home

Dirty Tricks in Texas and Ohio?

Bump and Update: The Texas Democratic Party sent out this directive (pdf)to both campaigns this afternoon cautioning against what I reported below. So they obviously heard it too, although the letter went to both campaigns, not just Obama's.

Campaign workers, volunteers and/or supporters have obtained copies of blank sign-in sheets for precinct conventions and are having them filed in now with the desire of turning them in once the convention gets underway. These sign-in sheets are invalid and will not be considered in determining the allocation of delegates. See Tex. Dem. Pty. Rule. IV(B)(6).

Update: The Austin Statesman is now reporting on the alleged violations, without specifying which campaign is complaining or allegedly violating the rules.

***

I'm receiving reports that contrary to Texas Democratic party caucus rules that preclude registration forms from being submitted before either 7:15 pm or the last vote at a precinct has been cast, Obama volunteers are handing out the forms at precincts today and asking people to fill them in and then collecting them. For Obama to submit the forms on the voters' behalf without the voter physically being present at the caucus would violate the rules.

The rules state:

More...

Participants may NOT begin signing in until the precinct convention has been called to order. The call to order may not occur until 7:15 p.m. OR whenever the last voter finishes voting at that polling location whichever is later. If, after the convention has been called to order and participants have signed in, any participant who wishes to leave may do so, and their sign in WILL count toward the delegate allocation for each candidate. Sign-In ends when the last person present waiting to sign in has done so.

If any Texas voter has witnessed this, feel free to let me know. More on the rules and some disturbing reports from Ohio below:

In Ohio, Marc Ambinder reports:

Ohio's Secretary of State, an office held by a Democrat, has rebuked Sen. Barack Obama's campaign for trying to staff precincts with poll workers who presented insufficient credentials. Obama's campaign calls this charge "wrong."

In a memo sent late this morning to county election directors by David M. Farrell, Ohio's
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, a letter carried by Obama supporters -- signed by Obama state director Paul Tewes -- is deemed "not legally sufficient on its own to allow someone to gain access to polling places." Farrell notes that state law requires that polling observers must be "duly appointed" and have been previously issued a certificate.

Ambinder has posted the letter saying the authorization is insufficient and the authorization. The problem this can cause:

The alleged infraction seems minor, but the Clinton campaign has seized on the e-mail from the Secretary of State's office as evidence that the Obama campaign is trying to game the system in Ohio.

Lynn Utrecht, chief campaign counsel for Sen. Hillary Clinton, said that she'd recieved reports from the field of Obama poll workers being kicked out of precincts for aggressively challenging voters. Adding it up, she said, "and it's a pattern."

Back to the Texas caucus rules, here's more:

2) Attendees sign in on the roll sheets (“Exhibit A”) that are in the packet. ATTENDEES MAY ONLY SIGN IN FOR THEMSELVES. (see TCDP GUIDELINES p. 4 *) Only those persons who voted in the 2008 Democratic Primary may participate in the caucus. A person is verified in one of three ways: 1. The attendee’s voter registration card was stamped as having voted in the 2008 Democratic Primary, or 2. The attendee was given a stamped Party Affiliation Card when they voted, or 3. The attendee is listed in the precinct voter roster as having voted in the 2008 Democratic Primary. This is the roster of registered voters provided by the Democratic presiding judge. The roster will indicate those who voted Democratic in your precinct on March 4th and also includes those who Voted Early, or Voted by Mail.

5) The Chair, Secretary and caucus representatives determine the following and then announce:
a. the threshold for a caucus to be able to elect delegates

b. percent of people attending the precinct convention who support each candidate

c. number of delegates the supporters of each candidate are entitled to elect

There is an “E-Z Math Precinct Delegate Formula” sheet in the packet to help you. Please see mathematical examples at the end of these TCDP GUIDELINES.

Once the threshold and proportional allocation of delegates has been announced by the Chair of the precinct convention, it cannot be changed by any late arrivals to the convention. Late attendees can still sign in with their presidential preference and participate, but their arrival cannot change the threshold or the allocation of delegates.

Update: Here is a copy of the Registration sign-in sheet (pdf)that the Democratic Party provides for downloading, in case more people show up at the caucus than planned for and the leaders run out of sheets. The State Party caucus rules are here.

< Ohio Flooding: Some Polling Places Moved, Lots of Cross-Over Voters | Last Minute Predictions and Thoughts Before the Results Come In >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I don't like (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:44:25 PM EST
    either the Ohio or Texas accusations. This looks bad and makes Obama look a little desperate.

    Do we know anything more?

    I'm waiting for updates (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:46:17 PM EST
    and will post them when I get them.

    Parent
    well--for what it's worth (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:53:53 PM EST
    I heard from two TX friends that they were offered those sign-in sheets as they were leaving the polling place, only to have them snatched back when they tried to declare for Clinton.  Don't worry--both friends reported this to the hotline the Clinton campaign put out.  My friends said he didn't look old enough to vote.  I would be hesitant to put this down as an overall campaign strategy and would more place the blame on an overzealous kid, or group of kids.

    I wonder if a way around this is to confirm at the opening of the caucus that they only use sign-in sheets that are fresh out of the pack.  Each campaign would have to have someone there to verify this.

    What a mess.

    Parent

    the rules state (none / 0) (#31)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:00:02 PM EST
    You cannot put your name on the list any earlier than 15 minutes after the last person votes or 7:15 whichever is later.  Those lists gathered in the voting area should be tossed.  Hopefully an election official will get sent to the caucus site to oversee the process if they get enough people to complain.  Most people will probably be clueless about the rules though.

    Parent
    More likely... (none / 0) (#157)
    by TexasDame on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:25:40 PM EST
    Election officials oversee the caucus lists; voters stand in line and wait. These are very official documents. Even officials are only issued one at a time and have to sign each one out. The caucus lists never leave the sight of an election official. When it's complete, it's put in a sealed envelope and then into a lock box. Also, all election officials were instructed to tell people to return 15 minutes after the voting ended.

    BUT, you say someone was running around with an list encouraging people to sign on for Obama but leaving if they were going to sign Clinton's name? Whatever it was that your friends were asked to sign was obviously not an official ballot and wouldn't have been accepted. Why would Obama's people encourage that? I was at two Obama rallies in Austin; there was a lot of information available about the correct way to vote. Obama himself told people to vote early or vote the day of and then go to your polling place at 7:15.

    Had your friends signed that list and neglected to return at 7:15, their caucus votes would have not counted. So who would've profited here?

    Instead of letting your friends sign a bogus caucus sheet, these people left so that your friends could cast a real vote for Clinton?

    Before spreading the gossip and innuendo like a Republican, can we think these things out?

    Parent

    or aggressive (none / 0) (#96)
    by Joike on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:02:03 PM EST
    the truth about Obama observers in Ohio (none / 0) (#156)
    by abuffl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:57:24 AM EST
    If you are talking about Obama observers in polling locations in Ohio,  there was absolutely nothing in this plan about challenging voters.  Quite the contrary, the purpose was to preserve the rights of voters by observing procedures without interfering.  We were to call in if it seemed that proper procedures were not being followed (for example, if a person presenting one of the less common but still acceptable forms of ID was asked to vote provisionally instead of on a regular ballot). Such protection of voter's rights was to extend to any and all voters, independent of party or candidate preference. I was trained to be one of these observers.  Please do not unnecessarily escalate divisiveness with rumors.

    Parent
    dirty tricks? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:45:23 PM EST
    Hmm... the TX "trick" sounds like an unsourced rumor. Definitely not a fan.

    But calling the Ohio issue a "dirty trick?"  Seriously?

    It sounds like it was a procedural error more than anything.  I don't see anything dirty or trick in it.

    nothing dirty? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:48:54 PM EST
    You have untrained and uncertified people going to a voting site and challenging a person's right to cast a ballot?????

    It smells of Florida.

    Parent

    It smells of Karl Rove. nt (none / 0) (#21)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:52:31 PM EST
    It's not even clear that they are not certified (none / 0) (#42)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:07:04 PM EST
    I don't think you have the facts (none / 0) (#155)
    by abuffl on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:49:39 AM EST
    If you are talking about Obama observers in polling locations in Ohio,  there was absolutely nothing in this plan about challenging voters.  Quite the contrary, the purpose was to preserve the rights of voters by observing procedures without interfering.  We were to call in if it seemed that proper procedures were not being followed (for example, if a person presenting one of the less common but still acceptable forms of ID was asked to vote provisionally instead of on a regular ballot). Such protection of voter's rights was to extend to any and all voters, independent of party or candidate preference. I was trained to be one of these observers.  Please do not unnecessarily escalate divisiveness with rumors.

    Parent
    When I see SusanHu appealing on NoQuarter (none / 0) (#92)
    by dannyinla on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:58:45 PM EST
    for people to contact Jeralyn about "dirty tricks", it makes me wonder if someone is strenuously checking the veracity of the claims. NQ has become the worst of the smear sites and will stop at nothing to tarnish Obama.

    There may be problem with the voting, but I would hope that any claims via Susan or LCJ are carefully weighed.

    Parent

    No I wouldn't take reports from (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    people I didn't know beforehand. My source is a credible professional, not a voter or emailer or blogger.

    If I get those kinds of reports, I'll put them in comments and state how I received them.  As I did with my earlier post on a Texas voter.

    Parent

    good to hear n/t (none / 0) (#140)
    by dannyinla on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:41:21 PM EST
    Geez... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    ... could they make voting any harder than with a caucus?

    I guess since caucuses are a state party run event, they get a lot of leeway. But it strikes me they'd be an incredibly unconstitutional way of running a real election--the hurdles are at least as high as a poll tax or literacy test.

    This was part of the Nevada suit (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:25:55 PM EST
    that argued as to how discriminatory caucuses are for many groups (not just teachers, as was too widely and erroneously reported, as the press just bought the anti-Clinton crap) for many reasons. But the court rules that caucuses do not have to, well, abide by the Constitution, because they're run by parties. (Or, in this campaign, by candidates' operatives that brilliantly figured out that state and local parties can be pretty incompetent.)

    Parent
    Intimidation and sexist bullying (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Donna Darko on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:52:06 PM EST
    Obama volunteers are handing out the forms at precincts today and asking people to fill them in and then collecting them. For Obama to submit the forms on the voters' behalf without the voter physically being present at the caucus would violate the rules.

    I also wouldn't be surprised if this involves sexist bullying too. Shakesville on caucuses:

    What is it about the difference between the two that gives Obama the edge in caucuses and Clinton the advantage in the primaries?"

    In my Seattle caucus today, overwhelmingly for Obama, us Hillary supporters were older, and less aggressive than the Obama supporters. ... Intimidation is a factor in caucuses. It's something the democratic party has to deal with which is why I want the democratic party to do away with them completely. The last thing democrats need when trying to build party unity is one half winning votes by scaring the other half.

    Someone has also emailed me private accounts of older female Hillary supporters who reported being intimidated, shouted down, and outright bullied by younger male Obama supporters while caucusing. There were also reports of male McCain supporters who showed up claiming the specific purpose of intimidating female Hillary supporters.

    And why not? When everyone's free to take shots at Hillary without serious consequence, it doesn't exactly send the message that anyone will care if her supporters are treated as fair game for sexist bullying, too.


    This has been so since Iowa (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:02:07 PM EST
    Read the Des Moines Register readers' comments blogs about behavior at their caucuses.  Ditto in Nevada and elsewhere.  I took the time to read local online papers from the start and have been appalled -- not only that this has happened to pervert the process from the beginning but also that there has not been media or even much blog coverage about this.  I posted comments on this and other blogs and do so again in hope that maybe now that the Obamabloom is fading, media and maybe even Dem leaders will look at many, many reports from caucus participants of problems.  (Note: I know some problems are to be expected -- but intimidation and deliberate perversion of the process ought not be acceptable.)  This is no way to pick a nominee for president, and I'm so disgusted that I don't know if I can cast a ballot for one of our candidates this fall.

    Parent
    Do you have specific links? (none / 0) (#154)
    by Kitt on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:16:16 PM EST
    Nevada - we had two people in Nevada, one a rabid supporter; the other a level-headed Hillary supporter.  (I'm just kiddin' with the characterizations.)

    All of us are local political bloggers.

    Parent

    Aghhh... (none / 0) (#66)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:25:23 PM EST
    ...but something tells me that Texas women don't take that kind of cr@p.  My grandmother was tough as steel and so's my aunt and cousin (who are both of Clinton's age demographic), so...I'd like to see some young punk try to bully them.

    Parent
    Good to know! None of that (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:19:15 PM EST
    "Midwestern nice," the nonsensical time-consuming, ulcer-conducing part of it here. So many of those readers' comments on caucuses in their local papers ended with "but, well, what can you do, so I just left and didn't caucus and didn't complain. . . ." (Me, I have a nature at war with itself -- raised Midwestern nice but as the daughter of a Western woman, so I think I know what you mean by Texas women . . . that Ann Richards was not an anomaly.:-)

    Parent
    If some young punk had tried to bully (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:29:14 PM EST
    my mother, she probably would have beat him about the head and shoulders with her walker.  She didn't take cr@p from anyone.

    Parent
    actually yeah, i tend to agree with you. (none / 0) (#79)
    by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:36:44 PM EST
    the female friends i have from texas are all very strong and even fierce.  i couldn't any of them being bullied around.

    Parent
    couldn't see any of them being bullied (none / 0) (#81)
    by kangeroo on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:37:15 PM EST
    My family is hispanic, too. (none / 0) (#88)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:53:28 PM EST
    And they even make it a point to wear their "b*tch" pin proudly, LOL.  They don't care what people think of them, when they see something that they don't think is right, they'll stand up for what they believe is right.  No one's going to be bullying my aunt and cousin today, I can assure you.

    Parent
    I'm on my way to the precinct now to keep an eye (none / 0) (#114)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:34:50 PM EST
    out for dirty tricks.  I'll be first in line so I get the sign-in sheet (hopefully).  I can be a mean b!$@h when I need to be so they better watch out.  I learned how the caucus is supposed to work from my mother - and she's 74 years old and a proud Hillary supporter and campaign worker.  

    Parent
    The precinct convention MAY not start until 7:15pm (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ivs814 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:55:38 PM EST
    You MAY not BEGIN the precinct convention until the last voter has voted at the precinct place.  That means you cannot gather signatures on the "Sign-In" sheets until the convention convenes.  So if Obama supporters are getting signatures before the convention convenes, they are violating the rules.

    Laws (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donna Darko on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    Are they breaking any laws?

    Parent
    very doubtful (none / 0) (#30)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:59:52 PM EST
    There are very few laws governing primaries/caucuses.  They (especially caucuses) are almost exclusively run by the parties, and the government has very little role.  

    Parent
    well... (none / 0) (#59)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    You are not allowed to place your name on those caucus forms before 7:15. Not sure it is a criminal law but it is part of election law.

    I hope someone can find out.

    Parent

    Yuck (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by eric on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:02:12 PM EST
    In Minnesota, the Obama campaign encouraged people to go to the caucus, "vote" which means scribbling a name on a piece of paper, and then leave.

    Caucuses have NEVER been handled like this.  It is supposed to be a MEETING where people discuss issues and nominate delegates.  Turning these things into informal mini-primaries and letting people sign in and leave just makes it all a big joke.  Yuck.

    In this case, Minnesota's Dem party (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    set up this so-called caucus process -- and I've read many a blog commenter from Minnesota boasting that it is better because at least it does not allow voter intimidation in their workplaces, as was reported in Nevada; it does not discriminate as much against elderly who cannot stand for long hours in caucuses, etc.

    But why the heck Minnesota calls this a caucus, I can't imagine -- except that usually means the party has to pay for it instead of the state, as states pay for primaries.  But it also would seem to mean less supervision by state elections boards and the like.  Fortunately, Minnesotans are famously Midwestern nice, so they're probably pretty well-behaved about it all. :-)

    Parent

    Though the Ohio stuff is clear (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:30:28 PM EST
    The Texas stuff I do not like.

    This was one of the issues on the (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:37:23 PM EST
    conference call between HRC campaign, Obama campaign, and TX Dem. party officials.  Must caucus voter sign in personally, or may sd. caucus voter be signed in absentia by another caucus attendee?  This is the point on which Clinton campaign stated that, if there was no letter agreement that each caucus attendee must personally sign in at the caucus, Clinton campaign might consider filing a lawsuit.

    Parent
    If this turns out to be true, it would (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    seem a suit would be in order.  Does anyone know if such a letter was agreed?


    Parent
    I'm getting nightmarish deja vu... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:59:05 PM EST
    ...of Florida 2000. Only this time it will be Democrats leading the Sore Loserman charge. I am seriously hoping that when Jeralyn provides updates that I can laugh at myself for overreacting.

    Parent
    Hey, you asking us? Aren't you are (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:10:14 PM EST
    person on the ground in TX?  Answer:  I don't know.

    Parent
    When I Voted I Received a Card (none / 0) (#94)
    by sumac on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:59:01 PM EST
    that I was to present at the caucus. Without the card (which was proof that I voted in the Democratic Primary), I would have to contact an election official and have them confirm my vote.

    It is my understanding (I'll know more tonight), that the voter must present the card and then can caucus for his/her candidate.

    Parent

    The voter has to sign in for his/herself, and stay (none / 0) (#116)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:36:18 PM EST
    for the meeting.  No leaving early.

    Parent
    not quite true (none / 0) (#129)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:26:15 PM EST
    As far as I know they are free to leave as soon as they sign in.  It is not advisable though because there may not be enough people left in the room to be delegates to the county caucus.  After the counting is done and the delegates are selected, it is safe to leave.  Then the rest of the party business gets attended to, such as the reviewing of the propositions and position papers.

    Parent
    No, the person has to be there during and until (none / 0) (#141)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:44:32 PM EST
    the delegate allocation has been made.  What if someone calls a point of order asking for a roll call verification?  If that person is not there then their vote DOES NOT COUNT.  The rules are very explicit on this.  Anyone is free to leave once the delegate allocation has been made.  

    Parent
    How close is the Secretary of State in Ohio (none / 0) (#16)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:47:42 PM EST
    to Ted Strickland?  i.e. How far are we to believe that he is impartial?

    Parent
    He could be Strickland's brother (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ChrisO on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:52:05 PM EST
    and it wouldn't mean he would abuse his office to screw up the voting process. I'm guessing every Secretary of State is an elected official, and has political alliances. That doesn't mean that he or she will turn into Katherine Harris.

    Parent
    I'm not sure how the Ohio thing (none / 0) (#40)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:06:05 PM EST
    turns into a "dirty trick" by even the most stretched of definitions.

    Parent
    voter intimidation (none / 0) (#67)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:25:48 PM EST
    certified observers are certified by the state, and that certification requires that the observer understand, and abide by, the rules under which voters may and may not be challenged.

    Letting just anyone challenge voters creates a potential for voter intimidation and suppression.

    The question I have (as with everyone else) is how far up the ladder this thing goes.  It could be just a local/isolated -- probably some local Obama organizer screwed up, and didn't get all their observers certified, so they made copies of the Obama letter and handed them out to people.

    But it may well go farther than that -- remember the whole protest over the Nevada caucuses?  That was due to the Obama campaign not reading the rules in total, and sending out false information regarding when people had to show up to participate.  So its entirely possible that someone higher up in the campaign screwed up, and thought he could get away with just giving out letters from Obama to his observers, rather than getting them certified in advance.

    Parent

    A Caucus Question (none / 0) (#3)
    by glanton on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:30:46 PM EST
    I have never caucused, tonight will be my first go-round.  When I voted in the primary today, nobody offered me any such form in the manner you described.

    Do I need to get one, online or something, before I show up for the caucus tonight?  Or, can I just show up at 7:15 and get a form and fill it out right there on the spot?

    Show up tonight (none / 0) (#7)
    by jfung79 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:38:12 PM EST
    My understanding is you don't need to get any form beforehand ... Bring your voter card to show that you voted Democrat ... Show up probably a little earlier than 7:15 to allow for unexpected problems.  (The Clinton campaign phone script I used for online phonebanking had me advising people to show up at 6:30, but I personally think that's way too early.)

    Parent
    given voter turnout I think (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:40:21 PM EST
    6:30 is a good idea.  I showed up at 6:10 for mine in Denver that started at 7 and was glad I did -- the line 15 minutes later snaked out of the building.  Bring a laptop or book something to keep you occupied.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by glanton on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:55:45 PM EST
    to you and to everyone else for addressing my question so promptly.  I probably will show up at 6:30, just to make sure I'm in on the ground floor and all that.  Hey, if I have to wait a little while I'll carouse with others.

    Parent
    actually... (none / 0) (#51)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:12:02 PM EST
    while I strongly urge Clinton supporters to get there early just to make sure that there is no funny business, under the rules you can show up at any time before the "Election of Delegates" is announced -- and since sign-in can't begin until after 7:15, I would make sure that potential Clinton supporters know that they can show up late and have a good chance of being counted when it comes to the allocation of delegates to each candidate.

    If everything looks like its on the up and up, I wouldn't worry about them bending the rules a bit (i.e. allowing the permanent chair and secretary to be elected while the "sign up" process is ongoing.)  But if you suspect that someone is trying to game the system, insist that the rules be followed (as found on pages 22 and 23 of the Official Rules of the Texas Democratic Party), that the election of officers take place only after everyone has been signed in and confirmed as eligible to vote -- and don't allow any resolutions or other matters be offered or voted on until the sign-up process is complete.

    Parent

    Wow that's Heady Stuff (none / 0) (#65)
    by glanton on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:24:57 PM EST
    As one not at all sufficiently versed in how this is going to work, I am feeling a bit nervous.  I have another question, now.  From Jeralyn's post:

    If, after the convention has been called to order and participants have signed in, any participant who wishes to leave may do so, and their sign in WILL count toward the delegate allocation for each candidate.

    When you "sign in", do you indicate your candidate of choice?  In other words, is declaring your candidate part of the signing in process?  Or, does one need to stay after signing in, later to specify their preference?

    Parent

    answer (none / 0) (#75)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:32:34 PM EST
    When you "sign in", do you indicate your candidate of choice?  In other words, is declaring your candidate part of the signing in process?  Or, does one need to stay after signing in, later to specify their preference?

    Candidate preference is part of the "temporary roll", and is supposed to be filled out during the sign in process.   Once that is accomplished, you can leave if you want to.

    (one of the potential problems I forsee is with verification that a voter is from the precinct in question.  That can be easily checked if they are using their stamped voter registration form, but does the other form that certifies that a person voted contain precinct information?  If it doesn't, then there is a lot of potential for mischief.)


    Parent

    my card which certifies I early voted (none / 0) (#82)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:40:33 PM EST
    in the TX democratic primary has my caucus precinct number on it.

    Parent
    it's hand written not stamped (none / 0) (#84)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:41:58 PM EST
    To which I can only say: Oh oh (nt) (none / 0) (#143)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:46:00 PM EST
    Good advice. Also, if you are not the temporary (none / 0) (#144)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:48:16 PM EST
    secretary (the person who signs in the voters) then you or someone you trust watch over the temporary secretary to make sure that all the rules are followed; that every voter is verified according to the rules; that all the lines in the sign-in sheet are filled in properly; that the proper candidate preference is written down; and - very important here - that there are NO LINES LEFT BLANK  on the sign-in sheets.  This is a way to add names later without anyone knowing.  Yes, it's happened before.  

    Parent
    as to the form (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:41:22 PM EST
    log onto the Democratic party site for your county and they will tell you.

    Parent
    what form are you speaking of? (none / 0) (#15)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:47:39 PM EST
    When you voted, either your registraion form should get stamped Democratic, or they will give you a slip of paper with Democrat stamped onit.  If you don't have one, they can look you up on the voter logs.

    Parent
    They are (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:55:12 PM EST
    reportedly handing out the caucus forms for tonight and letting people sign it and give it back. Telling them they don't have to come back tonight.

    I am hering Clinton's campaign is on it though. I hope.

    Parent

    I Received a Card (none / 0) (#95)
    by sumac on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:01:16 PM EST
    I don't know what the exact process is if you did not, but I am sure (sort of?) that they will be able to confirm at your precinct that you voted in the primary and then will allow you to caucus.

    Parent
    7:00 pm (none / 0) (#104)
    by Klio on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:15:37 PM EST
    You must be at your polling place before 7:00 pm, when the doors close.

    You will be asked to provide a vote certification number [should have been stamped on your voter id card when you voted, or you may have received a separate sheet with it]

    The form on which you'll declare your intent will be at the polling place itself tonight, in an official packet.

    I worked in Abilene this weekend to GOTV and there was a great deal of concern that, at least in this region, the packets would be missing from the polling places.  

    The Obama volunteers cannot have official sheets while the polls are still open.  I wonder what they're using?

    Parent

    See Jerralyn's update link (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:23:20 PM EST
    to the Austin Statesman story -- it explains how and why these official forms already can be accessed online. What a disaster this is.

    Parent
    What state are you in? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    Oklahoma (none / 0) (#124)
    by Klio on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:10:35 PM EST
    I went down to help.

    Saw Bill Clinton in Abilene, too, which was a great bonus.

    Parent

    If I had heard these were GOP tactics, (none / 0) (#20)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 01:52:29 PM EST
    I wouldn't have been surprised, but I am appalled that this kind of thing is reportedly being done by volunteers for one of the Democratic candidates; that these anecdotal reports point to Obama people may pretty much put the "new kind of candidate" theme in the trash.

    It really just makes me feel sick.  I know passions have been running high, but I was hoping for a contest fought hard, but with heart and respect for the process, and some level of sportsmanship.

    This is just making my blood boil.

    y'all know I am firmly for Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:01:40 PM EST
    but let's get more evidence of this before we shout full-blown conspiracy.  Voter fraud and intimidation are very serious charges (I had two friends who were personally victims of it).  Is this endemic or just a couple of isolated incidences?  Is it top down or a handful of kids who don't know any better?  The latter would certainly not make it excusable, but it might indicate that this is isolated.  There are many, many people in TX right now working these campaigns who have never been there before in their lives.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#38)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:05:18 PM EST
    but there's a little knot in the pit of my stomach that I can't seem to ignore, and it feels a lot like the one I had in 2000 and again in 2004.

    Parent
    Anne (none / 0) (#46)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:09:18 PM EST
    I am with you, but it seems like every primary that has been really contested has had some reports of dirty trickery that usually dissolve under scrutiny.  I am not saying that it's not possible (and see above where I had two friends who faced it themselves) but that it might be isolated.  Obviously, the campaigns are watching closely.  If we know about it now, they have known about it for a while.

    I just don't want to get upset until we know more. (Though of course I welcome others to--I could just be too mellow today for this)

    Parent

    Thanks Kathy... (none / 0) (#50)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    ... I appreciate constraint.

    Parent
    They had letters from Obama campaign. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:12:46 PM EST
    So they didn't do this on their own. What I think happened is that someone in the Obama Ohio campaign dropped the ball on this. I do think it was an error, but I'm not sure the kids did it on their own.

    Parent
    Sorry, havign seen this since Iowa (none / 0) (#130)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:27:25 PM EST
    I really am well past considering this to be just continued, well-intentioned error. All these problems keep showing up in caucus state after caucus state after caucus state. . . .

    Parent
    umm... (none / 0) (#148)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:52:06 PM EST
    ... since when is Ohio a caucus state?

    Parent
    Sorry, thought this was re paperwork (none / 0) (#151)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:00:25 PM EST
    distributed by Obama supporters per Jeralyn's post.

    Parent
    MSNBC is reporting on this now. nt (none / 0) (#32)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:00:47 PM EST


    what are they saying? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    They pretty much confirmed what.. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    Jeralyn posted re Ohio. They didn't say anything about Texas. Also there was a bomb scare in a polling place, didn't catch where and it was closed for 90 minutes. Also see my post below re Obama camp complaining about voter suppression, which I didn't quite understand.

    Parent
    what did they say? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    I didn't see it.

    Parent
    They spoke on the phone to (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:08:18 PM EST
    ..an Ohio election official who confirmed that there were Obama supporters who tried to enter polling places as observers but didn't have proper credentials. According to this official, the rules about this had been very clear and sent to both campaigns well in advance.

    Parent
    ok, so they only reported on Ohio, not Texas? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    I couldn't tell.

    Parent
    Nothing about Texas in what I heard. nt (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:13:29 PM EST
    So, that's good, right? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:13:25 PM EST
    The system is working.  People tried to bend the rules and they were turned away.

    I have worked many a polling station and it's very important to have a qualified observer who understands the rules and represents the campaign.  Some years ago during my first "big" election, somebody came in off the street and announced himself as an observer--we were all new at this and didn't know to ask for his credentials.  Anyway, long story short, he challenged just about every single voter until finally someone asked what his qualifications were and...apparently he was there as an emissary for our Lord Jesus Christ.  Important lesson.  Too bad we all had to look like fools to learn it.

    Parent

    Obama camp accusing Clinton camp... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    ..of voter suppression in Ohio, according to MSNBC, but I couldn't quite catch why. It might just be my bias but it seemd like they were really complaining about the weather. If anyone has more information about this, would be appreciated.

    MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:14:53 PM EST
    MSNBC just reported on the Ohio credentials story. Confirmed Obama people trying to enter polling places without proper credentials.

    They also confirmed with the sec of state that both campaigns knew the procedure well in advance and were reminded several times.

    Oabam camps saying they are suppressing voters but facts tell a different story entirely.

    Parent

    Well...yea (none / 0) (#74)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    Pretty much...yes.

    Parent
    That was the impression left... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:35:01 PM EST
    ...by the MSNBC report. It was very unclear. Could have been just bad reporting. But the way it was reporting it was almost as if the Obama campaign was blaming Hillary for the weather!

    Parent
    That would not surprise me at all (none / 0) (#153)
    by vigkat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:35:46 PM EST
    Even if he wins the nomination, Hillary will continue to be blamed for anything and everything that goes wrong after that.    

    Parent
    Please let there be Karma (none / 0) (#43)
    by diplomatic on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:07:50 PM EST
    This is no way to win an election...

    exactly (none / 0) (#108)
    by myed2x on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:22:28 PM EST
    after all the accusation against Clinton and suppressing the vote in Nevada we dont need anymore of this tarnishing the process

    Parent
    cheats (none / 0) (#47)
    by lily15 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    acting very similarly to some
    Republicans (esp the Delay kind in Texas and the Republican secy of state in 2004)....Why does this look familiar?  And what does it suggest?  Nothing good...that's for sure.  Again, progressive principles down the toilet...ends justify means mentality...Just feels like Republican operatives at work here...

    Also well-known in the Midwest (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    as "Chicago-style politics."  Any dead men show up to vote yet in Ohio?

    Parent
    Millions of people (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:14:08 PM EST
    thousands of activists.

    You will ALWAYS get irregularities.

    It would be nice if we didn't have to have dueling outrage over voter suppression at least within the Democratic Party.

    Sorry for the link (none / 0) (#61)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:18:07 PM EST
    I forgot to use the linking process here:

    Well it's Clinton's fault!

    Link was too long and make sure your (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:20:18 PM EST
    post is on topic. Otherwise, put it on an open thread or one of Big Tent's.

    Parent
    Ha. (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:11:06 PM EST
    So that I delete?

    Parent
    No it was directed to you! (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:12:45 PM EST
    one of your topics.

    Parent
    On consult (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:23:53 PM EST
    It looks like Jeralyn has a scoop here.

    No Pulitzer's yet for blogs, right? (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:28:50 PM EST
    We are her reward (none / 0) (#126)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:23:06 PM EST
    No return without receipt...

    I am very glad to see that the party is on top of this (at least that's one thing they are doing right).  I've already heard from my friend in TX who is volunteering re: the caucus that she got a very detailed phone call explaining the rules and how to handle the sign-in sheet issue.  She also got a local cell phone number to call if anything irregular happens or if anyone starts intimidating folks.  My friend works freelance at a local TV station and they are poised to pounce if any of the caucuses turn ugly (and of course being a news division, they are hoping like heck that it turns to fisticuffs...)

    Parent

    I'm seeing reports both ways - plus OH weather (none / 0) (#80)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:36:52 PM EST
    I've been following the reports from OH, (buckeyestateblog.com), TX (burntorangereport.com), RI (rifuture.org) and VT (greenmountaindaily.com) -- among many others, but one from each state seems like enough to list here.  Things are too chaotic to analyze fully, but it appears that both campaigns have been busy doing things that are...dubious.  I'm going to refrain from trying to assign cause or blame or anything else because in the heat of the moment, misinformation is more plentiful than hard facts.  But (as I said the other day) I won't be kindly disposed toward anyone who prevents any voter of any party from participating fairly in the process.  The franchise is far too precious to be compromised for any candidate's gain.

    The biggest story I've seen so far is from OH, where flooding has induced the Secretary of State to issue an order that allows voters affected by flooding to vote provisionally at their board of elections.  That order was issued for some areas earlier today, and has quite recently (circa 2:30 PM CST) been extended to others, with a possibility that it will extend still further.  What's not clear is what the practical impact of this will be -- sufficiently severe flooding may prevent some voters from getting anywhere.   There is, BTW, a map at the OH blog site noted above which shows the regions covered by this order; as of the moment,  they are all in the SE quadrant of the state.

    I can't take (none / 0) (#83)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:41:37 PM EST
    a blog seriously about this stuff once they have actually endorsed a candidate.

    Parent
    That's why I'm reading more... (none / 0) (#86)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    ...than just that handful of blogs.  I have browsers open on all four desktops (one for each state!) and tabs within them open for political sites, blogs, newspapers, etc.

    But that aside, some blogs seem to be reasonably good at separately articles wherein they report from articles wherein they state opinions.   And as long as they're upfront about their biases, not only can I factor those out, but I can weigh them against those expressed at other sites.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#109)
    by myed2x on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:24:45 PM EST
    and TL although officially not endorsing anyway sure is neutral, yup!

    Parent
    EWWWWWW! (none / 0) (#91)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:58:08 PM EST
    Provisional voting...  I guess we can wait until next week to find out the Ohio results.

    Parent
    What's good for the goose ... (none / 0) (#85)
    by robrecht on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:44:50 PM EST
    My brother's an Obama supporter who caucused in Nebraska and he thought the Clinton supporters were trying to intimidate people there.  Is there any reason to believe this kind of stuff is being done by one side more than the other?

    no dirty tricks yet (none / 0) (#87)
    by po on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:51:20 PM EST
    just unsubstantiated rumors and people operating on half facts.  BTW, your link to "the rules" is actually appears to be a link to the Travis County Democratic Party website page.  That page contains paraphrasing of the rules and some good quotes for the "dirty tricks" angle, but includes its take on the timing mechanism.  

    But, everyone keep looking . . . I'm sure the GOP is as well.  And I'm confident someone here knowns someone who knows someone who is certain someone is intentionally messing up somewhere.  It would be pretty easy seeing as the Democrats apparently must find the most difficult and convoluted way to elect a presidential nominee -- especially in close races where the party establishment would prefer to dictate results (and keep whatever gravy train they got running running).

    approached by Obama supporters (none / 0) (#89)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    Tx election law requires all campaigning be done at least 200 ft from the polling location.  They cannot ask someone to sign a form for a specific candidate if they are within that perimeter.  It is just fine to do once you are past the 200 ft.

    Nope (none / 0) (#93)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:58:51 PM EST
    it is not fine to hand out caucus forms to be signed and returned. Period.

    Parent
    300 feet. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:39:35 PM EST
    Thank you (none / 0) (#131)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:27:53 PM EST
    300 feet.  I stand corrected.

    Parent
    Chess game (none / 0) (#90)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:57:40 PM EST
    Campaigns have ever changing strategies, and a challenge of details like a high-stakes chess game. Harvesting emails is done by all candidates in an effort to build a bigger donor base and an internet communication base.

    Both campaigns are gearing up for the general election and I suspect both campaigns are doing all they can to be competitive.

    The country is disenchanted by politics because of events over the last 8 years. Because of the enormous disenchantment counter-parties, new parties and independent voters are looking for a new in-crowd. Perhaps they'll find it in the Clinton or Obama campaigns.

    can you please stop posting off-topic comments? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:05:32 PM EST
    This thread is not about harvesting emails.

    Parent
    We should be better than this (none / 0) (#100)
    by TrevorWynne on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    It's hard to believe this stuff is going on. We're Democrats. We should not be doing this to each other. This sort of divisive and distractive activity should be save for the general. What are we doing?

    Practicing? :) (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:18:09 PM EST
    Oh. touche'! ;-) (none / 0) (#110)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:26:07 PM EST
    Yeah, guilty, guilty, guilty. :-)  It's just that...the franchise is a personal cause of mine.  I think of all the people who have fought, bled and died for it; I think of people like John Lewis (on my mind because he's been in the news recently) who stood their ground at the barricades and absorbed the beatings, the abuse, the arrests....so that we could  all walk into a polling place and make our choice.  So yeah, I kinda go off when I see that threatened.

    Parent
    We should be better still. (none / 0) (#103)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:13:33 PM EST
    We're Americans.  There is no place for any of this (reported, alleged, rumored, observed, etc.) nonsense in any election.  And that includes the general: nobody, Democrat or Republican or otherwise, should be doing this stuff.

    Nor is there any place for the incompetence we've seen (which appears to stem more from general cluelessness rather than an attempt to benefit one candidate or one party).

    We should be able to hold elections that set the gold standard for the rest of the world.  We should not be flailing so badly that it invites comparisons to so-called "third-world countries", and questions about the validity of results linger for years.

    Parent

    Responded to a comment (none / 0) (#105)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:16:33 PM EST
    Poster Dalton Hoffine asked a question regarding  campaign workers asking for specific information; phone numbers addresses and such. Pointing out a frequently utilized technigue at voting sites to attempt to gather information is a response to anedotal reporting by Clinton and Obama posters. Many on this thread seem to be attempting to understand why some requests for information may be occuring.

    Providing a more comprehenive look...my bad.

    It never ought to be done (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:27:34 PM EST
    at voting sites -- it's illegal to do so in most, if not all states. And even if not banned, it's just bad manners. Any campaign countenancing illegal activity is asking for it. And any campaign encouraging activity that turns off voters is asking for them to go to other candidates.

    Parent
    Didn't say (none / 0) (#115)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:35:53 PM EST
    I agree the polling places should be campaign free. Just reported it as one frequently used technique.

    Parent
    Has our (none / 0) (#113)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    election system always been this messed up? Or is it just since 2000?

    1914 (none / 0) (#119)
    by 1jane on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:42:10 PM EST
    I remember reading about dirty campaign tricks in a history book about British politics in 1914. Most of us tuned into to dirty tricks during the Watergate Hearings.

    Parent
    Yes. Read the book Deliver the Vote (nt) (none / 0) (#132)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:29:34 PM EST
    Answering 1st question: Yes, since 1780s (nt) (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:49:34 PM EST
    I'm glad to see (none / 0) (#120)
    by ChrisO on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:49:48 PM EST
    the restraint here. One of the things that has really annoyed me on some blog comments is how one person will  post a cometely unsourced allegation about the Clinton campaign, and the rest of the comments will just accept the allegation as fact, and talk about how "I can't believe the Clinton campaign is so slimy," etc. While I would like to see the Obama camp hoisted on their own petard for hypocrisy, it's clear that there's little concrete evidence to go on yet.

    Having worked on several campaigns (as have many others here, I'm sure) I know that campaigns have very little control over phonebankers, volunteers and precinct captains.

    Over at (none / 0) (#149)
    by NecSorteNecFato on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:54:04 PM EST
    a very well known Orange blog, there are diaries up that Clinton is "stealing the vote" and that Obama is somehow being disenfanchised by not knowing/following the rules for Ohio election observers. It's being compared to 2004. I live in Ohio and of Sec of State Jennifer Bruner has been working all year to ensure 2004 could not be repeated and our election process has been carefully evaluated by the new Dems in power. To accuse an entire state of changing their rules late in the game with the intent to throw the election for Obama is just so ridiculous. I am SO glad TL exists, and that the many Obama supporters here are not furthering this argument.

    Parent
    an Independent candidate for President of the United States. Her followers will now demand it if she loses Texas based on a tainted caucus.

    Howard Dean can step in and count the primary votes, which are legitimate, and automatically discount all caucus votes for both candidates, thereby solving this issue post haste.

    But he won't.

    He punished Florida Democrats for a primary date changed by a Republican Governor and Republican legislature, creating the perfect storm.

    Even though ALL the candidates were on the Florida ballot and record numbers turned out, Howard Dean disenfranchised Florida.

    Now Florida Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama UNLESS the Florida delegation is seated and the Florida vote is counted.

    If Dean doesn't punish Texas for dirty tricks, Clinton won't be able to control her supporters.

    Hell hath no fury like a woman denied her vote, ignored by the process, told she has to give in to male domination, threatened with rebuke, bullied, ridiculed, and told to shut up.

    Oh yeah. And don't be scorning her either.

    The National Woman's Party still exits (none / 0) (#134)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:31:52 PM EST
    with headquarters in D.C. since 1915. (Btw, with a GREAT gift shop -- be sure to stop and get your own replica of the pins that Alice Paul gave to other suffragists who also suffered imprisonment and torture in federal prison so that we women can vote today.)

    Parent
    Sorry -- "still exists" (none / 0) (#135)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:32:10 PM EST
    Warning From Texas Dem. Party Available (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:56:17 PM EST
    here.

    It went to both parties. See the update at the top of my post.

    An anti-Obama screed was just deleted (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:03:55 PM EST
    Facta non verba, do not post anti-Obama screeds here. Not only was it off topic but it contained insults and personal attacks on the candidate.

    That is not allowed here. This is not a site to reprint your own articles. You need to get your own blog for that. The comment space is for comments to the topic of the post.

    campaigns of this size (none / 0) (#125)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:19:09 PM EST
    and elections this contentious, are always going to have irregularities.  We make it incredibly difficult for people to vote in this country, and apparently, that's never going to change.  

    For today, until patterns are proved, until we know whether or not certain tactics have been endorsed by the campaign leadership-or not, then I think we should all be careful and just wait and see how it shakes out.  I am truly a Clinton partisan, as many know, and I am hesitant to accuse the Obama leadership of dirty tricks because I know that Clinton is just as vulnerable.  It could be just a bunch of stupid kids-on both sides-who don't know what they are doing.

    If it's a pattern, that's one thing.  A couple of isolated incidences are quite another.  Either way, only a few more hours to go!

    Well, if Hillary needed a reason to stay in (none / 0) (#133)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:30:05 PM EST
    The schenanigans seen here, whether real or not (and it looks like it is substantially true) might cast enough of a cloud over this process to keep her going, in the hope that the SuperD's might take it into consideration.

    That is assuming, of course, that she loses either Texas or Ohio.

    I am pessimistic about the super delegates (none / 0) (#139)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:38:47 PM EST
    For all the whining from Obama camp about Hillary winning via superdelegates, i think most of the uncommitted ones are already in the bank for Obama. I honestly don't think there's anything that Hillary can do to get them on her side. A huge downward trend in the polls by Obama is the only thing that could change their minds, which is why the Obama camp want Hillary to bow out now.

    Parent
    polls (none / 0) (#142)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:44:54 PM EST
    I think i read on MyDD where only 23 % of Democrats polled think Clinton should drop out if she loses one of the big states.  Sounds like Democrats prefer to have their votes counted.

    Parent
    Facta non reada (none / 0) (#137)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:36:03 PM EST
    Corrected Link. (none / 0) (#138)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:36:58 PM EST
    And I thought I was so smooth.

    https://www.blogger.com/start

    Having your own blog is fun.


    Parent

    Does anyone know (none / 0) (#146)
    by NJDem on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:50:24 PM EST
    if the primary results from TX will be announced before the caucus results?  

    results (none / 0) (#152)
    by wasabi on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:03:43 PM EST
    The counting of the caucus participants and the delegate count determined should before the first returns are in.  Usually they don't start reporting the primary results until about 8:15.  It may take a while for the caucus results to get reported.  There will be much confusion I am sure because the turnout is so heavy.  We have never had our vote mean anything before.  The election was always decided before it got to us.

    Of course that assumes that the polls will actually close at 7PM.

    Parent

    Yes this is happening (none / 0) (#147)
    by Laurenfhammond on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:51:44 PM EST
    I has been reported today and my friend said she has been phoning Texas voters to see what is going on and they HAVE been handing out Caucus forms....when they asked who she was voting for, they snatched the form out of her hand because it was not for Barack Obama. I hope this is reported WIDELY. it is disgusting and in TOTAL violation of the rules. People have also been reporting today that there have been signs of vandalism and fudging of voting machines. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

    Just read something in the Houston Chronicle (none / 0) (#150)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:57:54 PM EST
    about an Obama supporter being kicked out of a precinct this morning for not having the proper paperwork.  The election judge called the campaign and had them send someone else over.  So it seems as if some of these reports may be true.

    Caucus wins unfairly handed Obama an advantage (none / 0) (#158)
    by AlessandroMachi on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:18:52 PM EST
    Barrack Obama's 11 largest percentage vote totals are ALL in Caucus states.  The mathematical odds of this happening without any shenanigans at all is in the billions.

    Obama then  used this advantage to win over delegates and superdelegates.  Obama is the one that just wants to win even if his support is actually shakier than HIllary Clinton.