digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at ruralvotes.com

UPDATE: Dirty tricks at TX County Convention

ruralvotes.com — This report includes back-room deals prior to and during the event, the stacking the convention committee chairs ahead of time with Clinton operatives, the taking of Obama delegates off the voter rolls, holding a meeting before its scheduled time to lock out Obama delegates, and suspending the senate district caucus for the rest of the day...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • zephyear, on 03/30/2008, -6/+44clinton = shady elections

    shocking, more at 11.
    • rblancarte, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4The real key thing is that this has done NOTHING in the grand scheme. CNN reported back on caucus/primary night that the results were:
      Obama 56%/ Clinton 44%
      (from here http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results ...
      From Burntorangereport.com, that hasn't changed:
      http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diar ...

      Efforts to change these results AT BEST would be +/-1 MAYBE 2 delegates, I just don't see anything more than that happening. So a few districts have had shady deal that were pro-Clinton, I am sure that enough pro-Obama deals were made that balanced it out. No harm no foul.

      now granted, this is disturbing, because for the past 2-3 days here I have been reading in the papers and watching on the news that people were trying to get delegates disqualified etc. I think that is bogus too, look pick your side, realize where you stand (winning/losing) and face your fate. Hell, there are not enough delegates that will switch to make a huge difference either way.
    • cheerio, on 03/30/2008, -0/+0This is what they reported about it in San Antonio. Corruption is pretty normal here, police, news. ***** rednecks
      http://www.ksat.com/video/15741885/index.html
  • martalli, on 03/30/2008, -2/+22The writer mentions Obama winning in area where the "popular vote" went to Clinton. Is he accounting for the results of the caucus, which largely went to Obama throughout the state?
    • LloydBentsen, on 03/30/2008, -0/+15You had to vote in the primary in Texas to vote in the Caucus later that evening. You shouldn't consider the caucus votes regardless of their outcome if one is trying to determine a popular vote. Yes, Obama won the caucus in Texas, but he did not win the popular vote (the primary). Don't worry, he's ahead in the popular vote throughout the nation, and the superdelegates realize the importance of this.
      • eean, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3The popular vote for the nation completely ignores all states that only had a caucus, which makes it even more impressive that he's ahead there.
    • zappa717, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3That is because the Republicans voted for Hillary but most did not attend the caucus, althought some did.
  • Lephtovermeet, on 03/30/2008, -21/+5*****
  • p0s3r, on 03/30/2008, -40/+7The dirty tricks are being done by Obama.
    http://digg.com/politics/ACTION_ALERT_Obama_trying ...
    • smacksaw, on 03/30/2008, -3/+13Awesome. Buried as spam. Thanks for the warning.
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Newsweek didn't seem to think so.
  • brainboy77, on 03/30/2008, -3/+9this also happened in NH. remember what happened there? remember the recount that didn't prove anything?
    • sulthernao, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6What even happened with the recount? The website wasn't even working the majority of the time, so we had no idea what the recount found.
    • eean, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2You can't recount a caucus...
      • thumperings, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1But you can recount a cactus, especially when it ate you while falling head over heels off your mountain bike. I ride slower now.
  • Enron1985, on 03/30/2008, -6/+13Hilary will try anything, I can't believe that Chelsea even has a role in this campaign. I'm surprised they don't ask Monica Lewinsky to help out.
    • smacksaw, on 03/30/2008, -6/+4Hillary: Monica, it's Hillary.
      Monica: Oh hi! What can I do for you?
      Hillary: I need your help again. You did such a good job making me look sympathetic by what we did to Bill, I think we can do it again.
      Monica: Sure. Just tell me where to find Bill.
      Hillary: I'll set up a hotel for you where you'll both get caught. Then people will pity me into the White House and you and I can finally be together like I've always promised.
    • eean, on 03/30/2008, -0/+5I voted for Obama, but what's wrong with grown children getting involved. Makes as much sense as spouses.
      ...it was only awkward when Hillary was complaining about Wall Street, since Chelsea is a part of it.
    • rblancarte, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2I would have to put this more on her supporters and campaign people in the state. I just don't see here mixing up in this minutia.
      And overall, I would say they are much more dangerous, because at some level they are able to be more out of control to do much more damage.
      • motivatedmama, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2But the candidate sets the tone.
        Hillary's answer to all this would be something like, "there were no dirty tricks from my people in TX.....as far as I know"
  • joelbow, on 03/30/2008, -5/+9what about the dittoheads who are Hillary supporters?
    • fuzionmuse, on 03/30/2008, -1/+1I have a feeling the Rush people voted in the primaries, but didn't bother taking the extra time to caucus, much less go to the county convention which is a Dem fest anyways... Too much for the average dittohead to take... HAHA!
  • nineballninja, on 03/30/2008, -4/+15The only reason why Clinton is still in the race when any other candidate would have dropped out long ago is because the *****'s rigged.
    • eean, on 03/30/2008, -0/+8Nah, it's a combination of the media wanting a fight and Clinton being stubborn.
  • bethehammer, on 03/30/2008, -4/+18remember, this is Texas - shady politics are the norm
    • Butters06, on 03/30/2008, -7/+7Wow way to insult about 16 million people or more, who do wish for political accuracy here in Texas. If Obama won the caucus; he deserves to receives that vote. But do not go around insulting a whole group of people, just because a president claims to be from Texas; and you are taking out your passive emotions by posting such a rude comment.
      • smacksaw, on 03/30/2008, -0/+10As one-time Texan, I have only this to say: redistricting.

        Now move along.
      • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/30/2008, -3/+3Texas is a suck state. It thinks it's so freaking tough and martial and huge, and then it votes for weenies like Bush.
      • nosecohn, on 03/30/2008, -0/+5Sounds to me like he insulted the politics, not the people.
  • botsmoke, on 03/30/2008, -3/+16Unfortunately, the actions described in this report are typical of the underhanded tactics the Clinton campaign has systematically employed during this campaign. Disgusting and ineffective.
  • ThantiK, on 03/30/2008, -5/+8The religious hater in me wants to like TX for the recent Scientology article on the front page.
    But the American in me wants to hate them for dirty politics.
    SO TORN!
    • Butters06, on 03/30/2008, -2/+5You, too, with the ignorant comment. I am from Texas, currently living here and I want to have political accuracy how the delegates are divided. If Obama should get delegates for the caucus, then by all means I wish to see him get the votes he deserves. But do not assume that every Texan wishes that Bush had another term in office, or at least Hilary could have one term. I support change in the government, so my feeling is may the best candidate win, fairly. And I believe that at least 3/4 of texans or more agree with that.
      • carpespasm, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2Here here. Too often we let generalizations and stereotypes shade our perception of other people. It's good to hear someone make themselves heard when they are lumped in and generalized as something they aren't.
    • SoxSweepAgain, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3I think that whom our next president is is more important than "Anonymous".
  • motafett, on 03/30/2008, -2/+5Texas caucus results updated every minute.
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Texas_Caucus_res ...
  • LunaticFringe, on 03/30/2008, -2/+12Well, isn't the common warning 'Don't mess with Texas'?
    I vote they hang her.

    I kid. But seriously, what the heck ever happened to the concept of honest politics?
    • Avor, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2"But seriously, what the heck ever happened to the concept of honest politics?" - Majority of people don't care about politics. Out of those who do care, they will either: not do anything because it is their candidate, not do anything because they are lazy, and a minority will try to do something. In this "system", there is no reason for them to change their ways.
    • Maver1c, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2You honestly believe there was a time when politics were perfectly honest?
      • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I think the honesty ended around the time Ug, Thok, and Grunk had a show of hands to see who would get the yummy mammoth bits and Grunk realized he was the only one who could count.
    • Superman7507, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1"But seriously, what the heck ever happened to the concept of honest politics"
      ........hahaha.........hahahahahahahahahahahha
      that was the best joke i have herd all day
  • dattaway, on 03/30/2008, -1/+8Lying, cheating, and stealing. She's qualified to run the country.
    • dannydyer1000, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3Poorly, that is.

      *****, I hope to God she doesn't get elected. I don't trust her.
  • Marijuana, on 03/30/2008, -3/+28Why the ***** do they have to make the elections so complicated.
  • LMControl, on 03/30/2008, -6/+4None of this is surprising, Hillary ***** is the worst example of a human being possible when one gets addicted to fame, money and power. I'm going to enjoy her agony of defeat over the next few months.
  • smacksaw, on 03/30/2008, -4/+7This is why Ron Paul never had a chance. You have to play dirty.
    • stonerrobot, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3I got to deal with this very issue in Austin at the Republican Senatorial District where slightly under half were Ron Paul people (13 hrs of Convention).

      First off, the Temporary Chairman had the nonprofit he runs send out to all the precinct delegates that an angry group of populists had infiltrated and taken over delegate positions threatening their pro life and pro family values. Now the the committees were stacked status quo Republicans (80/20), and some of the smaller precincts were disenfranchised to having there selection to State level delegate selected at large by the Nominating Committee (who didn't know you and probably doesn't like you). Not as bad as these tactics, but business as usual, and I still felt railroaded. The old guard isn't taking to kindly to the new guard...

      While quite an interesting day of civics (I know much more now about parliamentary procedure,Roberts Rules of Order, Republican Conventions Rules which trump them and how power plays are made), it felt like a 3-ring circus. "Trust us." Thanks buddy. Why do I not?

      I do encourage everyone to participate in this as a civic exercise. I didn't really WANT to do this. I felt I really HAD to do this.

      More here (not my blog): http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/03/29/154749. ...
  • CoolBluReason, on 03/30/2008, -0/+6My convention was pretty ***** up, the only delegates that got elected to the state conv. were hillary. At least we only had 2.
  • KodomoNoJikan, on 03/30/2008, -8/+2http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b65/deadratgod/d ...
  • LunaticFringe, on 03/30/2008, -3/+5The only reason Hillary Clinton won here in Massachusetts is because we either had to let her win the primary or pay reparations for all the witches claimed in colonial times. They needed the money to throw into some roadway project, so there you go.
  • mal1964, on 03/30/2008, -4/+2"Obama is so Great!"
    • sl9sl9, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2Way to sum up almost every comment in this story, and almost every link in the "2008 U.S. Elections" section of digg!
  • wonderworm, on 03/30/2008, -3/+4It's Official. OBAMA WON TEXAS. Now get over it and think up some more lies and dirty tricks Hillary. Hillary/Cheney 08. A match made in heaven.
  • eean, on 03/30/2008, -1/+5Good to know that they apparently aren't very good at rigging caucuses; Obama won it strong it sounds like.
  • SpikeLee, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3I don't believe it! You know why? Because it lacks a lot of information. Who is this person, can they provide evidence, etc? I support Obama, but I really don't believe this without some more corroborating evidence.
  • Hypomanic, on 03/30/2008, -0/+12I participated in a county convention in Lubbock, Texas today. I am an Obama supporter, but I will say that a majority of the committee at this convention are Clinton supporters but they appeared to be trying to make things fair... at least on the surface. What I found very very shady at my convention was pairing of precincts. There were many precincts which would have awarded Obama delegates to the state conventions but the committees had these smaller precincts pair up with larger Clinton leaning precincts so the delegate awarded from that new pair or triplet of precincts went to Clinton. To me that felt very strange. I'm not experienced and the whole process was very confusing. The whole convention was a madhouse and I was there for 7 hours. There were two fist fights which had to be broken up. One woman had a heart attack and 911 was called. There was lots of shouting. It was... disturbing. As a young Democrat I really hope this wasn't a preview of what's to come at Denver. I will also say that Clinton delegates seemed to be trying to derail the whole process by objecting and making lots of challenges during the nominating process. Some of their objections sounded almost scripted, but maybe that's my paranoia. It was rather silly on their part as well since the convention leaned Clinton regardless (mostly because of the paired up precinct system I talked about).
    • fuzionmuse, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2In my Senate District (11) as well, there were some questionable, but legitimate, precinct pairings which changed the outcome (for Clinton)... I think we'll see this was pretty common over the state... *sigh*
  • magus_melchior, on 03/30/2008, -1/+4If the story's real (not saying it isn't, but we'll know when the delegates are in), this is insane on many levels. Wasn't Clinton's campaign complaining the loudest about the caucus system? So if they can't win, get out the shiv and start thrusting, but still come out at a loss? Who's running that campaign, a team of mannequins?
    • Pherdnut, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Obama got a lot of Clinton's old campaign staffers. Apparently he got the good ones.
  • fuzionmuse, on 03/30/2008, -1/+5I just wanna post what I wrote earlier on a blog... I'm a college student in the Houston area and I was an Obama delegate in Brazoria County...

    "So, today was the convention... Being under 35, I had a pretty good shot at being selected as an alternate county delegate or an at-large state delegate, but who knew how nuts it would be.... So, if you get a little lost in what I'm about to explain, read my previous note...
    First, in our precinct some interesting things occurred. Out of the 36 delegates to be seated, 6 were supposed to be for Clinton. Well, only 3 showed up and none of their alternates either... The Obama camp had 26 pledged delegates show up out of 30, but we also had several alternates, including me, in attendance. I was selected as an alternate due to my demographics, but I ended up being seated...
    Here's where it gets interesting. By party rules, ALL 36 seats from our precinct need to be seated if there are enough eligible people to be put in those seats. There were, but not for the right party, but candidate preference is not mention in the rule unless there are a surplus, and in that case demographics and candidate preference ARE noted. They want to try the best they can to seat the correct percentage as voted by the populace.
    Well, that didn't occur, and I was seated in a seat alloted for Hillary Clinton. SO, I overturned what would have been a vote for Hillary simply because I showed up and they didn't, and I have a feeling like that happened more than just in my precinct. So, 100% of precinct 59 went to Obama. Wow.
    Do I agree with the ethics of this? I'm not sure. Did it work in my candidates favor? Yes. If I were on the other side of the issue, I'd be pretty pissed, but since everything was legitimate and legal, I did nothing wrong, and used my power to vote for who I believed was the better candidate....
    All in all, I had a good time, although the semantics of it got cumbersome due to the sheer size of the turnout, and I also need to read up on my Robert's Rules, but other than that, it was really kinda fun. :-) My favorite part was when a man objected to a vote, simply so it would be a vote of acclamation (where everyone gets to yell) rather than a no objection vote, because they are more fun! LOL! Good debate, some heated at times, was had, and Obama came out on top... At least 65%-35%, but it could be more since I didn't stick around...
    Also, I may end up getting a nod as an at-large state delegate, but I'll find that out later..."
    • zappa717, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1I know we had some Republicans show up at our precinct caucus. Maybe they just didn't feel like going further. I read somewhere about a Republican bragging on Rush that he was a delegate and thought it was really funny.
    • netant, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2The people who didn't show up were probably Republicans.

      That is the "advantage" of the caucus system. It favors candidates with the greater number of fierce supporters. I only wish your case was the same across the state. Unfortunately, where you get old school, Hillary leaning caucus coordinators, it puts them in the position to disenfranchise Obama supporters.
  • jellygraph, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2Hillary = dishonest... and the MSM is finally starting to report that.
  • brianboyko, on 03/30/2008, -0/+5I headed to the County Convention of Travis County (Austin and suburbs) yesterday in dual roles - I was both an Obama delegate and I came along with a documentary crew because I'm working on a documentary on Electoral Reform. :)

    Let me tell you this: The Texas Caucus system rewards two kinds of people: Those who have better grassroots organization, and those who have better shady dealings. Whoever designed the thing seemingly wants to ensure that the candidate who is most likely to win gets the nominatin - not the candidate that most people will choose. The problem is, this year, one candidate (Obama) has better grassroots organization, and another candidate, (Clinton) is better at the shady backroom dealing.

    But by and large, Travis County was civil, and while it took forever to get everyone seated - they had complete chaos and it took hours for everyone to get together and sign in - the caucusing was scheduled for 1:00, it occured at 5:00 - it really wasn't that shady.

    Which is remarkable because the entire system is designed to be as shady and unfair as possible.

    Our district went 67/33 for Obama, and we got 28 delegates to the county convention. It broke down that it was 19/9. But we only get to send two people to the State convention. Additionally, the way that those state delegates are chosen forces pre-vote strategizing and backroom dealing.

    Everyone in the caucus - Clinton people and Obama people - all vote at the same time. Whoever gets the most votes gets the first slot. Second, second slot. Third and fourth place are their alternates.

    Ties are resolved via "a game of chance."

    There are SO many ways that this can go wrong if precincts don't get together and strategize beforehand.

    The optimal solution, in our case, was to select two potential delegates and one assured alternate - that is, to vote 9/9/1 for three pre-determined candidates. The Clinton people would most assuredly vote in a block of 9.

    But what if we weren't as savvy? What if we split our vote 10/9 to 9 ? Then an alternate may have been determined via a "game of chance" as well as a delegate.

    What if we were totally unfamiliar and split our vote 5/5/5/4? Then Hillary would have gotten a guaranteed delegate with a block of nine.

    There was even a scenario where Hillary could sweep the county precinct caucus despite losing so badly originally - if we had split our vote 5 ways, 4/4/4/4/3, and Hillary split the vote 5/4. Then they get one guaranteed delegate and a 20% chance of picking up the other one in a "game of chance."

    But, as I said, the vote turned out to be 9/9/1 to 9 in my district. Okay. Simple enough. At least one Obama delegate, and the other delegate determined through a game of chance.

    Of course, we spent about 15 minutes arguing about WHICH game of chance and how to play it.

    Our delegate chair brought a deck of cards, the Clinton people objected - were they marked? Then someone said to flip a coin between the Obama delegates to determine who was guaranteed and flip another coin between the losing Obama delegate and the Clinton delegate - the Clinton people insisted that because all three got the same votes that all three would have to be determined via the same game of chance.

    Another one suggested that if you flip coins three times, it'll only come out heads three times, tails three times, or a mix - I pointed out the probabilities didn't add up there.

    Eventually the deck of cards WAS used with everyone drawing at once. We had been up since 5am, and it was now 5pm. If I was more on the ball, I wouldn't have realized until I got up this morning, brain refreshed that the method of selecting the delegates favored the Clinton delegate. See, if it was a coin toss between two delegates, each candidate would have a 50/50 chance of their delegate counting. But that's not what happened. It was a three-way "draw straws" scenario, with the low card being the short straw. The Obama potential delegates had to draw twice - while the Clinton delegate only drew once. Which meant that the Clinton Delegate only had a 33% chance of picking the low card. I didn't realize it at the time because 1) I was distracted trying to film this whole process, 2) I wasn't exactly in Marylyn Vos Savant mode.

    So, on the whole, in order to vote effectively, the precinct delegations - comprised of average friends and neighbors - included elements of economic game theory and mathmatical probability theory.

    Compare this to, say, another system where the number of delegates you get is, say, proportional to the number of votes you received.

    I interviewed a woman in line to get her delegate credentials. She was a former schoolteacher of 6th, 7th, and 8th grade. I asked: "Do you think your students could have come up with a better system?" Without hesitation, she replied: "In a New York Minute."
    • robbiemuffin, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1that's a good write up! but, man, you can't go around with "The problem is, this year, one candidate (Obama) has better grassroots organization, and another candidate, (Clinton) is better at the shady backroom dealing. " ... you know better! First you point out some trivial thing in a light that makes it LOOK like shady backroom dealing, then you point the finger... not the other way around! people could get upset!
  • netant, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2They should have used rochambeau, with written response, rather than hands. Or South Park rules, Obama first!
  • onesweetdream, on 03/30/2008, -0/+0I was at the San Antonio convention with my friend, an Obama delegate, and his name wasn't on the list like it was supposed to be. It was scheduled at 2, but things didn't get started until like, 5. The process was definitely more complicated than it had to be, it was ridiculous. But I did get to meet Sean Astin.
  • travistubbs, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2It appears there's just a bit of confusion and shady tactics going on here in Houston as well.
    http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/pol ...


    "This weekend, more long lines, a long wait, and more than a little confusion when some delegates tried to sign in to represent their precincts.

    'They had it listed, where everybody who was with Obama, they had for Clinton and I have a problem with that,' said precinct delegate Willie Hunter."
  • Naturalistic, on 03/30/2008, -2/+1Hilary Clinton is going to take the white house by force, watch. She will be president through illegal means and we will all be ***** hard.
    • buhbyebot, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2She had her chance to take the White House by force, but she failed miserably and was in fact, not ***** hard. As it turns out, an intern beat her to it.
  • govsucks, on 03/30/2008, -1/+1Oh, why can't you all just MOVE ON and leave the poor wittle Clintons alone.
  • HellDonut, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1HILLARY'08: WHATEVER IT TAKES
  • williamlanders, on 04/01/2008, -0/+1POLITICANS ARE ACTING LIKE NIGERIAN SCAMMERS
    http://ameriborn.com/blog/?p=73
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.