n/t

Let's disenfranchise independent voters, you know voters that have to live with the leaders we pick because they're not democrats.

Also we don't want any republicans voting for us, wait yes we do, no wait we don't no wait................. WTF!?

Yea blackmail, and voter suppression, it's what makes AMERICA GREAT!

vote for their Independent candidate.

On a completely unrelated topic, Trust Buster ...

I hear you coach a softball team and it's a pretty good team.

Can I play?

Oh, yeah ... I won't be selling any of the raffle tickets that finance the team, nor will I be coming to any practices, nor, will I listen to you; but, I will be making the line up and starting every game.

Where do I pick up my uniform?

I was serious ... I want to play softball!

We paid for the system, if they were not smart enough to rig it for themselves they are too lazy. That is why I hate the poor.

you bothered to read the fucking article.

and is now lying about it. After all, the BoE has a form the person filed. It strains credulity to think someone targeted a person in October and knew that person would turn out to be a Sanders voter and then changed their registration to keep them from voting in April. What if the person was going to vote for Hillary? It also implies that some anti-Sanders cabal was behind the actions.

Like you, I'm an atheist. I tend to dismiss tales that smack of conjecture and are devoid of real evidence. Occam's Razor would say the most-likely scenario doesn't involve a huge conspiracy to disenfranchise Sanders voters. Human error, poor memory and selective memory are more likely explanations.

I assume the party has a records retention system, so no, I don't think it strains credulity that people would go ahead if they didn't think they were risking court costs.

I view this as little different from Republican gerrymandering.

The judge today told them they need to sue every county BoE.

Will never happen. This was an Election Day stunt probably encouraged by the Sanders campaign to put a cloud over the results so they can whine about it being unfair. They got what they wanted. They won't spend the time or money to launch a serious and honest challenge.


Losers always fall into the same predictable patterns.

Hope we're on the same side after the convention.

from having a primary. This is going to get laughed out of court.

See the voter declarations attached to the complaint.

Liars.

We're talking about Democrats here period!!

The NY Republican primary is also closed. How come no one is complaining that their registrations were changed on the R side?

Hillary will do just fine in the GE without the votes of
the most-zealous Sanders partisans.

Sanders has no realistic path to the nomination. If he did, he wouldn't be throwing up all these smoke screens and jetting off to Rome as a publicity stunt. You can cut the desperation with a knife.

You sure you want to open that door? I'm game if you are.

save the gloating in a few hours.

Funny you think it can end before that.

would concede before the convention because they would want to help the Party pivot to the GE and to present a united front against the Rs.

But Sanders is too self-absorbed to think in those terms. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the D Party.

and he's already filed as an Indy for his Senate run in 2018. If you call that a real Dem, I've got a Trump hat to sell you.

Sanders being elected president would set the progressive cause back decades.

Hillary on Single Payer:

Out of work, we qualified for the Medi-cal expansion in CA. My wife was able to have cancer surgery that probably saved her life.

I have actually been told by people that I was being selfish for supporting the ACA because we benefitted from it. That what We should have done was waited for single payer for everyone.

Our situation is exactly the situation Hillary is talking about in that quote you cited.

But to say Single Payer will "never, ever happen" is not exactly a progressive thing to say.

in Medicaid/care. That can be expanded. But to tell people who have great insurance through their jobs that they're going to have to settle for something less will never fly.

with the dnc controlling the van software and hc's campaign controlling the dnc there is a distinct possibility that hc's campaign is involved but

the important thing is...it can be done by any good hacker....electronic counting and reporting already make our elections invalid as the average citizen can not oversee the counting, reporting but

now with electronic poll books and registrations another layer of possible voter disenfranchisement has been added

Kip,

I am sorry I was away from this site. I have sent your posts to Blair Fellows who is in the courtroom now arguing the case.

I have also texted her -- marked urgent!

I have also alerted Shyla Nelson who is at the courthouse talking to the media about what is going on.

I cannot thank you enough for this vital information.

Cliff

I just hope Blair has gotten it in time to confirm its truth with the NY Attorney General in front of the federal judge.

And, talk about the awesome power if the Internet . . . Wow!

Kip,

Bernie's NY election protection folks are asking for a cite to the Party rule to which you are referring. The NY AG civil rights lawyer is trying to find the same thing. Do you have a cite or a link to document the existence of the rule?

Thanks,

Cliff

I was driving at the time so did not write down Thom's source (unfortunately).

Good work stacking the deck for our continued one-, I mean, two-party rule.

It's the Party of the rich and powerful! They just pretend it's 2 Party's much like the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals!

Cross over voters tend to play games in a passive/ aggressive form. Closed Primaries are best.

Meaning that there is actually very little evidence of crossover raiding.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/89g5x6vn#page-11
http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-california-politics-20150222-story.html
http://www.polmeth.wustl.edu/files/polmeth/alvar99b.pdf
(an old paper, but interesting)

Do you have any facts to prove the contrary?

No.

By the way, I voted for Bernie

Go Brooklyn Bernie !!

Let every registered voter have a voice in the primary.

You know, Democracy.

And every registered voter will have the right to vote in the general.

Maybe you don't remember when the Republicans were hoping to pick the Democratic candidate?

Witness Arizona and New York for the two obvious demonstrations of this.

But maybe you're OK with voter disenfranchisement as long as it benefits your candidate?

If you are referring to Hillary and you are a Bernie supporter then your argument is BS. Bernie has consistently dominated in caucus states. Caucuses disenfranchise voters more than closed primaries. Not only are caucuses closed, but voter turnout is relatively very low compared to primaries as only the most passionate party members are willing to participate. You can't have it both ways.

NY's problems are altered party affiliations and its 1-year prior party affiliation requirement. Bernie's problem is simply that he's liked less than Hillary in NY. He's liked more in others. You win some and you lose some.

BTW I voted for Bernie in AZ.

I'm arguing for open primaries everywhere. Your post only reinforces my point.

In fact, it probably isn't happening enough to change anything. Let the people vote in all the elections. Anything else is just disenfranchisement.

Thanks for all you've done to expose election fraud, particularly during the 2004 election in Ohio. You da man!!

in the thread.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO obvious.

Taking lessons from Republicans on rigging the election.

Who says our party hasn't moved to the right?

Give me a break!!

WE NEED REPUBLICAN VOTES!

This time not so much?

Sure thing John K, tell me how it is cause I'm totally new at this!

Democrats, Repukes, and other parties should pick their own nominees. Strategically, I a little open to allowing Independants to get their voice in primaries as parties will need them in the general. Then again, if you aren't willing to join any party then don't complain about not having a voice in any primary. You made your choice. You still have a voice in the general, unless Repukes take that away.

None of these "primary suppression" arguments overcomes the fact that Bernie is having his ass handed to him in all NY polls. Even a Bernie voter like me can see that. Win some, Lose some, that's how it goes.

Last edited Tue Apr 19, 2016, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Hint: not recently.

Like here in Ohio, where you just declare an affiliation when you go to vote. My mother and I have both been inexplicably listed as independent before just before elections despite both being lifelong Democrats.

You go in and vote for who you want. I've never signed , declared or swore allegience to any political party.

What's left of it, anyway.

Having your voter registration changed without consent seems a little vague to comment on since no details are evident but on the other hand, if you register as an Independent in a state with a closed primary, tough luck stupid, you knew what you were doing.

I think the real issue this time around is that by the time the primary process gets around to New York in most years, the candidates are all but inevitable. This year, the primaries actually matter in New York and people are just realizing it.

All the pleadings in the suit, with voter declarations under penalty of perjury, are available at this site:

http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/new-york-election-fraud-lawsuit-results-voter-purge-hearing-open-primary-election-justice-usa/

It is the process of the party, not the state, selecting its candidates for the General Election.

The party could just hold a convention without giving the larger population of "The Democratic Party" a vote.

If you want to vote in the Democratic Party Primary, you should have joined the party by registering as a Democrat by the deadline, and according to the RULES which were set out long before this contest date was set.

If you can't win, cheat!

their actions are sooooooooooooooooooooo not democratic but they get to hide under the "Democrat" name.

Yeay blackmail!

not a fucking clue.



If you don't get it then that's why the party is where it is today and the Democrats and middle class are suffering.

Fuck.

are already whining before the results come in!

Have you noticed how Bernie is strangely silent when he's expected to win yet not so much when he's expected to lose? Boo hoo, bros.

Bummed about "switched registration"? Sue about that, but that is no reason to screw up the Democratic primary by making it an open primary. Dem-hating Independents and Republicans should not be allowed to meddle with who DEMOCRATS pick as THEIR nominee.

The fucking irony.

Thanks for the support.

Don't tell me:

"Do You Want the Republicans to Win!?"

Been here, done that lie.

Just shows how uneducated the world is on her history.

There have been studies that show that there is little crossover raiding (which is apparently the technical term). Feel free to post any facts or studies that prove this wrong.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/89g5x6vn#page-11
http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-california-politics-20150222-story.html
http://www.polmeth.wustl.edu/files/polmeth/alvar99b.pdf
(an old paper, but interesting)

Only 69% of the voters were Democrats. Hillary won 58% of those and thus would have easily won Michigan if it was just up to Democrats, i.e. if it was a closed primary.

But Sanders won by around 2% of the vote. And 4% of the Dem primary voters were Republicans; the rest (about 27%) were unaffiliated/independents, and they went for Sanders. Classic ratfucking.


http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/mi/dem

The links I posted describe them better than I can, but the only type I would call "ratfucking" are people who are intentionally voting for a candidate that they don't at all support for the purpose of giving their preferred candidate an advantage. Other people who crossover do so because they genuinely support the other party's candidate, they do not approve of their party's candidate and the other party has their second choice, or they are making a choice to support a candidate they can live with but whom they think is more electable than other candidates. Sanders gets a lot of genuine support from independents and Republicans. These are not people trying to muck up the system but people who actually support the candidate. My question is whether you have facts to support the premise that people are crossing party lines to mess with the Democratic selection process.

That is ratfucking.

Independents yeah, but genuine support from Republicans? Not a credible assertion.

Note that these are NOT Republican operatives, but genuine Bernie supporters.


https://www.facebook.com/republicansforbernie/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-lifelong-conservatives-who-love-bernie-sanders/417441/
https://www.reddit.com/r/RepublicansForSanders
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-surprising-numbers-republicans-have-been-voting-bernie-sanders-vermont
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/11/bernie-sanders-won-2095-votes-in-the-new-hampshire-republican-primary/
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/republicans-for-bernie-sanders/

Even the administrator of the 'Republicans for Bernie' Facebook group puts it this way: 'I believe we have a wide assortment of Republicans, former Republicans, and "recovering Republicans," as well as supportive Independents, Greens, Libertarians, and Democrats represented here.'

Now it doesn't surprise me that a few Lincoln-lovin' lefty Republicans would be for Bernie, but even the above mentioned FB group only has 25k members, which is a rounding error in electoral terms. Meanwhile, although Bernie did well in New Hampshire with Republicans, he got slightly fewer than the number of Democrats who voted for Ron Paul in 2012.

So OK, there are some sincere Republican Bernie supporters, I will concede that. But numbers like these are not enough to matter in a general election. If it were something like Trump v. Sanders then I can see a lot of moderates voting for Sanders rather than blow up the country, but realistically most of those people would be as likely to vote for Clinton.

Sanders Supporters Realize They are About to Lose, Seek to Change Rules.

Sanders supporters have been through this shit already and know why she didn't win the 1st fucking time.

Independents are not members of the party. They don't contribute (time OR money) to the party. Why do they think they should have a say in the Party's nominee?

I have no doubt it happened to some degree, but my bet is the numbers are pretty insignificant.

Besides, if such things were happening, how are they identifying the Sanders supporters to nefariously disenfranchise?

Ridiculous.

coalition by not competing in the southern primaries where there was a huge segment of Obama coalition votes, thus he is behind.

That same coalition is going to sting him again in New York.

I really appreciate your letting us know what is going on, Cliff.

before the day of the primary. Low information and occasional voters need to become more informed about the process. Their candidate maybe should have educated them as well. He's had many large rallies and never once made any comment about how the process works and what they needed to do to be able to vote for him. Now suddenly, the rules should be changed just for them.

Don't they learn in whatever junior high is these days that a closed primary is only for party members?

As for party membership mysteriously changed... I'm skeptical. I mean, why? Who? And why did all these people suddenly look up their party registration before the primary? It's not like they got to the polls and were told, much the their surprise, that they were Independents. If you have to look up what party you are, how do you even know it was changed? Doesn't pass the smell test to me.