They passed.

Kinda like Florida 2000 never happened.

Kinda like Ohio 2004 never happened.







Kinda makes one wonder.

It was not "to a Sanders voter".

It's pretty obvious to people without an anti-Clinton bias that what happened in AZ was a repug rehearsal for Dem vote suppression in November.

They shut down two thirds of the polling places, many in minority areas. And we all know minorities are mostly Clinton, not Sanders voters.

So no, the vote suppression was not orchestrated by the DNC or the Clinton campaign as Sanders supporters have been insinuating since that election.

I didn't mention Sanders, Clinton, the DNC or anything else.

The facts are:

1. The integrity of US elections has obviously been compromised and votes are obviously being suppressed.

2. In 2009, Democrats in DC had an opportunity to protect our elections and voting rights but did not do so.



Who benefits from election rigging is not the issue. The issues I raised are that our elections have been rigged and our votes suppressed, and Democrats failed to correct that when they had the chance.

responsible for the long lines in Phoenix that prevented Sanders supporters from voting which lead to Clinton winning.

You don't remember that?

It's almost as if they wanted to play that game to their own advantage now and then, and therefore passed the chance to protect voters against such shenanigans.

GOP succeeded in preventing Dems from an operative super-majority that they SHOULD have had by contesting Al Franken's race with procedural maneuvers. Franken was not sworn into office till July 2009.

Kennedy became ill and also Robert Byrd. Both later died. Dems were never in control of a super-majority as many have been led to believe and the GOP has been furthering this myth to lie and claim they were NEVER an obstruction to Obama.

I have no clue why Democrats allow this myth to continue, since it plays into the GOP's hands.

Surely you aren't taking offense that 'Dems had super-majority for 2years' myth created by GOP is being called out, are you? It seems you would have as much concern as I that the myth is being posted yet again here at DU.

Mystified that you would use my correction of that myth that included NO EDITORIALIZING, to claim you were addressing an excuse. There was no excuse included in my post correcting a GOP myth. None.

Why target my post? I have become the enemy around here when I have been battling GOP's lie machine here at DU for 15 years now, and merely for the crime of correcting a GOP invented lie?

What's with the misdirected, same side fragging going on here?

Not all criticism of Clinton and Third Way comes from the right. And most of the criticism isn't mythical either. By calling it a myth, you turn a tin ear.

If you think GOP is telling the truth, then put up the facts that back YOUR view.

Mz Karl.

We both know you can't, but, I doubt you'll find the integrity to admit you have been spreading lies manufactured by the GOP and you posted this GOP myth without checking its veracity.

How low..

Prove it.

And this is one of the issues that anger many in our Country. One statement that should ring loud and clear is,poor people are not voting. Where to hell is our Parties get out to vote efforts. After Bernies comment,everyone should been screaming at the DNC for not pushing voter outreach programs,instead all we see is E-Mails begging for money to support their Dino's.

needs to be active about it round the clock and use the money it has for nonstop efforts geared to doing that.

The only reason Obama didn't push for, just to name an example - gay marriage was because he wanted to "keep his powder dry". When he really wanted, he always managed to find a few Republicans willing to accomodate him (see also: TPP). And apparently the reform of elections (putting them beyond vote-rigging) was just more of the powder he and his Third Way friends wanted to keep dry.

If you have facts that back your view that GOP was being honest when they claimed that Dems had a working supermajority for two years, then post your facts.

That is what the GOP is peddling - and they are wrong.

What I say is that Obama could always find some Republicans to push trough tyhings he really cared about. And somehow, the electoral reform could ot be pushed through. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the Democratic control of the senate - for the time it existed - was mostly used to push through corporation-coddling measures.

Prove it.

The Democrats had a super majority in the Senate for 4 months...and squandered it.

issues Dems deemed to be urgent at the time.

Those days available for any other issue were few and, though I would definitely be on the side of pushing through a legislative fix to voting problems, no matter what, I can still be honest and see that there wasn't any way it was going to happen without the time allocated to include hearings.

It seems many of you here at DU have completely forgotten how GOP was manipulating the schedule through procedural measures at the time, and that Dems fully expected to keep Kennedy's senate seat. They shouldn't have, but, hindsight is 20-20.

was NOT TRUE, which you just admitted in your previous post.
You still have time to edit your erroneous post.
(I wouldn't leave a false claim posted on DU...especially after I had been proved wrong...but thats just me.)

Democrats did indeed hold a Super Majority in the Senate for 4 months.
If I were Harry Reid, every day would have been a WORKING DAY. The Democrats would have held back-to-back Special Sessions, week-ends, all nighters, round the clock.
I would have told the Democratic Senators to bring their sleeping bags, because we were going to WORK and clear the back log of Democratic Bills from The House which had been blocked by Republicans

...but then, I want REAL change, not just empty campaign promises.
I EXPECT our elected reps to actually WORK for us.

that Dems had a super majority for Obama's first two years. There was no significant chunk of time that would have enabled taking on an issue like that, especially after a major win for Dems. Was that shortsighted? Yes - I would always agree that Dems are shortsighted on voting issues. Nefarious? No.

I, post #39, you said:

Whatever Obama has said is not relevant to our conversation about documented History.

It is really simple.

You said the Democrats never had a Super Majority.
You were/are WRONG.
That is a historical fact.
You can throw all the red herrings and excuses you wish, but you can't change documented History.

Now YOU get over yourself.

You are being absurd. You will not acknowledge what I clearly said.

The poster said there was no GOP myth of a super majority in answer to my assertion that there was.

Keep it straight, bvar….you're like a 2nd amendment guy who refuses to add the words 'well-regulated militia".

bvar said this:
bvar22 (39,418 posts)
95. NOW, you are changing your story.

I, post #39, you said:

39. "Dems didn't have a super-majority, that's a myth furthered by GOP.

GOP succeeded in preventing Dems from an operative super-majority that they SHOULD have had by contesting Al Franken's race with procedural maneuvers. Franken was not sworn into office till July 2009.

Kennedy became ill and also Robert Byrd. Both later died. Dems were never in control of a super-majority as many have been led to believe and the GOP has been furthering this myth to lie and claim they were NEVER an obstruction to Obama.

I have no clue why Democrats allow this myth to continue, since it plays into the GOP's hands."
---

So, bvar….what is the GOP myth's of a supermajority as MANY HAVE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE that I could possibly have been referring to? Clue: The EXACT SAME one that Obama referred to in his comments.

And, apparently you don't do congressional calendar, bvar.

There was no 4mths, either.

But, pray tell, what has the GOP led people to believe about a Dem super majority?

No different than the gunhumpers who leave out 'well-regulated militia' eh, bvar? Geez - what has happened to you?

Nothing.
I still value Truth and History, as I always have.
You made a mistake.
I corrected your mistake.
Simple.

Instead of acknowledging your mistake after being shown the documented History,
you are opting to just spin your wheels, throwing gravel and smoke in the air,
and stubbornly trying to prove that the FALSE is TRUE.

The real question is ,
"What has happened to you to turn you into a History Revisionist?"

of my post by excluding a key phrase. The myth of the Dem supermajority created by the GOP that many people were led to believe.

Keep ignoring my ENTIRE sentence, bvar, because it doesn't fit into the argument you want to make. Edit the part out you don't want to address. Once you edit down what I said to the part you want to keep it will prove me wrong, won't it?

Pure genius. I wonder why FOX doesn't try that tactic?

and Conservadems went along with it. it still wasn't required.

they would BLOCK EVERYTHING Obama and Dems wanted to do.

But….it seems many here have forgotten that this is what was going on in their zeal to put all blame on Dems.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

Robert Draper Book: GOP’s Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration

Feel free to use the calendar.

plus Independent Bernie Sanders caucusing with the Democrats from
the day Al Franken was swore in on July 7, 2009 until
Ed Kennedy passed away on August 25, 2009.

That's 49 days. And a lot got done in those 7 weeks.

So technically, you are correct. The Democrats never had a super-majority,
but they did have super-majority powers with Bernie Sanders vote.

In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still “only” 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.

In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.

In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.

In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.
>>>>>

In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate.

In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.

Here’s the real deal — there actually wasn’t a two year supermajority.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken’s election in Minnesota and he didn’t get seated for seven months.

The President’s cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania’s Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes — still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President’s number on paper was 59 Senators — he was really working with just 58 Senators.

Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 — but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy’s seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown was sworn into the seat Senator Kennedy once held.

Smmer and holiday recesses also factored in so there was never a two-year super majority that could have done what you suggest.

which is what obstructionist repugs did an unprecedented 400 times to Obama so what are you saying?

gridlock when he had the authority and chances to.

and squandered his 2 years in office with Dem control and lost it naturally...

they brushed it off immediately but within a week when it became clear something rather illegal happened then it was an issue.

There's always "more pressing" issues than protecting our right to vote.

The Supreme Court opened the flood gates for draconian voter ID laws. The effect went well beyond the states that were the focus of the law.

but, some are too dug in to acknowledge it.

I've been on the losing side several times and it burns. The absolute worst thing we can do is to gloat.

I know the deal isn't sealed, but it s damn near being sealed

exaggerated outrages and are even embarrassed by some of it.

Not just me, there are Sanders supporters who were booted from HRC group AND the Sanders group. heheheh….I guess because we were the REAL Dems who wouldn't accept spin from either camp that was targeting the other unfairly.

they accept victory and defeat with grace. They are adult enough to accept a wide range of beliefs under the Democatic banner. I remember how the left tore themselves apart over minor differences during the Vietnam war. Too many demanded ideological purity.

Look at the Republicans. They demanded purity and the party is totally fucked. I remember what the GOP did to Lowell Weicker. He was a moderate, and the GOP said there is no place for moderates in their party. He was a decent man, that was vilified and shunned. It was ugly.

Obama was too conservative for my tastes, but I was able to put that aside for the good of the country and my party. I would never sit out an election because the candidate of my choice didn't

Don't judge the rank and file Democrats by the actions of some on DU. They are caught up in the emotions that cloud their reason.

You think all 535 members of Congress absolutely had to spend every waking moment on the financial crisis?

The voting rights act was gutted in 2013, not 2009

Again, we can multitask.

States set the rules for voting, so the courts were better suited to handle those cases. the Justice Department stepped in in and smacked down many of the worst.

The president has limited power when it comes down to the states.

You are correct, as usual...

No need to present facts to supporters of the other candidate...they don't resonate...

You need to work on that.

that the Clinton campaign were responsible for the vote suppression.

They were of course wrong.

I comprehended that just fine and wanted to reiterate it here.

That you can't admit you misinterpreted the post.

I posted at the time that it was obvious that the repugs were rehearsing dem vote suppression for the November election. Look it up.

I said what I did in this post to remind Sanders supporters that their accusations that the Clinton campaign and/or the DNC were responsible for Sanders' voters being disenfranchised were dead wrong.

Dem voters were disenfranchised not just Sanders voters.

Got that?

you are lecturing the wrong person and your condescension is ill placed. Maybe respond to someone who gives a damn that you live and breathe air or who cares what you think. Here's a hint: I don't.

Wrong wrong wrong. What's really stunning is how Sanders supporters are so gullible. Stupid and easily fooled. Hells bells, Senator Sanders would have us believe that he hasn't made himself rich using his political position! I mean c'mon, who wouldn't do that!? Release the damn tax returns already!

"Stupid and easily fooled." Fuck this shit.

for dem vote suppression in the general election, not a DNC/Clinton orchestrated disenfranchisement of Sanders voters.

Nothing else in you vocabulary?

yes or no?

Sanders does not do well with people of color.

which color, the color of green?

totally lost track of which election problems were under discussion.
lets postpone that people of color broad brush until all west coast latinos and latinas
and all the other rainbow spectra get their chance.
California will have something to say.

I think it smells like rotten elephant.

This was a test run for Republican paid geeks. Because even if they cannot plausibly get away with flipping registrations and throwing enough Dems off the system to crown a Republican President...it is the House and Senate and Governors they are focusing on. So that it doesn't matter if Clinton or Sanders gets in, the Party of No continues their mission.

to be seen. If there is a lawsuit, that may be discovered.

I'm not entirely anti clinton more like her principles don't match mine whatsoever. but you seemed to be bringing this off topic

For instance there is one up right now in which the poster admits wishing for an indictment on Clinton. This on a site whose purpose is to help elect dems.

The post was alerted on twice but still allowed by the jury to stand.

Both Party's are complicit!

You win the prize.

That I became a politically active Democrat, and began voting for the first time.

The worst legislation ever.

Our laughable "representation" is no more than a coat of paint that makes a turd look like something other than what it really is. The stink and the uselessness are still offensive, but the paint - the color of which, we get the whoopteedoo honor of choosing - still manages to fool the voting masses into thinking the turd might be something beneficial.
The actual turd - the fecal material that makes it what it is - is made up of corporate interests and the lobbyists that they hire to support the coat of paint we've chosen. And believe me - keeping that thin veneer of paint happy and outwardly attractive is important to the turd. In fact, if the turd senses that some voting district has applied some transparent paint, all the stops are pulled out to see that it's replaced an opaque hue. Crap forbid that the voters ever conclude that their "representatives" (the paint) aren't ALL OVER the issues they chose them to deal with.

House and Senate, they do nothing to make the lives of voters better. They are the wimps between the 2 parties. In the Senate they passed on several nominations that Obama had selected for judges, etc. They passed it to Senile Mitch McConnell, believing he would allow those nominations to come to the floor of the Senate. What is wrong with Democrats. Do we have a party we can trust anymore? The GOP wants to destroy the USA, and the Democrats can't get the votes to defeat them.

hardly enough time to write, debate, adjust, re-write and pass anything into law.

You are right in that we need to get a majority into both Houses and there is a slim chance to do that (the gerrymandered districts will be quite problematic, but not unsurpassable). But only if the constituency gets out and votes.

Pluse the White House.

And the supermajority when it did happen after the legislative session was far less than 8 weeks. Less than 3 weeks of working days.

... unless they have a supermajority.

And then, however briefly, not much. Can you remember anything?

in the first 2 years…for the most part, anyway. Anything they DID let slide was what they knew they could use to misdirect anger. Like ACA. They used it the same way they used the 93 tax cuts.

After a huge win in 2006 and, again in 2008, the Dems wouldn't have been keying on voting issues. Voting issues didn't start popping up again until after GOP took over so many state legislatures and governorships in purple swing states in 2010 and then the Supremes gutted VRA.

Context would be helpful.

... the 2009 Dem majorities.

Please don't try to excuse their inexcusable lack of effort to secure our voting rights and ensure we have fair elections.

that are relevant like the YEAR the VRA was gutted.

I would have liked election integrity to be seen as urgent in 2009, but, with everything going on, and with clear wins for Dems in 2006 and 2008, they weren't going to see the same urgency while the world's economy was facing total collapse.

Context is EVERYTHING. When did Supreme Court GUT the VRA?

There is a group formed urging people to not vote for HRC even knowing that it is the Supreme Court whose rulings last a helluva lot longer than most anything a president does these days. Excuses are being made for these groups, so anyone who wants to complain about voting rights and at the same time insist they won't vote for HRC if she is the Dem nominee is being contradictory, imo.

The gutting of the VRA is a red herring in this discussion.

Elections were rigged in 2000 and 2004. Dems had a chance in 2009 to fix that. They didn't. Doesn't that bother you?









It sure as hell bothers me.

And cut out the 'So in your mind, honest elections don't have any urgency' bit - If I was speaking for myself only it would be of HUGE IMPORT.

And you know it. So stop with the performance art, fer chrissakes, Scub.

BTW - No senator in 2009-10 session put up election protection bill - none. None.

... despite two obviously rigged elections and tens of thousands denied their right to vote in the previous nine years, nobody did jack shit about it.

The idea that it's all OK since we won more recently is laughably lame.

I am sure you know every name on that list.

“Every single time it happened to me it was a Democratic voter who wasn’t able to access a Democratic ballot,” Post said. Alisa Wolfe, of Pima County, testified that her voter registration had been improperly switched from Democratic to independent.

Combine the likelihood that donation patterns and registration anomalies may have in fact been closely related, with the unusually high number of first-time voters who had their registrations tampered with - and a real pattern beings to emerge.

All the more so, given what happened in New York just a month later.

Who would have thought it: Arizona, a dress rehearsal for New York.