he would pick up more votes.

The other logical point that should be made, however, is that voters from heavily Hispanic and other minority districts are the major targets for the GOP's vote suppression strategies. It's reasonable to assume that Bernie would have picked up some of them, but probably less than Hillary.

That's true, but it's also true that Sanders tends to do better when voter turnout is higher in general. For instance, with his upset win in Michigan, the voter turnout was higher than expected.

Also, Sanders does significantly better with poorer voters than Clinton in general (except in Ohio, for some strange reason), and poorer voters are the ones who are much less able to stand in line for hours to vote.

Furthermore, from that data we know so far, Sanders appears to have done much better with election day voting than early voting. So for Clinton to have lost more due to the vote suppression, something like 80% or more of those suppressed votes would have had to have been Clinton votes (meaning they equalled or beat her early voting numbers). I don't find that plausible at all. It looks like Sanders at worst lost the Hispanic and Native American votes by 70% to 30%, so he would have had to have lost the missing votes by even more than that, with the crazy assumption that 100% of the lost votes were from those groups.

stay in line as long as it took -- obviously believing he'd get a majority of their vote. As I said, a large number of the voters who were faced with driving miles to find a line to stand in before or after work were Hispanic and black.

After all, the issue is really the right to vote, right? Not whether Bernie could have picked up an extra delegate or two if more people stood around into the small, chill hours of the night.

Voter suppression is something any American should be against. That said, Republicans are the chief instigators. They've been trying to do this in the states they control. For instance, there were lots of problems in North Carolina last week too.

I'm sure we'll see more of this in the rest of the primary season and especially in the general election.

on election theft by every means possible until it destroys itself. They know it'll almost certainly eventually blow up in their face, but what alternative do they have? Retire to permanent minority status and let us destroy America?

The conservative party of the future, whatever its name, will either be a minor third mostly white party or it will include millions of minority conservatives. Or the parties'll evolve away from this huge ideological split.

As of now, the strong "black block" that has formed has no interest in splitting its power between two parties, though, so even if it wanted to the white man's party couldn't integrate. It'll be very interesting to see if a large number of Hispanic/Latino voters go that route, but they do seem to view themselves differently. If they don't, who knows - Hispanic conservatives might just move in on the GOP.

In any case, for now poor GOP dears. Nothing to do but cheat.

no matter who benefits or loses is an extremely un American activity. The lack of polling places is an issue that Arizona Democrats should have had their hair on fire over long ago. Complacency is the final reason for many of societies ills.

had late surges it had to be among registered Dems to make any difference.

My guess is Sanders voters weren't registered and didn't vote early thus they were not disenfranchised but just didn't understand the rules of the game.

I'm sure some Sanders voters couldn't vote because they didn't register Democrat in time. And the fact that Arizona was a closed primary hurt him a lot, since he does so well with independent voters.

That said, the stats show that he exceeded the two polls in Arizona from about a week earlier, which had him about 30 points down, whereas he ended up losing by 18 points overall. And same day voting results that we know of so far had him tying Clinton, so that beats those earlier polls by 30 points. That seems pretty conclusive evidence to me that he had a big late surge in Arizona among registered Democrats.

Plus, he's had a pattern of late surges in many states, except in the South.

I'm not a senior citizen, I vote by mail because I don't have the time to vote in person.
I know that most working parents in my neighborhood also vote by mail.
When I have forgotten to return by ballot by mail and walk into the voting station, the vote by mail names on the voter registration was by far the majority of names. We are not a senior citizen community.

Disenfranchisement is disenfranchisement no matter what state or country it occurs in.

[link:http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/what-does-early-vote-say-about-who-will-do-well-n543641|

Was this Hillary's greatest primary election fraud yet?

Well, the link for some reason did not show up in the post when I submitted it, so I'll just try to cut and paste it manually below -- you might have to paste it into your address bar.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/what-does-early-vote-say-about-who-will-do-well-n543641

Count the provisional ballots and we might find out who won the state. Count the votes, for heaven sake. Represent the people of AZ as the first test of your ability to be President, where you would be representing all of us.

There is a White House Petition for doing so already in place (with almost 40,000 signatures in the 8 or so hours since it was created already). Link:

[link:https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/investigate-voter-fraud-and-voter-suppression-arizona-3222016-democratic-party|

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/investigate-voter-fraud-and-voter-suppression-arizona-3222016-democratic-party

Had been encouraging people FOR MONTHS to sign up for the early voting ballot option here. I'm told by my Repub. neighbors that their candidates did too. It's very easy to do and 70% of registered voters had done so.
It sounds like Bernie's people didn't do the same to GOTV.

Early voting has its pros and cons, but it is just a means toward the end of helping people exercise their right to vote. If election campaigns reach voters enough to motivate them to go out on election day and vote, that is mission accomplished. It would be blaming the victim to say that someone who stood on line for hours, but then finally had to leave without voting rather than lose their job, should have voted early instead rather than vote on election day.

Outdated registration information supplied by the party, reducing polling locations by two thirds, forcing voters to use provisional ballots which would never again see the light of day unless it's from a trash heap.

Every last one of us should be up in arms about voter suppression.

I do not care one bit which candidate benefits from it, voter suppression is wrong and needs to be addressed before the general election.