If you have "no place to go," come here!

Arizona: Hillary Clinton’s Election Fraud Masterpiece

metamars's picture

From, Arizona: Hillary Clinton’s Election Fraud Masterpiece

  1. Drastically reduce the number of polling locations to make voting nearly impossible (early voting had favored Clinton; Maricopa County reduced the number of polling places from more than the 200 available for the 2012 presidential election to 60.)
  2. Declare Hillary the winner while people are still standing in line and less than 1% of the vote is counted
  3. Thousands of voters say their party affiliation was altered or undocumented, preventing them from voting
  4. A purely coincidental but extremely convenient bomb threat prevented voters from seeking help (there are 14 counties in AZ, so I doubt a bomb threat in one of them could make much difference. I've no idea what the population of Pima county is, compared to others, though.)

If this is as bad as it seems, can't the Sanders campaign sue whoever was responsible for conducting the vote in AZ??

No votes yet


chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

How is this Hillary Clinton's fault?

Are you saying that Hillary Clinton instructed the Republican Maricopa county recorder to drastically reduce the number of polling stations in an area that is primarily populated by minorities?

What did Mrs. Clinton do next? Contact the cable news networks and instruct them to call Arizona for her despite the fact that people were still waiting to vote?

My goodness, the woman has her tentacles everywhere.

You would serve the process better if you used what happened yesterday to insure that democrats and minorities aren't denied their voting rights in November.

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

You may be mostly correct. I'm hardly knowledgeable about the nitty gritty of electoral political machinations in AZ. Furthermore, I got an email from Bernie Sanders, and not a word of blame was directed against the Clinton machine. (Though he's also "famously" reticent to go after her about her emails, so we perhaps shouldn't read too much into his not blaming the Clinton machine, either.) Here is his email:

What happened yesterday in Arizona should be considered a national disgrace. I got an email last night from a woman who waited five hours to vote in Arizona. Five hours.

We don't know how many thousands of people didn't get to cast their ballots yesterday in Arizona because they couldn't afford to wait that long. Scenes on cable news last night showed hundreds of people in line at 11:30pm in Phoenix – more than four hours after polls closed. Voting should not be this difficult.

One reason it is so hard to vote in Arizona is because the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. There were 70 percent fewer polling places this year than in 2012 in Phoenix's county. They wouldn't have been allowed to cut those polling places if the Voting Rights Act was still in tact.

These cuts meant that, in a county with more than 4 million residents, there were just 60 polling places. This is unacceptable, but it's also not an isolated incident.

We need to make it easier to vote, not more difficult. One way we can do that is by reaffirming our support for the Voting Rights Act, which, when I am president, I will fight to reinstate.

Add your name to say you support reinstating the Voting Rights Act so we can make voting easier for everybody, not more difficult.

We cannot continue to see democracy undermined in the United States of America. Enough is enough.

Make no mistake: the billionaire class does not want Americans to vote. Billions of dollars are being funneled into our elections in a form of legalized bribery, even as American voters — especially minority voters — are being discouraged from voting. It is no wonder that government no longer works for ordinary Americans.

Above all, we need to remember the price that was paid for the right to vote. The Voting Rights Act was one of the great victories of the civil rights movement. Now, as then, change comes when the people demand it — in the voting booth, and on the streets in peaceful demonstrations. We must remind ourselves of what’s been achieved in the past, and resolve to do equally great things in the future. Democracy is not a spectator sport.

It is my sincere hope that the states that vote in the coming weeks and months do better than what we saw yesterday in Arizona. Too much is at stake for our future.

Right now, what we can do is show your support by adding your name to say you want to reinstate the Voting Rights Act. Click here to add your name.

No one said a political revolution would be easy. The billionaire class doesn't want to see our movement win, and so we must do everything we can to show them that we have the power.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders


Having pointed out the above, I think the most reasonable candidate for culprit behind

Declare Hillary the winner while people are still standing in line and less than 1% of the vote is counted

would be a pro-Clinton constellation of actors. (And having said this, I have to admit that I don't know what an acceptable minimum sample size would be to make a guess, expected to be accurate "most" of the time, as to who the winner of AZ would be. I would guess that something more like 30% of the vote would normally have been reported before calling an election. Of course, an acceptable minimum will also be a function of the vote differential.)

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

Professional statisticians generally know what they're doing and they have both their reputations and future employment at stake when they make their predictions based on mathematical formulas and calculations. Your "guesses" about the statistical formulations are meaningless and dangerous. You are not an expert; you are a partisan spectator with an overblown sense of his own expertise and entitlement.

The major media outlets have, by and large, been cautious about their election night predictions. "Too early to call" and "too close to call" are phrases we are all familiar with from election night coverage.

As for your claim about "reasonable culprits"... who exactly comprises your apocryphal "pro-Clinton constellation of actors" that controls the media? What on earth would lead you to blame Hillary Clinton for what happened when the candidate you support blames the gutting of the Voting Rights Act and urges his supporters to fight against the disenfranchisement of the electorate?

Behind many a Bernie supporter is a young, white, entitled male who will vote Trump in November to prevent the girl from winning. I hope you're not one of them.

metamars's picture
Submitted by metamars on

Your "guesses" about the statistical formulations are meaningless and dangerous. You are not an expert; you are a partisan spectator with an overblown sense of his own expertise and entitlement.

Gee whiz, I would have been so much more impressed if you'd produced any solid (or even seemingly solid) statistical argument, other than stating a general expectation about how competent statisticians are, coupled with an assumption of honesty by both the media and statisticians that they would consult or employ.

Perhaps you are genuinely naive about how corruptible the media, as well as science/tech types are. I don't want to waste a lot of time on this, but...

... regarding media, read Chomsky and Michael Parenti. Look into how bad the coverage of "Russian aggression" vis-a-vis Ukraine has been, and ask yourself "Cui bono"?

See also

The website was taken down years ago, but their funding flow chart can still be seen at It's not just main stream media that's corrupted....

Creating a plutocratic friendly pseudo-reality extends even into the world of art criticism. See

Regarding the ubiquitous corrupton of climate science, with references to corruption of all science (as per work by Daniele Fanelli), see Patrick Michaels' talk at

Regarding the extraordinary failure of the media to question the ginormous pap they were being fed about certainty and expertise of IPCC reports, see LaFramboise's 50 to 1 interview at

I'd say that your naivete regarding the truthfulness of the intellectual environment in which we are forced to operate under (an inflicted pseudo-reality) is far more dangerous than my skepticism about calling an election with only 1% of the votes counted. Especially one as disastrously managed.

Bernie Sanders email arrived at 8:33 pm on March 23. I posted this diary at 9:57 am on March 23. Probably I should have waited a bit, or googled around, for counter-arguments, but the the main points of the article were and are worth sharing. (With the caveat re the bomb threat remaining.) I regret not having put quotes around the title, but that's the extent of my "apology".

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

There are bad actors in every field, statistics included and politics especially. However, I'm beginning to sense a knee-jerk, doctrinaire "the fix is in" reaction every time Senator Sanders loses a race. And it's particularly disheartening to hear people who consider themselves progressive falling for and repeating right wing talking points and linking to dubious sources in support of outlandish and illogical claims.

Think carefully before you poison the well. It's difficult to undo.

DailyPUMA's picture
Submitted by DailyPUMA on

I think this was an irresponsible headline and article. Everytime the republicans do something wrong, (Florida in 2008), Arizona and Utah in 2016 (Utah was a last minute conversion from a primary to a caucus to save money), It's Hillary Clinton's fault when she is the one actually hurt by it.

Long lines mean longer travel distances between voting locations and longer wait times which DOES NOT favor Hillary Clinton supporters, who generally fall into the category of workers, small business owners, responsible for other family members, or who are retired. None of the groups desire or want to hang out for hours after driving a lot farther to vote. On the other hand, a horny millennial with time to kill and a social life to enrich loves lone lines and walks along the beach.