African American
Related: About this forumI'm really annoyed that someone people have JUST discovered the consequence of gutting the VRA
and are posting as though HRC was personally responsible for it. I don't really care about whether you support HRC or Bernie, but how can democrats who claim to care so much about the people, really not know that the VRA was gutted in 2013, a price that communities of color (mostly black/hispanic) have been effected by?
I have friends who are posting this article from US UNCUT, that talks about the voting problems in AZ as though these problems were JUST created to spite Bernie.
I am not sure that i am being particularly eloquent in my argument, but this lack of understanding the impact of the VRA on minority communities, is just really maddening to me.
Here is the article http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/
gollygee
(22,336 posts)People don't read newspapers or keep track of current event.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Nor did they know that Hillary was going to run for President, at least I certainly didn't know.
In 2013, a 5-4 Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts eviscerated the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In Shelby County v. Holder, the court struck down the most crucial enforcement mechanism in the most important civil rights statute since Reconstruction.
TheWeek
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)to hurt Sanders, who had not even intimated that he would run in 2016, so that Republicans in Arizona could disenfranchise their Latino and Native American voters, then she must have some amazing powers beyond the understanding of mortal men.
RandySF
(57,632 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)especially, among the Left ... no matter how some dress it up as concern for others; it seems to always come down to themselves.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It's just unfortunate that some had to wait until their access to the polls was in danger before they realized that.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)big difference between Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats always stood for the common folk, the poor, the elderly, the under class, the young.
The Republicans were with the "I've got mine, sucks to be you" Party.
Indeed that has most unfortunately changed and more and more what used to be a gaping chasm has become a little line that can be jumped over and back, depending upon political expediency.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The Republicans were with the "I've got mine, sucks to be you" Party.
Elements of the Democratic Party stand for, "I'm going to get mine, and you're an idiot for not fighting with me to get mine ... because it'll eventually, trickle down to you."
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)is that Democratic Party was being dominated, financially, by the corrupt/bought and paid for GOP.
Then and now it is common knowledge the GOP represents only the wealthy but uses average people's bigotries to get votes.
The Democrats had to figure out a way to compete, and what they did was open themselves up to being as buy-able as the GOP to the rich.
Then human nature took over. I truly believe Bill Clinton before this happened would have been happy not to be a part of that, that is to become rich as he has, if he could have still garnered the presidency and power without it.
I dont think money is what drove Bill and Hillary Clinton to where they are, but once it was offered to them, they took it, along with just about every other single member of the party.
This is what Bernie was observing and commenting on from outside the party.
Anyway, how do we get back to a non corrupt system? Has to start with the Supreme Court, so anyone thinking even remotely about sitting out the election, is in reality working to make sure we can NEVER fix it.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)I do blame the SCOTUS and those who appointed them. Now a contribution of $47 is nothing to a 6 figure haul. No wonder many just got disgusted and stopped participating. We have become a close parallel to Kleptocracy.
That, IMO, is why there is truly no real Democrat/Republican, left/right, liberal/conservative, et al. It is Establishment (i.e. Corporatocracy or Kleptocracy or 1%...whichever one prefers) vs. the 99%, and especially the 50%.
Any of the above voting-type dyads can fall in either category so the distinction between them is a moot point. We see it every day here on DU. Because, as opposed to the Republicans, we have two candidates who truly represent both sides of that chasm.
This is the Democrats Come to Jesus Time. The Republicans have that too in How to Get Rid of Trump. And the only similarity between Sanders and Trump and why they are causing such a ruckus is they are Outside the Establishment.
It's going to be brutal weaning almost all of our politicians off some form of that SuperPac money freely flowing in to the "right" candidates. I pray Bernie has good personal security.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)He never mentions any other Supreme Court cases, like Shelby - which is much more insidious than C.U.
blm
(112,920 posts)It doesn't HELP and, took up time and energy better spent highlighting the REAL CULPRITS.
Blue State Bandit
(2,122 posts)NOt only is she silent, her supporters are actively covering for the culprits.
http://www.12news.com/news/civil-rights-activist-forgives-arizona-elections-organizer/98913425
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)Inadequate polling places in Maricopa County surely hurt Hillary more than it hurt Bernie, since the most impacted areas were in and around Phoenix and heavily Latino areas, which are voters who favor Hillary by a large margin. Hillary probably would have won AZ by an even wider margin if people in Maricopa County were not dissuaded by the long lines.
Yes, we should be mad and we sure as hell should get it fixed ASAP--certainly BEFORE the November general election, which is what the local civil rights activist in that article appears satisfied will happen. That does not mean the Clinton campaign is satisfied with that registrar's assurances, and it sure as hell does not mean the Clinton campaign is a "culprit."
What is sickening is all the Sanders supporters in thus thread, and indeed all over DU, who reserve their anger for and blame the victim of this scheme (Hillary), rather than the perpetrators (the GOP).
We should be united against the Republicans on this, not use it is a dishonest pretext to attack Hillary.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Phoenix as a whole had one location per 108 thousand voters. North Scottsdale (wealthy, white) had one per 25K RESIDENTS
progressoid
(49,825 posts)November is going to be one huge clusterfuck.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)Up till now the outrage has been rather muted, but now that it affects one person's presidential ambitions, suddenly they're outraged. When they thought the voting rights issue only affected blacks & other minorities, it wasn't such a big deal. Well, welcome to the Roberts court. This is why elections have consequences, and USSC appointments are right at the top of my list when it comes to choosing a presidential nominee.
I have news for the BS'ers, it wasn't only Bern victims standing in those 5 hour lines, especially in Maricopa County where Hillary crushed. And I have even more news, this same crap happened in Flint and surrounding areas, but since BS won MI, they accepted & even celebrated the outcome. Well, guess what.............
BlueMTexpat
(15,349 posts)some will not take them to heart because they don't fit their narrative!
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)They seem to think that no one has been talking about this or doing anything, and that the DNC is somehow behind it all and can make it go away with a wave of a magic wand.
This issue affects all poor people, young people, old people and basically anyone who moves around a bunch and/or does not drive. They didn't pay attention because they did not care and did not think it really affected them. Now they finally noticed, they are running around with hair on fire accusing many of the same people who have been working for years against this mess of somehow being complicit in a conspiracy agains Bernie Sanders.
If Bernie Sanders had ever ventured out of Vermont and actually gave a shit about Democratic voters, he would have been up on this issue ages ago.
Two other things that should be noted. These laws ALSO depresse turnout of groups Clinton typically dominates, so I don't see how this got puffed into a conspiracy agains Bernie. And in was low turnout in midterms that also contributed to the problem. If the GOP doesn't win statehouses, they can't make stupid, discriminatory laws to depress Democratic voter turnout. So progressive people need to vote EVERY YEAR to avoid this type of thing in the future. That seems easy to understand, but I am having much difficulty getting that point across.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)This is what frustrates & pisses me off about the much sought after "millennials". They get all hyped up every four years about the personality du jour, and go MIA in the midterms. They haven't learned the value of voting in EVERY election cycle to get the things done that they cheer so loudly for, every four years.
I hope the immediate takeaway for the Democrats in AZ is that they should make very liberal use of voting by mail so that this doesn't happen in November. I voted absentee, in NC, for the first time, because I didn't want to take any chances that the new rules would screw up my ability to cast my ballot. I like voting in person, but if you want to make sure your vote gets counted, I'm suggesting that they prepare to request mail-in ballots this cycle.
MADem
(135,425 posts)All politics IS local, and way too few people vote in those local elections--we do get the government we deserve in many cases.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)Every four years they pull their heads out, and wonder how things got the way they are. So many state houses flipped from Dem to Repuke because a segment of the left was "disillusioned". Give me a f**kin' break. We're now dealing with the fallout of their disengagement. A woman's right to choose, the reintroduction of draconian laws to discriminate against LBGT citizens, voting rights...you name it, they are all under attack, and the Republicans have gone all in.
JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)So progressive people need to vote EVERY YEAR to avoid this type of thing in the future. That seems easy to understand, but I am having much difficulty getting that point across.
If we ALL ALWAYS VOTED our local governments would look different.
While we weren't voting - Republicans have permeated school boards and town councils.
mcar
(42,210 posts)They started locally and built up to state and national. That's why it'll be so hard to get things balanced, especially if Dems don't vote.
Augiedog
(2,541 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)You killed that one, girl.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)the hell they been? And there's one dude running for the nomination, who is a sitting US Senator, who never met a camera or microphone that he didn't like, and they're running around the board asking WTF didn't Hillary do/say something?
I'm here in NC, and Rev. Barber (NAACP) has been sounding the alarm at every one of his "Moral Mondays" rallies, trying to get people activated on this & other issues, but now that one dude has been personally affected, "it's time that we do something". Petitions with over 100,000 signatures have gone viral just since Tuesday night. I'll ask again, Where the f*ck have they been since 2013?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)and as for the primary politics, has Clinton denounced the 5-hour lines?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)What is she responsible for it? If not, she spoken up against the gutting of the voting rights act many times
beastie boy
(9,059 posts)...whether she was losing a primary or not.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)"assuming" the party had some hand in closing polling places, I think speaks to the caliber of the "the people" assuming.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Those people are dumb af.
RandySF
(57,632 posts)and assumed that the party personally runs candidate selection process in every state and did not know the difference between a caucus and a primary. We've had a fait number of primaries up until Tuesday and no one talked about the voter ID laws that most likley kept people (especially African Americans) from voting. But no one reduced their polling stations to the extent that Maricopa County did. And what did we hear Tuesday night on this site? "The DNC" as if they had a part in deciding who votes where.
yardwork
(61,415 posts)The Republican voter ID requirement just took effect. This too was blamed on Hillary here on DU, as if it were done just weeks ago. In fact, it's the result of the 2010 Teaparty takeover of NC.
Makes me mad.
Augiedog
(2,541 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)But it is a good time to form an alliance for the integrity of voting in general, regardless of our preferred candidates.
This is an opportunity, will we take it?
Edited to add... to be fair, voter suppression/disenfranchisement or whatever form comes from the establishment. That Clinton is clearly, and openly admits to it, the establishment, that does not work in her favor. So, when Sanders supporters lump her into that category, there isn't much to counter it, even though it hurts her as much as any democrat. I hope that argument can be set aside for a later time after some collaborative work is done to restore the integrity of the vote.
They can be great allies here... don't throw it away.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)And these are not allies
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)They can be allies though, but which battle are you gonna choose?
Never mind, don't answer that.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)the VRA. especially Clinton, because minorities prefer her by HUGE margins
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)And that is going to become more and more problematic as time goes on and black people are going to continue to get the worst of it. When will it be enough?
This is not a football game, it's more like tug of war and the republicans are winning because of tribal politics. They are beating us at their game, we should play our own.
But like I said... which battle are you going to choose?
I'm done here, I've said all I can say.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)It's nonsense to pretend he isn't.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)Stop pretending that he is. They have been excluding him for decades and he never sold out. Not even when it would benefit him. He didn't front then, he isn't now and he won't in the future. He is solid. You want to talk about nonsense? He is a rare breed and y'all throwing this rare opportunity away over tribal politics.
Sad. But that's okay. Do your thing, I'mma do mine.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)has nothing to do with it.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)He is clearly not part of the oligarchy, and we do effectively have an oligarchy. This is established. No matter how much you rationalize about what the word "establishment" actually means, no matter how you parse it, he is not part of the beltway insiders. It's so obvious it hurts. You can't win on this one, just stop. It's embarrassing.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)We need more like Bernie, for sure.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)He's not as pure as his supporters believe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html
BURLINGTON, Vt. A few days before Election Day in 1990, the National Rifle Association sent a letter to its 12,000 members in Vermont, with an urgent message about the race for the states single House seat.
Vote for the socialist, the gun rights group said. Its important.
Bernie Sanders is a more honorable choice for Vermont sportsmen than Peter Smith, wrote Wayne LaPierre, who was and still is a top official at the national NRA, backing Sanders over the Republican incumbent.
SNIP
As a candidate in 1990, Sanders won over gun rights groups by promising to oppose one bill they hated a measure that would establish a waiting period for handgun sales. In Congress, he kept that promise. The dynamic served as an early demonstration that, despite his pure-leftist persona, Sanders was at his core a pragmatic politician, calculating that he couldnt win in rural Vermont without doing something for gun owners.
SNIP
Either way, Nelson said, the 1990 race was another step in the evolution of Sanders, who had risen from the leftist fringe by embracing allies and tactics that the fringe would not. In Burlington, he had made allies out of the police and worked out an uneasy relationship with big business. Later, in Congress, he would join the Democratic caucus, attaching himself to the partys seniority system, after decades of railing against the Democratic Partys politics as weak-kneed.
In the 1990 race, he made a tacit ally out of the NRA, a powerful Washington lobby that has become a chief nemesis of the left and a fierce obstacle to gun control efforts in Congress and state capitals across the country. The alliance allowed the group to bash an opponent whose positions were almost identical to Sanderss own.
SNIP
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)And the NRA hates him.
Nice try though.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)And with the NRA, their "hate" is relative. They "hate" Bernie much less than they do Hillary.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)the establishment is the oligarchy, and yes, we are effectively an oligarchy. As far as candidates go, there's no debate to be had. And the aristocracy is no better, they like your candidate just fine.
Efforts to paint Sanders as Annie Oakley are disingenuous at best and straight up deceptive at worst. He's no friend of the NRA. Please. Stop your lying.
Also, the oligarchy, if they cannot roll it back, would very much love to keep the racist system exactly the way it is, tyvm. This is what's actually at stake.
Y'all want change or not?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)which still continues. Now that he's winning big, there is more coverage, but nothing compared to Trump, because he's so loony, and Clinton because she was way out in front. And yes, she is The Establishment. Wars, political income, major player's support, BFF with the Chair of the DNC, etc. That describes Establishment.
Bernie climbed uphill to get where he is. Many still don't really know him as he's new to the national scene, same as Obama was. Being a Senator does not usually warrant national coverage. They make laws, until someone decides to toss their hat into the ring.
You don't take on the Big Banks and SCOTUS decisions and many of his other programs, and be on the side of the Establishment.
The first statement is a stunniing disavowal of reality.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)But they both get a lot less than Trump.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)He's finally getting some coverage...long after he was drawing 5 figure crowds.
And, of course since it has evolved into a neck in neck race...a reporters heaven...which is probably why he is getting more coverage than before.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)"Then why the virtual blackout on coverage of his campaign... which still continues. "
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)yardwork
(61,415 posts)yardwork
(61,415 posts)The Establishment didn't do this. The Republican Party did it, and Hillary Clinton is opposed to the Republican Party.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)accused HRC of , it amazing HRC has had time to run for President considering all the time she has had to devote to spreading all the Evil!
Blue State Bandit
(2,122 posts)you lose all credibility.
Seriously? This guy was ready to call in the DOJ and all the sudden he's claiming that the war on Civil/Voter Rights in Arizona is over and we won, while heaping praise on the person who just blamed voter getting in line for the long lines?
Seems to me somebody got a phone call. Reminds me of that Chris Matthews moment when he got told to shut up for praising Bernie on live TV.
http://www.12news.com/news/civil-rights-activist-forgives-arizona-elections-organizer/98913425
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)Inadequate polling places in Maricopa County surely hurt Hillary more than it hurt Bernie, since the most impacted areas were in and around Phoenix and heavily Latino areas, which are voters who favor Hillary by a large margin. Hillary probably would have won AZ by an even wider margin if people in Maricopa County were not dissuaded by the long lines.
The conspiracy theory you are pushing in this thread does not even make sense.
Blue State Bandit
(2,122 posts)He accepts whole heartedly their lame ass excuses. He say only a few voices are calling for investigations and resignations. Bullshit.
He says he's happy to announce the war has been won. Bullshit.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)I don't know what video you are talking about, none appears apparent at the link you provide. But I am on my phone so that might be preventing it from rolling.
Still, the article does NOT say something as silly as you suggest, that the "war is won." The article quotes the following:
I imagine he said that because the registrar acknowledged there were inadequate polling places Tuesday, that she admits she "screwed up" and would not repeat the error.
But I don't know who this Maupin person is. He certainly does not claim to speak for the Clinton campaign.
Again, your Hillary conspiracy theory does not make sense and is not confirmed by your link.
Blue State Bandit
(2,122 posts)SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)How is this person saying he looks forward to polling places being increased from 60 to 724 proof of a conspiracy to set the polling places number at 60 on Tuesday, let alone prove that the Clinton campaign was in any way involved in setting the polling places in Maricopa County at 60 on Tuesday?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)to set up a scenario where they can claim, when Hillary inevitably wins the nomination, that only Bernie's wins were legitimate and her wins are questionable. That's what all the demonizing of the DNC & DWS has been about. We all know what this is, and shame on the BS campaign for trying to burn down the party because he's losing.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)What do they think will happen in the general election with much higher turnout?
Voter suppression is the path to a GOP victory, but far too many think that the suppression is only directed against blacks.
Your argument was quite eloquent and on point.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Chief Justice John Roberts (appointed by President Bush) joined by Justices Antonin Scalia (appointed by President Reagan), Anthony Kennedy (appointed by President Bush), Clarence Thomas (appointed by President George H. W. Bush), and Samuel Alito (appointed by President Bush) were the majority, all appointed by Republican Presidents.
It was opposed by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer (Appointed by President Clinton) and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan (appointed by President Obama).
This only addresses the nonfactual argument that it is Clinton's fault. Bill Clinton's Justices voted against it.
The repercussions of gutting the VRA was to remove the fundamental method we had available to states in line with a long history of disenfranchising minority voters, in general, and Black voters specifically.
We have seen laws passed that pretend to "protect the vote" but really push us back into the age of Jim Crow.
wildeyed
(11,240 posts)Since they removed the pre-clearance clause, NC and a few other states have cases wending their way through the courts base on section 3. But it takes time. Each ruling is appealed and then it all has to be retried. DNC or Hillary Clinton can't wave a wand to make the process go faster. And it underlines the incredible importance of having a Democrat in office to choose the next batch of Supremes.
dchill
(38,320 posts)while voters were still waiting in line. Right after the media called it for her. There used to be a thing called "ethics" that existed before the VRA was gutted. Ethics are not compatible with the current campaign business model.
PATRICK
(12,227 posts)If there had been no primary as would have been likely this Arizona "problem" would never have shown up until too late. How can the party not know how bad these utterly transparent suppression schemes are? It would cost Hillary the state in the fall without this early outrage. Even so, will it get repaired anyway? Not just gutting the VRA. Once the GOP- which simply can't win a general election without fraud and corporate media- gets a statehouse that state descends into their dark column despite them treating their state and voters universally like crap.
The answer is just an simplistic as the impunity of GOP fraud, get lots and lots of votes to make up for the ones that are expected to be stolen or repressed! So winning or losing an election either way, democracy declines because we shrug off the injustice and moronic advantage thrown to these beasts either way. If you really want Hillary to win on auto pilot just stop the bleeding away of our right to vote. The GOP depends on their fake edge like they do their dark money.
By the way, Rehnquist was an up front and personal vote suppressor for the GOP in Arizona in the day. People were pretending we actually had a chance with his court? Guarantee the right to vote. REALLY attract and register voters, put people in jail for treasonous fraud, but above all restore the laws necessary to protect our rights. Once VRA was swept away, what little the Feds could do went with it.
And that goes to pushing the appointment of yet another GOP judge whose central core values favor business and the GOP even if only at a justice Kennedy level. Why do we keep the lawless GOP alive? It isn't for laughs, Trump notwithstanding.
jane123
(34 posts)I think a lot of the blame game could have been avoided if both candidates made immediate statements about the debacle in Arizona.I am not following Hillary so I don't know if she made a statement right away about it but I know Bernie did.....this was an example of a time when both camps should have issued a joint statement about the problems....It is a serious problem and, who knows, it could have impacted Hillary's voters....but I image it hurt Bernie more based on the demographics of voters.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)demographics, her voters were affected more.
However, it seems that Hillary's campaign was more effective in GOTV -- letting its voters know about mail-in ballots.
RandySF
(57,632 posts)For much of Tuesday night, people were accusing the DNC of infiltrating the election clerk's office and turning people away (as if they can read voters' minds). How do you reason with that level of batshit?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)Maricopa County was Hillary country.
RandySF
(57,632 posts)until it was time to make an excuse for their guy losing.
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)Pure selfishness. Someone wrote back to me last week, "So you got yours?"
And I think I responded in kind. Yep - I'm selfish about a lot of things including my right to vote.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)So said the most effective and active SC justice in the past 30 years.
Imagine someone who said that being not only a SC justice but a very successful one as in accomplishing his racist agenda.
In 2016 he died, not 1916.
mcar
(42,210 posts)intheflow
(28,406 posts)The closing of polling places was done by a Arizona Tea Partier. It disenfranchised voters for both Democratic candidates, and disproportionately disenfranchised people of color by virtue of party affiliation. As anyone who knows the history of the VRA could have predicted!
Thanks for posting, LLP. You are completely right on about this, and I apologize for the ignorant Sanders supporters out there.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)For those who are turning into a pretzel trying to blame Hillary and 'the democratic establishment' for this
Number23
(24,544 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)My belief is that in more than a few cases we have posters, never before concerned about the disenfranchisement of minority voters, exploiting this for nothing other than partisan reasons in much the same way that the MRAs on were suddenly and out of nowhere, anxious in regards to women's safety in Berlin last month to validate their bigotries against the Muslim community.
There is in fact, an interesting and telling overlap between the two.
brer cat
(24,401 posts)just discovered this group in time to express their concerns on this thread.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)yardwork
(61,415 posts)Blaming this on Hillary and wasting time and energy calling for a redo of the primary distracts from the national problem that we are facing, as Republicans take over state after state and make it more and more difficult for Democrats to vote.
It is also a reminder that people who refuse to vote unless the candidate is "pure" enough are part of the problem. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is much less evil.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)more/less aligned with my beliefs vs crazy rightwinger
hillary is not less of two evils, because she is not evil. obama was not lesser of two evils.
PS: not blaming you for the lesser of two evils argument, just narrating a pet peeve of mine