't campaign in those states).

It was a real mess.

[Uncle Joe]

39. My other question is why would Republicans rig a primary contest which most affects Democrats, thus

allowing them time to rectify that problem before the general election?

If you were going to rig an election that benefits Republicans wouldn't it be wiser to do so during the G.E. at the last minute leaving no time to increase the polling stations for example from the drastically reduced number of 60 back to at least the original 200 or so?

[geek tragedy]

41. That begs the question of whether there was intentional rigging

or rather an implementation designed to suppress voter turn out overall.

There is strong evidence of vote suppression. Which is a civil rights violation.

There is very weak, if any, evidence of fraud or vote rigging.

[Uncle Joe]

52. I have no doubt there was massive voter suppression but it was targeted primarily at

Democratic Voters; poor, working class, Latino and Hispanic people along with same day voters, this was intentional.

I totally agree with your last sentence but deliberate, targeted, massive voter suppression can achieve the same ends as intentional rigging of voting machines.

[geek tragedy]

53. in a general election, not only can it, it most certainly will nt

[Uncle Joe]

54. But why would the GOP do it in a primary that most adversely affects Democratic Voters and thus

allow time for rectification before the general election?

[geek tragedy]

55. this is the system they'll be trying to roll out in the fall.

there wasn't specific intent to monkey with our primary, they're just tinkering with their vote suppressing machine

[Uncle Joe]

57. Cutting 200 polling places to 60 is not tinkering, there was sure to be an uproar and there is.

Arizona 'voter suppression' petition among fastest to reach 100,000 signatures

PHOENIX - The recent Arizona 'voter suppression' petition was among the fastest to reach 100,000 signatures to the White House.

If you're unfamiliar with the petition, it alleges voter suppression in the Arizona Presidential Preference Election, held last week. After the petition reached its signature goal of 100,000 online signatures, the White House is expected to issue a response.

According to this spreadsheet, the petition ranks among four of the most popular petitions on the website. The petition was started Tuesday and reached the goal Thursday morning.

READ: White House to respond to petition alleging voter suppression in Arizona

The petition asked the White House to investigate possible voter fraud and suppression of Democratic voters specifically:

(snip)

http://www.12news.com/news/politics/arizona-voter-suppression-petition-among-fastest-to-reach-100000-signatures/106017800

There is a video from the local news on the link.

Hillary and the national corporate media conglomerates have been strangely silent on this issue.

[geek tragedy]

60. Clinton's campaign has been working on voter suppression since last year.

this isn't a new cause to them.

if people care about this as an issue, they will not try to use it to score points against other Democrats.

[Uncle Joe]

61. Why hasn't Hillary spoken out or condemned it? Condemning massive voter suppression is about

our democratic process, this isn't about "scoring points."

Do you know if the DNC has spoken out against or condemned Arizona's voter suppression?

[Time for change]

69. You are definitely right about that.

I think that one reason the GOP might be engaging in voter suppression right now is that they don't want to run against Bernie. He has +7 favorability ratings right now, and there is reason to believe that that might continue to increase, whereas all the Republican candidates have negative favorability ratings. Hillary's is -13.

But you're right. Hillary and the DNC should be complaining about this and asking for an investigation (or doing one), just as Bernie is.

I don't buy the argument that the GOP is doing this as a test for the fall. I don't think that they need any practice. In fact, starting now will arouse suspicions, and it seems to me that by starting now they would decrease their chances of getting away with it in the GE.

[Kensan]

88. Because it will further their goal of reducing democratic turnout...

Chances are some will be turned off by this entire ordeal. Come November, there will be voters who decide not to participate in this election because of the certainty of having to wait in another 5-hour clusterf**k. These problems will affect democratic voters disproportionately, especially in minority and low-income districts. Any reduction of democrat voters is a big positive to republican candidates, no matter how small.

There are several Senate seats up for grabs this year, and lowering turnout could be the difference between republican vs. democrat control. Talk about waiting for the next President to nominate a Justice to the USSC. It would be so fitting if the Senate actually flipped!! The republicans knew they had a difficult task this year, and that was before their primary turned into a circus.

This election will have major consequences on the course this country takes. The USSC is already on the verge of a change in temperament, and the next President will likely nominate several more (without counting Scalia's open seat).

[Uncle Joe]

90. As the problems are brought to public attention, despite corporate media conglomerate willingness

to not do so, it can and will be rectified.

For one, there will be great pressure brought on the culprits to drastically increase the number of polling places at least back to the approximate 200 that were there before they were reduced to 60, the local media is covering this and lines in the G.E. would be substantially reduced as a result.

If the Republican strategy had been to damage Democrats and the domestic turnout, it would've been much more effective done so at the last minute during the G.E. with no time to correct the problems.

As it is now, they have a greatly fired up Democratic Base itching for retribution in November, I imagine Independents and Republicans aren't too happy about it either.

[Kensan]

93. There will be something new for the GE...

I imagine the decision will be made to add more polling places, but I would bet in AZ it will still fall short of the 200 baseline. In fact, the ability to disenfranchise voters in the primary will be used to support the calculus that polling places/machines will magically be too few in those same democratic-leaning precincts while in the more affluent neighborhoods you have only 15-minute lines.

Unless the DoJ gets involved, I foresee only limited improvement in this area. The USSC decision to gut the Voting Rights Act intentionally created this mess, and has tied the hands of federal officials. With a republican controlled Congress, we can't get legislation introduced to fix it, either. Nothing, and especially change, ever comes easy.

[Uncle Joe]

109. I believe there is a strong possibility that the DOJ will get involved.

The petition was exceptionally fast in getting 100,00 signatures and I recall one DUer stating it had cracked 200,000.

Arizona 'voter suppression' petition among fastest to reach 100,000 signatures

PHOENIX - The recent Arizona 'voter suppression' petition was among the fastest to reach 100,000 signatures to the White House.

If you're unfamiliar with the petition, it alleges voter suppression in the Arizona Presidential Preference Election, held last week. After the petition reached its signature goal of 100,000 online signatures, the White House is expected to issue a response.

According to this spreadsheet, the petition ranks among four of the most popular petitions on the website. The petition was started Tuesday and reached the goal Thursday morning.

READ: White House to respond to petition alleging voter suppression in Arizona

The petition asked the White House to investigate possible voter fraud and suppression of Democratic voters specifically:

(snip)

http://www.12news.com/news/politics/arizona-voter-suppression-petition-among-fastest-to-reach-100000-signatures/106017800

Regardless the eyes of the nation will be on Arizona during the General Election with the probable exception of the corporate media conglomerates which apparently don't give a rat's ass about voter suppression.

[geek tragedy]

17. the excuse making has begun a full three weeks ahead of time nt

[sufrommich]

20. Yep,like clockwork. nt

[Jackie Wilson Said]

29. By who? Surely we all agree here all shenanigans are the doing of the GOP?

[geek tragedy]

32. nope, there's people who think it's all an anti-Sanders conspiracy, and

of course you'll never guess who Sanders supporters would blame for an anti-Sanders conspiracy.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

33. Those folks dont belong on this board then, there are right wing boards for that.

[NuclearDem]

40. If Clinton wins, it will be because of shenanigans.

And not because of the 48 point lead she currently has in the state.

[geek tragedy]

43. Clinton was ahead by 26 points in AZ, but the fact she won by 16 means

that there must have been an evil conspiracy.

Never mind the fact that the demographics there skew old and that it's a closed primary.

[Time for change]

86. That's because it's been discovered 3 weeks ahead of time

I guess you don't think that voter suppression is an important issue.

[geek tragedy]

87. you've discovered that occasionally there are mixups in voter

registration files.

I don't think preemptive excuse-making from people who expect to lose an election is an important issue.

When there's evidence of actual voter suppression (HINT: WISCONSIN) then there's cause to be outraged.

But for people who discovered the issue when it served as a useful excuse to whine about losing, nope not with them.

[Time for change]

91. Registered Democrats have already lost their registration for no reason

Calling that "preemptive" voter suppression is ridiculous.

The only reason they checked ahead of time was that they were suspicious due to the fiasco in AZ.

[geek tragedy]

92. I'm glad people were able to discover mixups in their voter registration files.

anything to say about the voter ID law in Wisconsin?

[PonyUp]

19. Will they ban Bull Horn Billy from the polling places? nt

[Nanjeanne]

21. For those who think voter problems are simply an excuse -- why are voter issues not

serious? How do Clinton supporters think voter problems are OK? How do Clinton supporters think expressing outrage that in our small "d" democracy, voting is becoming more and more difficult instead of easier is an excuse?

The shame here is that Clinton supporters don't think voter suppression is a problem and assume that if it happens to Sanders supporters it's just whining. And will Clinton supporters care if it affects Clinton supporters . . . or only care if it affects Clinton supporters.

I don't get it and it's really disturbing to see in a forum that is supposed to be all about democracy.

[geek tragedy]

25. Clinton supporters do think it's a problem. Clinton's campaign

team thinks it's a problem.

The issue is when Bernie supporters try to spin it as a way to delegitimize the votes that people cast for Clinton--people claiming that Clinton stole Arizona or that her win there doesn't count.

Or here, trying to spin it as people trying to steal New York from Sanders (as if they can tell who someone will vote for by looking at their registration file).

[0rganism]

30. "The issue"

seems to me that the issue of
"...Bernie supporters try to spin it as a way to delegitimize the votes that people cast for Clinton..."
pales before the issue of the state effectively removing voters from the primary roles without consent or notification.

[geek tragedy]

34. no one on the D side is saying vote suppression doesn't need to be fixed.

but, if people want to fix it, they have to refrain from using it to air primary grievances or to try to dispute the votes that were cast for another Democrat

[0rganism]

63. agree that this should be treated as a general concern

but above all, it needs to be treated as a concern and dealt with, because this is going to hurt in November no matter who the nominee is.

using it as a platform to grouse about election results is to be expected, as some may feel (correctly or not) that their preferred candidate has underperformed due, at least to some extent, to mechanisms of disenfranchisement. granted that it's not productive to carp about such things on internet forums, it's equally unproductive to rebuke someone who may simply be trying to vent their frustrations at the system, or some portion of it. i think some people post just to keep their blood pressure down (which is unfortunate, since so much of what's on these forums serves only to raise blood pressure).

that said, i think accusations of HRC's involvement in said disenfranchisement are provocative, unacceptable, and counterproductive, and do merit a strong response if she's your preferred candidate. that's not how i see this OP.

[Nanjeanne]

35. And how was this OP doing that? AZ was a clusterf*k. Problems are happening in NY and I read

the article and I didn't see anyone saying who they were voting for.

The OP said there are problems in NY. (FACT) The poster's opinion is that Sanders can't afford to have issues happening in NY (opinion is allowed and it's actually a FACT that Sanders can't afford to have issues in NY. Neither can Clinton, but Sanders needs a good showing in NY even more). Poster said problems in Arizona affected Sanders (FACT - It appears based on the county where most of the problems are that this is probably true). Many of the people who are posting info about changed registrations and inability to vote are Sanders supporters (FACT). This may also be happening to Clinton supporters - but you aren't seeing much about that . . . so

Again, I ask, why don't Clinton supporters just let people who are concerned about "problems" affecting people's voter registration - even if they are Sanders' supporters - vent their frustration? Why deem it an "excuse". It's a valid concern - and it should be whether you support Clinton or Sanders. I know if Clinton people reported that they showed up to vote and were turned away in NY because their registrations were changed - I'd be appalled. And I don't support Hillary at all. But I believe in fair elections. And winning them fairly.

It's a FACT that voting in this primary has been plagued by problems. That's an outrage.

[geek tragedy]

37. the OP is conjecturing that Hillary's people are going to steal New York

by cheating Sanders voters of the right to vote.

By carelessly stating that FRAUD is happening in New York voter rolls.

Here are three FACTS:

1) Clerical errors happen in any database involving human beings, including voter registration rolls. People move, databases don't get updated properly, codes don't get entered properly, etc. And sometimes voters themselves screw up and forget to switch registration in a timely manner. Shit happens.

2) No one can tell from looking at a voter registration form whether a person will support Sanders or Clinton.

3) people can cast provisional ballots if there is a screw up in their voter registration form.

When "fraud" is only invoked to excuse/deny a Sanders loss, it becomes a Chicken Little thing.

[Nanjeanne]

47. No. That's your opinion of what the OP is doing & even so - So What?

So to your FACTS:

1) People take their votes seriously and they want them to count. So if it's clerical errors, human errors, whatever - it's still perfectly valid for people to be pissed off. They don't have to accept it. It's not like getting charged 5 cents more for their milk.

2) Exactly - but there are ways to find out more about a person to know which way they lean. So it's conceivable that certain voters could be targeted. As said, it shouldn't happen to anyone and it should be taken seriously.

3) Provisional ballots!!!! Yup - that's the ticket

Again, why does it bother you so much? Hillary is (we have been told) going to win NY, win the primary, win the election. She's the best candidate ever. So why does it bother you so much? It definitely is Sanders voters who seem to be the ones most involved with the inability to vote - at least from social media. Like I said, I'd be appalled if Clinton's supporters faced the same thing. If they thought it was the Sanders campaign that did it - I'd probably say it's a shame it's happening and someone needs to get to the bottom of it to determine how it is happening. I certainly wouldn't want the Sanders campaign to be behind such a terrible thing. But I wouldn't negate anyone's frustration and annoyance about something most people hold very dear to them - voting.

[geek tragedy]

48. there is zero evidence that this is affecting Sanders voters

in any way more than it's affecting other people.

[Nanjeanne]

49. OK - so let's all BE PISSED and Actively Find Out What's Going On!

glad we can agree to that! Thanks.

[geek tragedy]

50. I already checked my registration, all checks out.

Will be at the polling place 1 block from my home on April 19!

[Time for change]

70. Amen, and thank you.

[Impedimentus]

24. YES

Cuomo runs New York like a private business and we know who he supports.

FEEL THE BERN - 2016

[Jackie Wilson Said]

27. GOP has lots of surprises in store for voters this November.

[jwirr]

42. NY is a huge state and I am assuming that it will happen

again. I have asked my family in NY to check on their registrations and get dated receipts to take to the polls with them. I would suggest that everyone do this.

Be on the safe side.

[MisterP]

46. WI also--have to temper the momentum

[Retrograde]

62. Deliberate surpression? Probably not

Confusion at the voting places? Probably - especially since NY has closed primaries and people registered as non-partisan (or whatever the NY equivalent is) or some 3rd party who want to vote in the April election had to have changed their party affiliations last year.

As for reports of party affiliations mysteriously changing - I'd like to see more concrete data, including where the change occurred, whether it was a new registration, whether the jurisdiction in question recently changed software, percentage of voters affected and their parties, and so on before crediting a wide-spread conspiracy.

[Time for change]

72. Agree that we need to know more about it

But we already know that many of the disappearing registrations affected long time Democrats, not people trying to register newly as a Democrat.

[NorthCarolina]

64. Without question.

NY is a must win for Hillary.

[hrmjustin]

66. As a native NYer I say always beware the NYS and NYC Board of Elections.

They always suck.

[Tarc]

67. Hmm, is the Sanders camp already making excuses ahead of time

to explain the pending 15-20pt blowout in NY?

[Time for change]

73. We would like to prevent a blowout due to voter suppression

If Bernie gets blown out in NY, excuses won't help much. We would much rather prevent it from happening.

[bobbobbins01]

68. I think its been going on since day one.

And maybe some people thought the race would be over before AZ, which is why that one ended up so sloppy. They had to scramble to put the fix in at the last minute. I don't think they'll stop it though, and there is more time to clean up after themselves now.

[geek tragedy]

71. sounds like sour grapes nt

[bobbobbins01]

75. You're very right.

She's been tasting them ever since Obama took her down a peg and now she's trying to win by hook or by crook.

[geek tragedy]

76. she's winning because more Democrats are voting for her.

the rest is sour grapes

[FlatBaroque]

85. I think Bernie's margins are so wide that cheating is not enough.

And my guess is that the people in the Clinton mafia are starting to see the writing on the wall. Just like superdelegates will switch, the people Her relies on for the fixing may not do as thorough a job as she needs.

[BainsBane]

74. Arizona was the result of SCOTUS overturning article 5 of the Voting Rights Act

NY was not covered under Article 5.

[ScreamingMeemie]

89. It's been happening since before Arizona...in Florida.

The people of Arizona chose to get mad about it. There's the difference.

[Zira]

95. It happened in WA too. It's why we had a whopping 40 precints all in a lunchroom and little

library and had to drive so far to get to it, for my caucus. The building was too crowded of course, and people were told at the door that they were at the wrong place, drove a long way to the next school to find out they originally came to the right place, and showed up as we were nearly done voting. This happened all over. My friend in Maple Valley told me they had so many people they couldn't consider letting them in so had to turn them away. Most of what I heard was like my situation which was just like Arizona - in that all of the caucuses were crammed into a few spots instead of among several schools that could absolutely hold the people, like normal. It was obvious attempt at voter suppression and did work even though Bernie won. our state was just so much for him. Hillary still picked up delegates over it.

Expect it in NY. It appears to be the DNC's favorite suppress the vote tactic. And the unregistering voters. My precinct had me and several others never even get our ballots in the mail. I live in a very blue area.

[winter is coming]

110. It's been happening since Iowa. Caucuses scheduled for impossibly small venues,

primaries where precincts are combined to create confusion and long lines, an unusually high amount of registration snafus, ballot shortages. There's a lot of useful incompetence going around.

[Zira]

94. If Hillary wins the nomination I will never believe it wasn't by fraud, because we're seeing fraud.

[litlbilly]

96. Im thinking without the fraud, Bernie might actually be ahead right now

[Zira]

97. I have to agree.

Voter suppression has taken place in too many states now.

[litlbilly]

98. he maybe wins, IA, MA, AZmaybe, at least he loses by alot less, IL for sure, MO defineately, NV

and much closer in OH, did I miss anything?

[Zira]

99. Florida would have been closer and so would WA

I witnessed the suppression in WA and someone else here noticed in FL. It did make the news for Florida but it quickly left the news.
WA won for Bernie so the issue that WA had done the same thing as AZ didn't get brought up.

I and many of my precinct didn't get ballots in the mail at all - they weren't mailed to us. First time in my 8 years owning my house. And I live in a very blue area you wouldn't want voting early.

I had to drive much farther than ever before to get to the caucus and found it with a whopping 40 caucuses crammed into one 1/2 lunchroom(or a little lunch room as we used the whole room but it looked half the size of normal) and a little library. It was too crowded and people were sent to the wrong school at the door(and had to drive far and come back) even though they originally came to the right place. All over the state the sites were too crowded because the normal sites weren't used and we were all crammed into the same few spots. It's why Hillary picked up delegates.

[litlbilly]

101. so you think he takes WA by 80 instead of 70?

[litlbilly]

102. I think you meant MA right?

[Zira]

104. I 1000 percent think he would have if everyone got to vote.

[litlbilly]

105. You might be right, and maybe NH by 30 or more instead of 22

[Zira]

106. I know I'm right. I know whole areas that turned away a lot of voters.

I have friends in different areas and they all saw this.

[Karma13612]

108. This breaks my heart. Right into pieces.

Good must triumph over cheating evil.

It must or we are all lost.

[RandySF]

107. If it's on Facebook, it must be true.

Seriously though, it sounds like you all are prepping the next excuse for the next big loss. Maybe they should just not try so Devine can add it to the list of states they "let" Hillary win.