The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[The Romulan Republic]

The debate is quite vicious. Sanders seems to still be pulling his punches, and he's a bit too vague/non-specific at times. Clinton, meanwhile, oozes sleaze, pandering, and personal attacks, but seems to have a better handle on the debate format.

Its interesting to note, though, that while she seems to be getting the loudest cheers, she also seems to be getting the most boos.

And here's a lovely little gem from the Clinton camp:

https://usuncut.com/politics/prominent- ... tes-tweet/

Prominent Hillary Clinton supporter Tom Watson compared Bernie Sanders’ Washington Square Park rally to a Nazi rally in a tweet before hastily deleting it. Twitter user @goodbyethirdway took a screenshot of Watson’s tweet and tweeted it from his own account for posterity.


Tom Watson is co-founder of HillaryMen, a group of male feminists in support of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. He launched the project with Peter Daou, a former advisor to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, and publisher of the pro-Clinton site Blue Nation Review. Watson is also the founder of a consulting firm that advises nonprofits, and an adjunct professor at Columbia University in New York.

Sanders’ rally in Manhattan’s Washington Square Park was attended by approximately 27,000 supporters, making it one of his biggest rallies ever. The Vermont senator was joined by Spike Lee, Rosario Dawson, Shailene Woodley, Linda Sarsour, and other campaign surrogates.


However, Sanders faced blowback over surrogate and healthcare activist Paul Song’s comment about electing Democratic “corporate whores,” which Sanders has since apologized for. Song clarified on Twitter that his comment was in reference to Democratic members of Congress who receive campaign money from the healthcare lobby.


Though Sen. Sanders has made it clear he doesn’t stand by his surrogates’ remarks, neither Hillary Clinton nor her campaign have yet to apologize for the offensive comment from one of her most outspoken New York supporters. Sanders, the son of a Polish immigrant who fled occupied Nazi territory, would undoubtedly take offense to comparisons to the Nazi leader who is likely responsible for the murder of his ancestors.

Watson, after all, felt that Sanders’ surrogate should have apologized for his remarks. And Peter Daou tweeted coverage from NBC claiming Sanders surrogates are overshadowing Sanders’ message. Will either one of them apologize for the Nazi comparison?



As of this writing, neither Tom Watson nor Peter Daou have responded to interview requests.



Tom Cahill is a writer for US Uncut based in the Pacific Northwest. He specializes in coverage of political, economic, and environmental news. You can contact Tom via email at tom.v.cahill@gmail.com.

[Soontir C'boath]

Frankly, I don't personally see an issue with using corporate "whore" in of itself as it is usually remarked on politicians in general and "shill" seems to be the lesser used of the two anyway. So the fact that Bernie and co have to be careful of that is frankly undue outrage of sexism.

But, cries are made anyway, so oh well. Self Berned.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, Bernie, their are a lot of things I like about you, but your anti-nuclear power stance is very uniformed.

But Jesus, Clinton invokes 911 more than the Republicans do these days.

[Knife]

He's in New York and against Clinton, seems appropriate.

[Raw Shark]

Lets just say the OUTRAGE has been epic. Even though the comment was applied to Democratic politicians en mass, predictably the reponse has been "Sexism!"

The response that it's sexist is itself sexist. Men have as much of an ethical right to sell their bodies as women, plus as much of a legal right in the state of Nevada, and I also find it personally insulting, speaking as an amateur man-whore.

[aerius]

This is the surveillance camera video



News article with a photo of the alleged bruising
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2581087

The video quality is shit, but as far as I can tell, that's not where Fields was allegedly grabbed by the campaign manager. It looks like he grabbed her by the upper arm while the bruising is halfway down her forearm.

Any decent lawyer is going to put reasonable doubt all over this, no way the charges are sticking unless they stack the jury.

Followup:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/13/politics/ ... s-dropped/
They're not even going to prosecute it since there's no fucking way to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Looks like the prosecutor saw sense and decided that making a laughingstock of himself and flushing his career down the toilet on a case he was guaranteed to lose just wasn't worth it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Lets just say the OUTRAGE has been epic. Even though the comment was applied to Democratic politicians en mass, predictably the reponse has been "Sexism!"

The response that it's sexist is itself sexist. Men have as much of an ethical right to sell their bodies as women, plus as much of a legal right in the state of Nevada, and I also find it personally insulting, speaking as an amateur man-whore.

Though let's be honest- when people use the term "whore", most of the time its directed at women.

It was, if nothing else, a politically ill-advised remark to make.

But Sanders quickly disavowed it and in my opinion has no personal responsibility for it. It was just some ass shooting his mouth off without thinking it through properly on the campaign trail.

[Simon_Jester]

You know, Bernie, their are a lot of things I like about you, but your anti-nuclear power stance is very uniformed.

But Jesus, Clinton invokes 911 more than the Republicans do these days.

That's probably a good thing if she's trying to get votes from people over about 25 or 30. Under 25 it's a non-starter, I suppose, with 30 being the borderline.

[Highlord Laan]

I'm 32 and invoking 9/11 is pretty much a good way to get me to completely tune the speaker out. It's a giant red flag that someone is trying to use a tragedy for their own gain, and is utterly contemptible. Most of my friends are in the same boat.

Pity that the majority of the uhmurrican populace apparently lacks anything that could be called standards.

[Simon_Jester]

Sorry, I was thinking 'dry tactical.'

For the far left, which includes you, Laan, and on which I am the fringes of, it's a bit different. Because such a group has concluded that "September 11" is just a buzzword to the politicians using it, and they aren't actually going to act in a way to make the US materially safer, so it is, as you say, nothing but politicians "trying to use a tragedy for their own gain."

On the other hand... frankly, if we want a Democrat to win the election, it may be a good thing that said Democrat is at least capable of appropriating that language. Because if it comes down to an armwrestling match between a guy who spams "fight terrorism, no more 9/11s" and a guy who spams "rein in Wall Street," it's entirely possible that "no more 9/11s" will WIN.

[Raw Shark]

You know, Bernie, their are a lot of things I like about you, but your anti-nuclear power stance is very uniformed.

You know, The Romulan Republic, there are a lot of things I like about you, but the their / there thing really puts a bug up my ass. I also agree about nuclear power, but no candidate is ever going to be perfect and the guy does represent one of the knee-jerkyest green states in the country (whose name literally incorporates a foreign term for "green") and can't store nuclear waste for very good geological reasons, so I'm letting it slide this time.

But Jesus, Clinton invokes 911 more than the Republicans do these days.

9/11 is a political football devoid of actual meaning for anybody who wasn't actually there at this point. I remember being shaken awake by my girlfriend-at-the-time and told that there was video of planes hitting the World Trade Center on tv that I had to get up and see, and sleepily remarking, "Somebody's getting a posthumous Pulitzer." Later that night, we went to shoot pool at a country bar around 8pm and they already had photos of Osama with a bull's eye over his face up behind it.

[Gandalf]

The debate is quite vicious. Sanders seems to still be pulling his punches, and he's a bit too vague/non-specific at times. Clinton, meanwhile, oozes sleaze, pandering, and personal attacks, but seems to have a better handle on the debate format.

Yeah, Sanders was just vague as hell sometimes. I think Clinton won the debate by just letting him speak and expose that he's just not a great debater when it comes to specifics.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://usuncut.com/politics/something-amiss-new-york/

New York’s Democratic primary is starting to look an awful lot like the Arizona primary.

Hundreds of voters, most of them registered with the Democratic Party, are filing a class-action lawsuit against the New York State Board of Elections on Monday morning, claiming their voter registration was changed to “independent” or “no affiliation” without their consent.

In closed primary states like New York, voters who are not registered as Democrats or Republicans can’t vote in those primaries. Voters identifying as independents wishing to vote in the Democratic primary had to change their registration to Democrat by October of 2015 — the earliest registration deadline in the country.


This is almost exactly what happened in Arizona, when voters who had been eager to vote in the Democratic primary learned upon arrival to their designated polling place that their registration had been changed, making them ineligible to vote. In conducting their own investigation of what exactly happened in Arizona, hacktivist collective Anonymous discovered that Arizona kept voter information on an SQL database, which is so easy to hack a 3-year-old can do it. In fact, a white hat hacker discovered a database of 191 million voter registrations last year, which may mean that other, more nefarious hackers have accessed that information as well.

At a public hearing over the multiple irregularities at the Arizona primary, Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan publicly stated that party affiliation for many voters was changed at the last minute, and she has yet to find out how or why. The Justice Department has begun an official investigation, and the Democratic National Committee, along with the Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders campaigns, have sued the state of Arizona over alleged voter suppression.

New York voters angry about the mysterious change in their party affiliation have taken to a Facebook group titled “Voters whose registration was changed without their knowledge in NY” to share their horror stories. Shelly Berry discovered that someone had changed her voter registration in 2012, even forging her signature on the document:

shelleyberry
Two different signatures for Shelly Berry’s New York voter registration, photo from Facebook

Today I went to the board of elections to find out why my voter registration was switched from democrat to unaffiliated without my knowledge or consent. The man there said I had applied to be changed to no party affiliation in 2012. I said that was absolutely false and never sent in such a form. I had him print the 2012 form and then had him print two additional forms, two which I know I filled out myself. Both forms I filled out myself had “democrat” checked. The one from 2012 is a FRAUDULENT form which is NOT in my handwriting and has a forged, completely wrong looking signature on it.

Philip Kathrens, another member of the group, said state election officials mistakenly selected “Democratic” for his party affiliation. Since Kathrens wanted to vote in the 2016 Democratic primary, he assumed his registration was still with the Democratic Party, but recently found out his registration was changed to “Other” without his knowledge:

philipkathrens
Philip Kathrens’ current voter registration (top) and his 2012 voter registration (bottom). Photo from Facebook

I originally selected “socialist” on my registration in 2012. When my card came I was pissed that they had placed me in the “Democratic” party. This is why I know I was registered as a democrat. I never changed it, figuring that they only placed people in 1 of the 2 parties. Flash forward to a month ago, I started hearing about the things going on and double checked my registration. Suddenly it was “Other”.

The party affiliation barrier these voters are struggling with will undoubtedly play a role in the New York primary on Tuesday. Some advocates are calling for New York to open its primary to independent voters to avoid disenfranchising thousands of voters.

Over 7,000 people have signed a petition calling on U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to urge the New York Democratic Party to open its primary up to independent voters. Schumer himself wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling for primary reform in 2014.

“If the primary were open, this would be a non-issue for thousands of registered voters that have had this happen to them,” said Shyla Nelson, spokeswoman for Election Justice U.S.A. in an interview with the New York Daily News. “By making the primary open, it eliminates one of the most vexing problems New Yorkers have dealt with in this primary season.”



Rosette Newcomb is a political science graduate from the City University of New York. She covers the 2016 election and social movements for US Uncut. She lives in Queens. Contact her at rosetteinnyc@gmail.com.

I'm now fairly confident that, barring a miracle, Clinton will win New York by a comfortable margin and that following that, while it will not be mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the Democratic Primary, it'll be over for all realistic purposes on the 20th. I hope I'm wrong, but there it is.

The question is weather that victory, and the margin of victory, will actually reflect the will of the voters of New York.

The thing is... someone could commit fraud and get caught and it almost certainly won't matter as far as the result is concerned. Its well known what a cluster fuck Arizona is, but its not like they redid the vote. No, the fraudulent result is still the result.

[Omega18]

I'm now fairly confident that, barring a miracle, Clinton will win New York by a comfortable margin and that following that, while it will not be mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the Democratic Primary, it'll be over for all realistic purposes on the 20th. I hope I'm wrong, but there it is.

The question is weather that victory, and the margin of victory, will actually reflect the will of the voters of New York.

I would point out that the article left out that the Republican Party has the exact same same policy regarding the October deadline, which is why Trump's kids can't vote for him in the primary either.

The article also appears quite misleading in that its quoting a petition which appears to mistakenly believe that the Democratic Party has a choice in what deadline it sets.

Section 5-304 of New York election law provides that the deadline for voters to apply for a change in party enrollment is 25 days before a year's general election, which means that for the purposes of the 2016 presidential primary, the deadline to switch registration to one or another party was October 9, 2015.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/mich ... -1.2600065

If the Democratic Party did not enforce the rule in question they would be breaking state law.

Now its true that the election laws could get changed for future primaries, but obviously changing the law suddenly at this last moment is not possible for this next primary. (It should be noted that the law has been on the books the same way for a long time so its not like this was passed to benefit Hillary.)

Now there are some arguments for some version of this kind of policy to be implemented to avoid the risk members of the opposing party switching over to the opposing party's primary to create mischief and pick the weakest candidate, but I will agree the current New York law is plainly unreasonable and should be fixed.

[The Romulan Republic]

]The deadline is not what I take issue with, nor is it the main topic of the article I posted. Well, I do take issue with it, but that's the rule, stupid as it is, and I'm not going to level fraud allegations over it.

No, the foremost concern, for me, is the reports of people having their registration/party affiliation changed without their consent.

Now, maybe those reports are bullshit. I rather hope they are. But if there is any validity to them, that should be concerning regardless of which side you're on and who benefits.

You are literally trying to frame a minor tangent as the main topic and then refute the side tangent rather than the main point.

[Omega18]

]The deadline is not what I take issue with, nor is it the main topic of the article I posted. Well, I do take issue with it, but that's the rule, stupid as it is, and I'm not going to level fraud allegations over it.

No, the foremost concern, for me, is the reports of people having their registration/party affiliation changed without their consent.

Now, maybe those reports are bullshit. I rather hope they are. But if there is any validity to them, that should be concerning regardless of which side you're on and who benefits.

My basic view is with almost 20 million in the state in question, issues in at least a few cases of issues are likely to naturally crop up.

Significantly if the change occurred back in 2012 in one of the cases in question, it plainly had nothing to do with the current election at all. (It might have conceivably had something to do with perhaps the 2014 primaries, even if the individual apparently didn't actually vote in it. Its also possible there is some weird explanation behind it because the timing is not what I would have expected for some sort of intentional vote fraud.)

In the second 2012 related case it appears what happened is they fixed his registration but either didn't let him know or he didn't see the notification in the mail. It really sounds like the second case is obviously not fraud and you can argue its partially his fault for not checking earlier if he knew that he had originally not actually registered as a Democrat.

One other point worth noting is doing this systematically to actually favor a candidate to a relevant degree would either end up being really blatantly obvious if age info is available and they only targeted people who are younger, or rather challenging because they would need to integrate the activities with having previously determined how that particular person intends to vote. (In neither case mentioned did the voting registration change occur at the last minute which would be something more consistent with a hacking stunt meant to influence the primary results.)

[Channel72]

Well, tomorrow is the NY primary vote, and I'll be voting for Sanders.... which, is something I'm kind of surprised about. Honestly, my usual attitude is I don't really give much of a shit about the candidates themselves - I care more about the party. As long as a Democrat is controlling the Executive Branch, I'm adequately appeased. I assumed I would be voting for [DEFAULT ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE-BOT], but I'm actually pleasantly surprised to be voting for Sanders. If he can win NY he has a good shot at getting the nomination - and if he gets the nomination, well... at least according to current polls, he'll win the general election.

[The Romulan Republic]

We can only hope.

If I'm honest, I very much doubt Sanders will win. But I'm willing to watch the primary play out to the end. Sanders, win or lose, is shaking things up, and challenging a lot of the old norms and assumptions in American politics.

In the end, though, I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination, because fuck the Republican Party.

[Channel72]

Yeah, although it doesn't look like Sanders will win NY. Hillary seems to poll much better. If Sanders loses NY, it will be really hard for him to get the nomination.

[The Romulan Republic]

New York is kind of stacked against him. You've got the voter registration deadlines which mean that the benefits of any recent surge in Sanders' favour will be limited. And no independents voting for him.

Well, you never know. Maybe the voters will surprise us and give us another Michigan.

My prediction, a while back, was that New York would likely be basically another Illinois- a Clinton win, but narrow, narrower than the polls suggest. I'm curious to see how close my guess was.

[Purple]

What are the republicans doing?

[Soontir C'boath]

I probably should go to sleep soon. I do want to be at the polls as early as possible and they do open at 6AM here in NYC.

So I am in a Bernie Sanders event page for the NY primary and there are certainly a few face palm posts in there. One is where someone thought he just needed to put down New York county for any borough. Can't call themselves a New Yorker when they don't even know their borough is a county in their own right. Others are Independent/Unaffiliated voters who are shocked and surprised to find out they cannot vote in the primary. Well hey! Welcome to the voting process! Glad people are deciding to vote, but please. They act as if this was all recently done due to Sanders running or something like that.

Probably the most worrisome thing is they are telling non-Democrats to fill out an affidavit ballot anyway because of a lawsuit to allow voters not from the Democratic/Republican party to vote in the primary. Frankly, it is not the character I would like to see Sanders' voters take on as it certainly reeks of underhandedness and they acknowledge there is a slim chance it would even matter anyway.

The main issue I think we will have tomorrow is that voting hours are different. Upstate New York starts voting at noon while NYC and Long Island start at 6AM. So upstate voters reading all the posts from downstaters may get the wrong impression that their polls start at 6AM too. There's at least a push in the event page to at least get people to realize the difference and not mess up with going to work and what not.

[Soontir C'boath]

I suppose it is fitting with the 5900th post I state I have voted for Bernie and the five delegates pledged to him on the ballot. Everything went without a hitch for me. The poll site was open, there was no line, my name was on the rolls. and the machine ate my ballot properly.

I cannot say the same for people across the city as a poll site was closed for almost two hours because the person who was suppose to open it showed up late, roll books at one site did not have the names for those with surnames starting with N-Z or missing from the rolls even though husband and wife should have been together (one of them wasn't), the machines at another didn't work and they were suppose to have been delivered two more which never showed up, poll sites were changed for some people without any notification (I actually received one in the mail thankfully), and on and on.

The change in poll sites was definitely something I was worried would happen to people. Where I live, there are two schools that they use to send people to vote and it always seems like they love to alternate between the two when I go and vote. So at least I know beforehand to presume nothing and doublecheck, but some people were voting at the same site for years and they have had the rug pulled under them today.

Gothamist
I won't copy and paste since the article will be updated periodically.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://usuncut.com/politics/nyc-mayor- ... ter-purge/

Speaking of New York electoral fuckery...

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is demanding an explanation from the city’s Board of Elections after the purge of registered Democrats in Brooklyn has doubled from 63,000 to 126,000.

As US Uncut previously reported, Kings County, where Brooklyn is located, has seen a 7 percent drop in the number of registered Democratic voters between November 2015 and April 2016. But a new investigation by WNYC has revealed that the New York City Board of Elections actually purged 126,000 voters in that time period — a 14 percent drop in 5 months. Now, Mayor de Blasio is demanding to know why there was such a precipitous drop in registered voters just before the primary.

“This number surprises me,” de Blasio told WNYC. “I admit that Brooklyn has had a lot of transient population – that’s obvious. Lot of people moving in, lot of people moving out. That might account for some of it. But I’m confused since so many people have moved in, that the number would move that much in the negative direction.”


Kings County was just one of seven counties, out of a total of 63, where the number of registered Democrats fell, while registration increased in all other 56 counties. This is particularly odd, since Brooklyn — the home of Bernie Sanders, as well as the home of Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters — is a hotbed of political activity.

The New York City Board of Elections claims the number is explained by 12,000 voters moving out of the borough, 44,000 voters moved from “active” to “inactive” voter lists (by having not voted in four years or more), and 70,000 voters being taken off the “inactive” list. Michael Ryan, executive director of the city Board of Elections, said the reason Kings County has such a dramatic drop in the number of registered voters is due to election officials in Brooklyn being six months to a year behind updating voter rolls, due to elections.

“When there is an election event, work stops getting done,” Ryan told WNYC.

A New York voter has launched a petition on MoveOn.org demanding the New York State Board of Elections investigate the voter purge. As of this writing, it has almost 20,000 signatures.

Yeah, I'm sure its just a coincidence that this took place in Bernie's home neighbourhood and coincided with his rise in the polls...

I am just enraged. Absolutely enraged. I know this is not from an impartial source, if such a thing exists, but presuming that this story is not outright fabricated, if there is even a shred of validity to it, then as far as I'm concerned any results from New York cannot be considered legitimate until a full investigation has been conducted. New York is shaping up to be another Arizona.

[Soontir C'boath]

DNAInfo
Poll site changes for a condominium complex in Parkchester, Bronx with longtime residents finding their usual poll site was changed. There's even one person who lives in the same building a poll site is, but has to vote at another nearby poll site instead.

PARKCHESTER — Voters at the Parckchester Condominiums were confused and discouraged from casting their ballots by changed polling locations and poor directions, residents said.

Linnie Ewing, who has lived in the complex for roughly 20 years, said that it is normally filled with signs telling voters where to go on election days, but they have been largely absent for Tuesday's primary.

This is the first time that voting has been this confusing in the condos, making her nervous that people who do not have much time to cast their ballot will just skip the process, she said.

"If they're in a rush somewhere, they're just going to go somewhere," she said. "They're not going to vote."

Ruth Bowman, a 25-year resident of the complex, agreed, saying that the building she had always voted in was not where she was supposed to vote this time, and when she went there, there were no signs telling her where she should go instead.

"I think it's really a disaster," she said. "I think they really don't want people to vote."

There are several buildings in the Parkchester Condominium complex, and residents of different buildings will have to vote at different locations, according to the Board of Elections' website.

If a resident lives at 1560 Unionport Rd., for example, he or she is supposed to vote in JHS 127 at 1560 Purdy St., but if a resident lives at 1595 Unionport Rd., he or she is supposed to vote at 1563 Metropolitan Ave., a building within the complex.

However, a resident who actually lives in 1563 Metropolitan Ave. will have to vote at JHS 127, according to the BOE website.

Alexia Esannason, who has lived in the complex for more than 30 years, said she went to three places on Tuesday trying to cast her ballot.

"This is important," she said, "and for them to keep moving it around every year, it’s ridiculous."

The Board of Elections did not respond to a request for comment.

Edna T. Lambert, who has lived in the complex for about 14 years, said on Tuesday afternoon that she had been sent to three different voting locations so far but would not give up on trying to cast her ballot, even though she did not need the extra walking.

"I don't need the exercise because I exercise every day," she said. "I have the equipment to do that."

I think the sad thing about Lambert's case at the end of the article here is that there is a website to check someone's registration. The fact that they made her go to three different locations is born of utter incompetence. The poll site managers should at least know about it.