To those of you who say "it wouldn't have mattered" if they weren't thrown off the voter rolls...

[reformist2]

Please stop for a second. Stop and listen to what you are saying. We're not talking about a handful of incidences around the state. We're talking about over 100,000 voters not able to vote. In just Brooklyn. Never mind the "margin of victory" for just a second, we're talking widespread voter disenfranchisement in the New York primary. Whether it was negligent or deliberate, it is voter suppression just the same. We cannot simply "move on" and pretend that it doesn't matter.

[Blue_Adept]

1. Those comments are made toward those believing it would change the outcome

Not the voting process itself.

[Human101948]

2. Usually with sneering disdain as well...

Hard to discern the concern for voting rights in many of those comments.

[JaneyVee]

3. 12,000 died, 77,000 had voter mailers bounce back, and...

22,000 didnt vote in 2 consecutive federal elections. Any problems should be fixed.

[beedle]

41. is the story of those responsible for the purging

what about those who had their signatures forged on their registration forms switching them from Dem to Repub or Ind? The ones who registed close to the Oct and March deadlines who were mysteriously switched?

There was indeed fraud happening, burying it in some mass of potentially legitimate (but as yet no proof given that those clean ups were actually part of the whole building and city blocks supposedly disenfranchised) is just more excuses for covering up the real crime happening here.

[Agschmid]

4. I agree it's horrible people were removed from the rolls...

But I also think that overall the outcome would have not been very different at the state level.

Voting should be reformed, I agree with this.

[Chasstev365]

6. By stating the outcome would NOT have been different is NOT THE FUCKING POINT!

Hence, you are not so subtlety being dismissive of it

[Agschmid]

8. No not dismissive at all... I pretty much agreed with the OP.

But go ahead get your rage on...

[seabeyond]

21. It is when implied/stated Sanders had NY stolen, when all reasonable evidence states Clinton would

have gained with those lost votes, not lost. Or that Clinton's somehow is responsible for this to deny Sanders his votes. Then ya, reason has to be stated to attack the false accusations.

[Chasstev365]

22. You're Wrong About My Intention!

My point is that many Hillary people don't care and think it's funny. "Well, Hillary would have won anyway." "She would have gotten more votes." There is an implication that Sanders supporters just have sour grapes.

I don't find it amusing, no matter who one is voting for. If the 100,000 people wanted to vote for Hillary and were not allowed to, it's unacceptable. The same thing if they wanted to vote Bernie. It dosen't matter who hypothetically would gave gotten more votes.

[seabeyond]

24. You are wrong. That simple. Clinton supporters and Democrats flat out fighting against voter

suppression. Always have and are on record well before we ever heard a peep from Sanders.

Clinton supporters also call bullshit that Clinton personally went thru the thousands upon thousands of names and was ale to pick out only Sanders supporters to throw of the said list.

It is insulting, and wrong, flat out wrong, to state that Clinton supporters do not care about voter rights.

It is also flat our wrong wrong and insulting to state that Clinton was responsible for theft.

[Chasstev365]

26. II Never Said that Clinton Stole Anything!

[seabeyond]

28. "Hillary NY Cheating" That bullshit, that lie, that false accusation is what Clinton supporters

address. That is in a title in GDP. YOU though have falsely accused Clinton people of not caring about voter suppression. That is another smear, false accusation that I addressed. So, I am addressing the lie that Clinton stole NY and I am addressing the lie Clinton supporters do not fight against voter suppression.

[Chasstev365]

31. Reread all the post and tell some Hillary supporters aren't amused

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

[seabeyond]

32. "Amused"? Disgusted at people stating someone magically found Sanders supporters and kicked them off

so they could not give Sanders a win, ya..... Tired of the damn whine and perpetual victim-hood. You do not like it? Use reason in your argument.

I addressed the lies and you refuse to acknowledge the lies. Why? To perpetuate the victim-hood.

[Chasstev365]

35. Nuclear Time!

Bernie Cries Victim-hood? HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!! LMAO! You've got to be kidding me!

Hillary and her minions can call Bernie a pinko, a non-supporter of Civil Rights, etc., but whenever Hillary is attack, she a victim of sexism! Bill Clinton has even said Bernie is sexists. Really? Mr. "Respecter of Woman" himself is in no position to talk about any man being sexist. TALK ABOUT WHINING!

Hillary is just as tough as Margret Thatcher, unless someone is being mean to poor Hillary. It's pathetic and this is why people don't like your candidate!

[seabeyond]

36. More false accusations. You just make shit up for attacks. What is that.

[Chasstev365]

37. Number 1

Sanders Responds to Bill Clinton Suggesting His Attack on Hillary Was Sexist

by Josh Feldman | 2:32 pm, April 9th, 2016

video 371




Yesterday, when asked if Hillary Clinton would be called “unqualified” by Bernie Sanders if she was a man, Bill Clinton said that there is certainly “subconscious” sexism and double standards going on here.

CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Sanders last night, in the interview set to air on State of the Union tomorrow, to respond. Sanders sarcastically remarked, “I appreciate Bill Clinton being my psychoanalyst, it’s always nice.”

[seabeyond]

38. "Bernie a pinko, a non-supporter of Civil Rights" When I get to BS, I stop reading.

Number 1
View profile

Sanders Responds to Bill Clinton Suggesting His Attack on Hillary Was Sexist

See, I stopped reading. I didn't even get to that part of your post before stopping my read and responding to the bullshit allegation "Bernie a pinko, a non-supporter of Civil Rights".

[Chasstev365]

39. Number 2 "Hammer and Sickle (Communist) SHALL I GO ON?

Martin is referring to a pretty strong quote from Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who was keeping it 100 in a new NYT piece, one of several such quotes in the story:


“The Republicans won’t touch him because they can’t wait to run an ad with a hammer and sickle,” said Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s.

…“Here in the heartland, we like our politicians in the mainstream, and he is not — he’s a socialist,” said Gov. Jay Nixon of Missouri, who is term

[seabeyond]

43. Do whatever you want. You are having your own conversation, ignoring my replies.

[Chasstev365]

44. If that is your best retort, I accept your concession. We're done here!

[seabeyond]

46. Here is the thing. This is not about ... retorts. Lol.

[Chasstev365]

40. Number 3

From Politico

When a reporter asked Lewis to comment on Sanders' involvement in the movement—Sanders as a college student at the University of Chicago was active in civil rights work—the congressman brusquely interrupted him. "Well, to be very frank, I'm going to cut you off, but I never saw him, I never met him," Lewis said. "I'm a chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for three years, from 1963 to 1966. I was involved in the sit-ins, the freedom rides, the March on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery, and directed their voter education project for six years. But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President Clinton."

[Marrah_G]

10. Everything you say before the "but" gets made irrelevant by what you say after the "but".

[Agschmid]

11. Not really.

I mean I understand your comment but I disagree.

I've been arguing that this whole primary process is not fair, my comments have been ignored for months. In my opinion the whole process should be re-worked.

Here are my thoughts again...

- Vote by mail, there should be three copies (one you mail in, one you mail to the campaign, and one you retain). This eliminates disenfranchising caucuses, as well as closed primary poll locations.
- Primaries should be closed IMO, however people wishing to vote should be able to change their affiliation up to 1 month before the event. You may only change your affiliation once a year.
- The primary timeline should be reduced to two months, with all states reporting results by June 1st. Our campaigns are MUCH too long currently.
- I'd like to see balanced primaries, to be honest I'm not sure the best order states should vote in but each result day should have results from some states in each region.
- Automatic registration for everyone with state driver ID, you just have to select the party. Once you get a new state ID in another state you are removed from the previous state voting rolls.

[randome]

12. But...but...Hillary!!!!

All excellent points. I'm not sure about changing affiliation only once a year. There are true Independents out there -not the wannabes we have on DU- who may want to vote for a Republican for one election and a Democrat in another, but I agree with the closed primary approach so I'm not sure how that might change.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Agschmid]

13. Well it's all my opinion, so I'm sure it's not perfect...

But I have to say, this is primary selection process and that should be mostly party members voting. I think if you change your affiliation just to vote in a primary you should have to live with it for a while.

[peace13]

15. It is impossible to measure the number of people who will not vote because of this problem.

..because they think their vote will not count, think that there is a chance that they will be embarrassed at the polls due to registration problems, can not afford a day to air in line to vote, do not have required ID. The problems are real. If you vote with no worries or problems then you need to recognize your privilege. My best to you. I hope we can work this important issue out together.

[Agschmid]

16. It's a major issue I agree.

[eomer]

17. The *proportional* allocation of delegates could definitely be affected.

Whether the overall outcome at the state level (who "won" the state) would have been different is secondary at most. It has no direct bearing on the ultimate determination of the nominee.

New York allocates some delegates within each congressional district. The numbers of voters affected at the CD level surely would be enough to potentially change the number of delegates awarded to each candidate.

And then New York also elects some delegates at the state convention. Since these delegates are also allocated proportionally, this disenfranchisement could also easily affect the number of delegates awarded at the state level.

[Agschmid]

18. It could have, or it could have had no effect.

There isn't really (at least that I've seen) proof that all the disenfranchised were Sanders supporters, there would be no reason to expect the outcome to change without proof of that from a reliable source.

[eomer]

29. Obviously.

But the talking point that many are repeating that it wouldn't have affected the overall result is missing the point (probably intentionally). The overall result, as in who "won" the state, isn't the more important result. What matters most is how many delegates are awarded. That clearly can be affected more easily for two reasons: 1) because delegates are awarded proportionally and 2) because some delegates are awarded at the congressional district level and are more likely to be affected by a local problem than the whole state "winner" could be.

[Chasstev365]

5. Oh, Get Over It! Put Those Tin Foil Hats Away!

Wait, Isn't that what the Republicans told us in 2000 and 2004? I wonder if the Hillbots will react the same way in November 2016 when THEY are "accidentally" knocked off the voter roles due to a "Clerical Error" .........

[randome]

7. No one is saying to not find out and fix the problems. You just did.

But as far as changing the outcome of the election, it's clear that won't happen. Math again.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[HereSince1628]

9. The winners want to spend tim grinning, not fixing state party rules.

This should be embarrassing enough to get reviewed by the NY state convention. I wouldn't guarantee a repair effort as NY's party rules, like those of other states, are pretty much in the hands that shape it to serve the political establishment.

[boston bean]

14. Fine, just don't say it's Clintons fault and that Bernie would have won.

Cause that is bullshit conspiracy.

[BlueStateLib]

19. having failed to vote in two successive federal elections

Of the 126,000 Democratic voters taken off from the rolls in Brooklyn, Ryan said 12,000 had moved out of borough, while 44,000 more had been placed in an inactive file after mailings to their homes bounced back. An additional 70,000 were already inactive and, having failed to vote in two successive federal elections or respond to cancel notices, were removed.

[COLGATE4]

23. Ruining a perfectly good rant with facts.

How unkind of you. Those complaining the most bitterly aren't interested in facts. Their motto should be "Think of the voters. Doesn't anybody think of the voters????"

[seabeyond]

20. Clinton would have had a greater win, so ya.... it would have changed the numbers.

[CorkySt.Clair]

25. Maybe if Sanders followers didn't whine about every state they lose?

It would be easier to take seriously.

[Dem2]

27. Yes it would have increased Hillary's margin of victory

But since she won by 16 points, I can understand why she's not outraged by the voter rolls being reduced. Also, you need to consider that a very very small number of those people actually went out to vote - they literally we're not there to vote - you can't possibly believe that there were 120000 people who actually we're going to vote that night and were turned away from the polls. Now I am glad they are doing an audit and that they will fix this situation in the future, but let's not be deluded into thinking that the outcome of this election was in any way affected by this.

[hrmjustin]

30. I am pissed for several reasons. I live in Brooklyn and know people this happened to.

My brother.

As for the final numbers the affidavits from Brooklyn are likely to add to Clinton's margin.

And it was no accident. People need to go to jail.

[Dem2]

34. Good to hear

Knowing that this affected somebody here, it brings home the point that they went overboard when they did this and you are right somebody needs to be held accountable. If that means jail time, then so be it.

[reformist2]

42. If it adds to Hillary's margins so be it. But a lot needs to be done to make this primary legitimate

But I'm glad to hear we're on the same page on this. It might be good for Hillary to make some remarks about this as well.

[corkhead]

33. I am only concerned with the fact that it happened. Who benefited from it is irrelevant to that.

[Dems to Win]

45. 20% of Dem voters had to file affidavit ballots in one ED on Long Island

The problems went far beyond Brooklyn.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511796132

*Somebody* messed with the Democratic voter rolls, statewide, for *some* reason. Pretty ugly to just sweep it under the rug and pretend it was incompetence by one official in Brooklyn.

[EndElectoral]

47. I don't know anyone who wouldn't be pissed if they weren't allowed to exercise their vote