Many Hillary supporters are celebrating her victory yesterday in New York . It might be a little

[Cal33]

Last edited Thu Apr 21, 2016, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)

premature. This latest massive purge of Democratic voters in NY is being taken more seriously
than similar events in other states in the past, because of its sheer size, I suppose -- 126,000
Democrats (almost all Sanders supporters) were prevented from voting in Brooklyn alone. The
Board of Elections itself, I understand, is now being sued.

I hope this is just the beginning. May it, in time, lead to some serious and much needed reforms
in laws governing our Elections -- Local, State and Federal.

Did they really expect us to continue taking this forever without complaining?

https://thehornnews.com/15140-2/

[lagomorph777]

1. They got a little too greedy this time.

It's going to seriously damage the Hillary brand if she doesn't at least appear to support a thorough investigation.

[Dem2]

11. Just keep stacking up the barriers that ONLY HILLARY must maneuver around

Please at least appear to be making sense.

[lagomorph777]

47. Uh, we didn't put up that barrier to 126,000 people in Bernie territory.

But somebody sure went to a lot of effort to do that.

[Dem2]

48. Could you please document the whole lot of effort?

I'd like proof before I comment.

[lagomorph777]

49. Sure because I have access to BoE filing cabinets.

Not.

But 126,000 people don't randomly disappear. Somebody disappeared them. Even if each registration is only a single sheet of paper, that's a stack of paper 20 feet high! That's not coincidence, that's physical labor to remove that from the building!

[Dem2]

51. Hillary won Brooklyn 60-40, so she lost more votes that Bernie

So, let me summarize:

1. You have no idea how much effort it is to do this routine work that they claim they do all the time

2. You called it Bernie territory, but actually it was Hillary territory.

Keep wildly flinging poop at the wall, never know, it might stick to something.

[lagomorph777]

59. Do you understand the concept of caging?

The voters that were purged were micro-targeted; they lived in specific neighborhoods known to be likely more progressive.

So no, purging likely Bernie voters does not lose (net) Hillary voters. Not until the General Election, when those same voters will be too angry to support her.

[Dem2]

63. I never said caging was a good thing

To imply that they micro-target only those why might be Bernie voters is a ridiculous fact-free assumption. Bernie wasn't even on the radar at the time and ALL of Brooklyn would be considered to be more progressive, so you got nothing there. If you're equating those with lesser means as those who might get 'caged', then that is likely true, but I see no reason those people would lean one way or the other in a primary they knew nothing about when they didn't vote previously.

My point stands; statistically, Hillary lost more votes than Bernie because she won Brooklyn by a huge 60-40 margin.

[lagomorph777]

68. "at the time"? "didn't vote previously"?

You know when the purge occurred? At least one regular voter checked her registration on March 9th of this year, then when she got to the polls it had been reassigned to Independent. They produced a forged registration, back-dated to 2004 with a forged signature on it. Sometime after March 9th is when this happened; Bernie was certainly on the radar.

Also, please note this has been done to active voters; the meme that it's all about new voters and "low information voters" is not congruent with the evidence.

[Dem2]

69. Still, there's no evidence that this would have changed the result in any way.

It's a crappy thing that was done, and hopefully any provisional votes cast by these people were counted, but it in no way could have affected the result much either way - at least you've provided no hard evidence to that end thus far. I'll keep an open mind, however, you never know!

[lagomorph777]

70. "Board of Elections actually purged 126,000 voters ...— a 14 percent drop in 5 months"

"New York’s Mayor Responds as Brooklyn Voter Purge Doubles to 126,000"

http://usuncut.com/politics/nyc-mayor-responds-to-brooklyn-voter-purge/


Are you trying to make the claim that purging 14 percent of voters essentially overnight, would have no effect on the election?

That's laughable on the face of it.

[Dem2]

71. Yes, Hillary would have gotten 60% of the few of those who bothered to show up

Which we can assume hardly any of them did as they likely moved or stopped voting for whatever reason, and that's why they were removed in the 1st place; it would have been a MASSIVE story if 126000 people showed up to the polls and couldn't vote.

Please use some common sense!

[lagomorph777]

74. Enjoy life in your bubble

until it pops. Clearly denial is far too strong an emotion to permit any processing of facts.

Your arguments are circular. You assume these people were purged for legitimate reasons, despite thousands of complaints to the contrary. You seem to think the purge is not a massive story. However, a few minutes of googling will clearly demonstrate otherwise.

I'm not going to waste any more time trying to educate you.

[Dem2]

75. Hey, I've got common sense on my side

Stories published in the last 48 hours tend to back up my common sense notion that Hillary probably lost more votes than Bernie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511802710

[brooklynite]

73. You're investing the NYC BOE with a lost more competence than they've ever had previously...

[lagomorph777]

79. "incompetence" is a convenient cover for deliberate "errors" nt

[brooklynite]

80. ...except when it's true

BOE has hd a reputation for patronage and incomepetence for decades.

[lagomorph777]

81. patronage leads directly to fraud

forged signatures on voter registrations do not count as "incompetence" in a court of law.

[brooklynite]

83. If it's all right with you, I'll wait for the Court of Law

[lagomorph777]

85. Sure, and two years from now you can pop your bubble.

But it's bliss in there, isn't it?

[onehandle]

2. More voters in Brooklyn would mean a bigger margin of victory for Hillary.

So, sue away.

[Cal33]

7. You forget that almost all those Democrats who were prevented from voting were Sanders supporters.

I wonder how they knew who were the Sanders supporters, and who weren't. Perhaps the
Board of Elections can get information that's not available to the ordinary citizen.

[Dem2]

10. That's a deranged statement

Nobody can know that unless they are somehow manipulating votes.

[musicblind]

35. What concrete proof do you have of this? Have all 120,000 been surveyed? n/t

[EndElectoral]

38. Exactly. We simply don't know. That's why it has to be addressed.

[musicblind]

42. With that, I absolutely agree.

I think this investigation is a good thing. We should never take something like this lightly. Even if there were only a 1 or 2% chance that something was done wrong (and I think the chance is higher than that) we should still do everything we can to find out. I am just not convinced this was Hillary's camp doing this. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope the investigation sheds light on it.

[gordianot]

55. As long as your candidate wins voting does not matter.

[onehandle]

60. You guys are talking about using superdelegates to override the +3 million votes Hillary has...

...so cool story, bro.

[gordianot]

66. I appreciate the "bro" comment in the spirit it was intended?

Voting does seem to be confusing in the 21st Century.

[hill2016]

3. didn't Hillary win Brooklyn?

[leftynyc]

14. Yup

And every other borough as well.

[EndElectoral]

39. We're still waiting on 126,000 voters

[B Calm]

46. and now we know why. . .

[RobertEarl]

4. First exit polls were 52-48

A machined count? I believe it could be true.

[Maru Kitteh]

33. You are relying on CNN's interpretation of the data. You are relying on a corporation

that was obviously more interested in ratings than reporting. Think about it.

CNN got the same exit data that others did (from NYT) but were the only ones who put up that ridiculous number. Anyone who's taken one semester of stats should have been able to look at that data and know it wasn't even close.

[RobertEarl]

34. No you are wrong

That was the original data. 52-48 before it was made to match the returns.

[Maru Kitteh]

36. No, you are thinking wishfully. Please compare the data sets.

NYT - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/us/elections/new-york-primary-democratic-exit-polls.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

CNN - http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ny/Dem

52/48 is a number they pulled out of their ass because
1. Who would keep watching if they called the race immediately? Ratings.
2. They had their goofy lightshow thingy to show off on the Empire State. Coincidentally they turned it blue RIGHT BEFORE Hillary's speech. Very dramatic.

Do you have any formal or post-grad education in statistics? If you do, just glance at the data. You don't even need to run the numbers. It's blatantly, in-your-face obvious that Hillary was going to have a stellar night.

[RobertEarl]

37. No you are wrong

CNN had it right the first time. It was only when the bogus returns came in that they played catch up. If you had been doing this for as long as I have you'd know why and how it was done.

[dchill]

64. +1

[tex-wyo-dem]

62. If exit polling is done properly, it's data should...

Match the official vote count within a few (less than 5%) percentage points, otherwise red flags should go up that something is wrong. In the case of NY a couple of nights ago, the discrepancy was +12%...huge margin.

[dchill]

65. +1

[Maru Kitteh]

67. Please look at the data sets. The polling WAS done properly, the results were manipulated by CNN

for the sake of drama and ratings. Other outlets used the same data set and somehow only CNN pulled that number out of their ass from that data set.

Coincidentally, they also had a cool new little light show on the top of the Empire State they wanted to show off when the races were called on each side. Not too impressive if they called them both (D&R) right away right? Also who's going to stick around and watch after both races are called? They drew it out until even a properly educated high-school graduate could look at the numbers and figure it out. It was ludicrous.

Again, please look at the data sets. Exit polling clearly indicated it was Hillary's night, easily, and not by any small margin.

[nc4bo]

5. A little sunshine never hurt anybody and will help everyone. nt

[randome]

6. "Almost all Sanders supporters?" Hilarious.

There hasn't been enough time to interview 126,000 people to determine that! Good God, the hyperbole is out of hand here. You will complicate the investigation and make yourselves more irrelevant as this continues.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cal33]

8. Just read the link below:

http://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-supporters-mock-voters/

[Dem2]

13. THIS IS YOUR EVIDENCE?????????

Many of Bernie Sanders’ supporters are younger voters under the age of 45, first-time voters, and independents. Obviously, these three voting groups are likely not well-versed in the nuances of New York’s medieval restrictions on voting, with independents missing the October 2015 party affiliation deadline, and first-time voters likely failing to register before the March 25 deadline.

Please stop with the insanity, this CT crap does NOT belong in GDP.

[Cal33]

17. Here's another more to your liking

https://thehornnews.com/15140-2/

[Dem2]

24. A story full of hyperbole published by a GHW Bush lackey

Sorry, your true colors are showing here.

This is bad.

[Cal33]

25. You only looked at the top of the article where it said "The Horn News" and came to your conclusions

You didn't look at the bottom of the article and missed seeing "The Associated Press contributed to
this article."

So much for your keen powers of observation.

[Peace Patriot]

20. I read it and it has good arguments that likely Bernie supporters...

...were targeted by the NY Democratic Party for a purge from the Democratic Party voting rolls. 126,000 of them in the town where Sanders was born. It is the sort of evidence that was used in Voting Rights Act investigations to stop bigoted, white-run southern states from suppressing the black vote.

It is very difficult to prove absolutely that an individual was barred from voting because of race (later in the segregation era, when the tactics had become less crude). So, for instance, VRA attorneys would look for systematic abuses, for instance, no polling places in black communities while whites had easy access, or never enough ballots for black communities, or notable undervoting in black communities.

In this case, the evidence is similar. The targeted voters were poor, people who often have to move frequently because of rent increases, people who don't have the time to check their registration status or know how to do it, people struggling with illness, children, elderly parents, and 3 shit-pay jobs, people who would presume that if they voted in the last presidential election, they were still registered as Democrats, people who planned on voting early because of work or other obligations, only to find the polling place closed until noon, people with no chaffeurs, secretaries, servants, maids, nannies or other employees to handle their affairs for them, etc. These were the people that the NY Democratic Party played "gotcha" with. 126,000 of them. In the town where Sanders was born.

If this kind of repression did NOT occur in massive form elsewhere in NY--and we don't know the answer to that yet-- then it's a fair guess that the town where Sanders was born was targeted to inflict the special humiliation on him of losing in Brooklyn.

But voter suppression like this is a suspicious circumstance indicating possible voter suppression and/or vote rigging of other kinds in other areas. Under the VRA, the investigation would be widened on the suspicion that this was not just one case of vote suppression, perhaps peculiar to the officials in that town, but more widespread and meriting VRA oversight of the state system.

Funny how we include race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and other characteristics that get targeted by bigots as not okay for targeting in our society and laws, but poverty--one of the main excluders and prejudices--is never included. It should be, especially in a society that has gone to extremes of the uber-rich and the very poor, unchecked now since the Reagan junta.

And I'm very angry, indeed, that the Democratic Party would purge ANY registered Democrats from the voting rolls, and mind-boggled that they would do it to the poor. But that seems to be what our party, or at least what our party's officialdom, has become--the Latte Party, the Goldman Sachs Party, the party of the bought and paid for--masquerading as progressive and lying to the rest of us that we are still inside a "big tent."

[randome]

32. Voters are purged from the rolls ALL THE TIME!

People move out, they die, they change parties. It's not like every single person notifies the government of their location. There's always some 'catching up' to do.

It sounds like someone screwed up in Brooklyn but to think that only 'Bernie Supporters' were targeted is ludicrous in the extreme.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Cal33]

90. Yes, and in reply to your last paragraph, it's common knowledge that the Dem. Establishment, just

like the Repub. Establishment, has also been under the financial influence of Wall Street for some
decades now: Everything is for sale, and it's open season for dirty tricks . Just look at the way
DWS has rigged the Dem. Primary Debates to keep Sanders away from being seen by the public
as much as possible. The difference between the Dem. and Repub. Establishments is becoming
smaller and smaller.

Sanders and Warren are fighting for a return to honesty and integrity in government, a return to
the policies of FDR's New Deal, when the government was working for the American people, not
for just the few wealthiest upper-crust rich, who already have all the advantages that money can
buy, but want still more.

I believe the majority of Americans want change, and want it very badly. In recent years, many
Democrats as well as Republicans have left their respective Parties in disgust. I understand this
feeling very well. I am all for the reforms that are being proposed by Sanders and Warren.

[FSogol]

77. Exactly. n/t

[Dem2]

9. "almost all Sanders supporters"

You'd have to be a criminal of some sort to know this.

I'm reporting you to the FBI.








(I'm kidding. But this is a f****** ridiculous statement on it's face and most readers stop reading there.)

[northernsouthern]

26. Lol.

Can you just add us to Clinton's current case, that way we can save on lawyer fees?

[Dem2]

27. I'll think about it

[northernsouthern]

28. Thank you.

Maybe she can sprinkle me with her pixie dust to make me unracist and sexist again too, my lady is very close to leaving me now that I am a bigot.

[Dem2]

29. Lol

Perhaps there is hope for you yet.

[leftynyc]

12. LOL -where to you get the idea

they were Bernie supporters - Hillary won Brooklyn (and the other 4 boroughs) pretty handily. Add those 126,000 and Bernie STILL loses by double digits. Why do all Bernie supporters appear to be math challenged?

[winter is coming]

15. That lawsuit about people having their registrations fucked with should be interesting.

One of the people complaining is a guy who checked his registration last month and discovered his affiliation had been switched to Republican. When he complained to the BOE, they sent him an electronic copy of a change of party form.

The signature on the form was an exact (pixel-for-pixel) copy of the signature on his driver's license application.

I'm sure that was an honest mistake.

[msongs]

16. mostly all sanders supporters? got evidence of that or is this just cult-talk. more likely the

"purge: if there was one, ended up being balanced. Of course your crowd believes hillary and bill sat up all night in secrecy for weeks hand deleting sanders supporters lol

[azurnoir]

18. well ya know it's been awhile since they had a victory

[LuvLoogie]

19. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of about 200 people

Pulled from about 300 respondents to an unofficial, private inquiry. BoE claims a backlog of normal roll purging. That 200 people named in the lawsuit claim to be Bernie supporters does not mean that the majority of purged voters are Bernie supporters or that the purging was unwarranted.

Claims of criminality have to be proven. In the mean time the judge only allowed what was already a remedy to a disputed voter eligibility. An emergency open primary, which is what the suit really wanted, was denied. But it served it's purpose in impugning the results of the election and feeding the outrage endorphins that are the fuel of the Sanders Campaign. He rides the coattails of discontent.

[Ed Suspicious]

56. Rather than those of corruption, cynicism, and apathy.

[Zira]

21. yep, there is now an audit because it looked so corrupt. I can't remember the title of the

official that ordered it(found it - the Comptroller) and the mayor were appalled by problems. There was over 900,000 complaints they got yesterday of voters being disenfranchised.

There were whole blocks and whole buildings where every person in them were purged from the polls.

DemocracyNow.org talked about it on their show today.

minute 28:
http://www.democracynow.org/

Some people had to wait 5 hours, some voting places were closed for the first two hours and the people there wouldn't tell people if or when they would open. There were massive problems.

[COLGATE4]

22. Keep waiting for the results of that 'investigation'. nt

[Cal33]

44. Many thanks for he video of Democracy Now.

[Tarc]

23. Let's pretend for a moment that all 126,000 are Bernie fanboys, and they are all granted a vote

In that perfect storm, Sanders nets a +6.

[Zynx]

30. Polls going into the race showed she'd win Brooklyn decisively.

She ultimately did win by those projected margins. The voter purge likely would have hurt her more than him.

[Ed Suspicious]

57. We don't care. We want fair and legitimate elections.

What don't you get about that?

[MadBadger]

31. Why do people rec this inane drivel?

[grossproffit]

50. It's all they have left.

Pity them.

[oberliner]

40. Were do you get that they were almost all Sanders supporters?

Can you provide a link to your source on that?

[musicblind]

41. I back a full investigation regarding the 126,000 purged voters 100%.

However, I am also confident that Hillary had nothing to do with this.

If these people were indeed purged from the registry for illegitimate reasons, I hope that heads roll. Voting is the most fundamental part of our democracy.

But again, I think that we will end up finding out that many of the voters were Hillary supporters and that this was a tragic oversight/mismanagement issue. Honestly, these campaigns are not well organized enough or stealth enough to pull off a hijacking of this size without a great deal of whistleblowers coming forward.

I think insinuating that Hillary was responsible for this is not in good faith. However, I welcome this investigation because I think it will convince people who think Hillary was involved that she was not. I also think that it can help us take a step closer to sweeping Primary Election reform. All elections should be the same format in every state, it should be easy to register in a reasonable time frame that still protects the integrity of the party's opinion, and all elections should be one person/one vote.

I live in North Carolina and I like the way we do it here. We aren't perfect and we need reforms of our own (including more polling places), but we have a closed primary that cuts off registration weeks, not months, ahead of the primary. In theory, every vote counts.

However, I honestly don't know how to get these reforms that we need. The party's are private systems. If we require one party to follow these rules then we would have to require all parties to follow these rules and many small parties cannot afford to do so. The Constitution Party or even the Green Party would have a lot of trouble organizing nationwide primary elections. So I'm at a pause as to how we should achieve these changes, but I do think they should be achieved.

[Recursion]

43. Brooklyn was Clinton turf, not Sanders. Unenrolling Brooklynites hurts Clinton

Seriously, where do you get the idea that knocking people in Clinton's strongest county off the rolls would help her?

[brooklynite]

45. What is your basis for saying "almost all Sanders supporters" were purged?

[beastie boy]

52. "Almost all Sanders supporters"?

Without any data to back this up, this statement is laughable.

Many Hillary supporters may be celebrating a bigger margin of victory when this is over.

[grossproffit]

53. It's become boorish.

[IamMab]

54. This is hilarious, because if you'd found out after the fact that people who didn't live in the city

or people who had passed away were still on the rolls, you'd be whining about "dead people voting" and "votes cast by people who don't even live here."

The whining out of the Sanders camp is not surprising, though, because it's all they really know how to do. Lazy internet activism loses again.

[randome]

72. You mean Clinton voters only! She raises them from the dead, finds out their affiliation...

...then keeps them alive long enough to vote for her before finally turning into an evidence-free pile of dust. It's ingenious.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[hereforthevoting]

58. Funny you say that

I was just watching

Hillary Wins New York, But Are Her Celebrations Shortsighted? The Benjamin Dixon Show.

[dinkytron]

61. This is (falsetto) friggin awesome.

[ViseGrip]

76. in a finding such as this, you can only revote or split evenly. That will teach cheaters a lesson.

[Unicorn]

78. I don't think giving them half teaches a lesson.

I think disqualifying them completely when they cheat, teaches them a lesson.

[brooklynite]

82. How many voters, not knowing they had been purged, showed up to vote?

I've heard only anecdotal stories from Reddit. Registrations get purged when people stop coming to vote (or never start).

[apnu]

84. What evidence exists that makes you claim "almost all Sanders supporters"

Cite sources for that. How can you or anybody else know who those voters were going to pull the lever for.

For that matter, of that 125k purge, how many of them showed up at the polls that day?

Not casting shade, but I would like to see some proof to back up the claims being slung around here.

[Cal33]

86. "Most" would have been more accurate. This is the third time I am posting this link:

https://thehornnews.com/15140-2/

[apnu]

87. That article does not source its data.

First off, let me be up front, I voted for Bernie in my state's Primary. He's my horse in this race.

From your link:

According to a recent emergency lawsuit filed in a Long Island federal court, there have been “reports of thousands of NY voters being erroneously purged from the rolls.”

Many of these purged voters seem to be Bernie Sanders supporters, leading to fresh questions about whether Hillary Clinton’s campaign is trying to steal the New York primary.

It does not say how it knows how many of this "many" purged voters "seem to be Bernie Sanders supporters" It simply declares this and you're taking as true without any corroborating evidence.

Here is a handy tool that helps, I suggest you carry it in your pocket:



This article is really bad journalism. Sources are scarce and few names are said. The lawsuit cited in the 2nd paragraph doesn't even say who started the lawsuit, we have to wait until the 6th paragraph to find out it was newly created "Election Justice USA" organization that happens to be run by Bernie supporters. They claimed 200 voters in their class action, but we know little else.

So from the article "most" isn't even an accurate word to use. There still is no evidence that the 126,000 names purged in Brooklyn were Bernie supporters AND planned to vote on Tuesday. We have not seen, anywhere, any numbers of people who were turned away in Brooklyn that are also on that list. And of that number, nobody has any survey of what those voters intentions are.

To say the purged voters were "all" or "most" is a laughable stretch. Saying such things only inflames and enrages people to make rush, snap judgments based off made up information or misinformation. None of which is productive or useful to fixing the problem.

[Cal33]

88. Look at the bottom of the article. It says "The Associated Press contributed

to this article."

[apnu]

89. But it does not say what the AP reported on in the article.

So we still don't know where "Many of these purged voters seem to be Bernie Sanders supporters" comes from.

But given that the vague speculations in the top third of the article disappear as the bulk of the text concerns itself with regurgitating old news in an attempt to create context where there is none (AZ != NY in any way), its probable that information is AP related.

However, if I am wrong on that, and the top assumptions and un-sourced statements are lifted directly from some AP wire article, then AP is publishing bullshit and my handy pocket guide still stands.

I'd like to think the AP knows better, but I've seen a river of bullshit flow off their feed in the past. Lets not forget that it was the AP who declared POCs in the aftermath of Katrina as "looters" and whites as "survivors". They don't exactly have a good track record.

Take that pocket guide seriously, trust me, it helps in almost every situation. Source your data, don't believe the first source... ever. Don't take a thing for granted. Collect many stories about the same event, they all will variate. The variations are often the bullshit, the things that are common usually are the facts.