Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

... if there was something supposed to be shifty in there, I'm rather uncertain what to think. Pretty sure I've seen more underhanded tactics laid out by people planning a bake sale. A friendly one, with no animosity towards other groups trying to do the same.

[mainiac]

Bill Clinton entering that polling station, on the other hand, that actually seems quite illegal and screwy.

There were dozens of witnesses at least.  Did any of them say that he actually did any campaigning?  Because a quick google search shows Massachusetts law doesn't prohibit showing up at polling places.

[Criptfeind]

To be fair, even his presence is sorta like campaigning for Hilary, you can't really separate him from that. To be double fair, it doesn't really seem like a big deal, and he seems to have realized his 'mistake?' /me shrugs.

[Rolan7]

There's video of someone at the scene supposedly showing Clinton's crowd and security detail making it hard to get in.  Which... seems likely to me.  It had to have been disruptive at the very least.

Then there's another video of him outside the (or a different?) polling station, thanking a crowd of supporters with a megaphone.  I thought people were making up the megaphone part, but no.  Was he within 150 feet at that point?  I don't know, but he also went inside one or two places *shrug*
Dailykos specifically claims the megaphone thing was within 150ft but IDK.

I mean maybe it's technically kosher if he didn't talk to voters inside.  Just shook a bunch of hands and had a photo taken.  Seems like even if it's legal, it was disruptive and a clear violation of the spirit of the law.  Scummy.

[Neonivek]

Welcome to American Politics!

[Rolan7]

More seriously, IDK about the timing.  Apparently Sanders declared he'd be running as a Democrat from his start (April 29) which was almost a month before this report was written.  Instead of Independent, which he had always been previously...  Still, that means that the report was focusing on Hillary over Sanders.

Not that that's at all weird, much less... pff... a matter to sue over.

It's just confusing because another source said Sanders declared himself Democrat several months later, in November, but I guess he was just clarifying.

[Neonivek]

According to the comments this is a phishing scam.

Now, I have no idea what evidence there is... But this is AMERICA!

Anyhow such a case won't go anywhere.

[Culise]

Bill Clinton entering that polling station, on the other hand, that actually seems quite illegal and screwy.

There were dozens of witnesses at least.  Did any of them say that he actually did any campaigning?  Because a quick google search shows Massachusetts law doesn't prohibit showing up at polling places.

For that matter, now I'm vaguely curious how candidates would actually vote at elections if they were unable to enter polling stations. I'd never actually thought of it before, but I don't think there are actually any restrictions beyond citizenship, local residency requirements, age, and whatever state-specific legislation (if any) pertains to felony charges or sentences.  Besides, there's always more on the ballot than just whichever particular race the candidate is in: there are other elected offices, ballot measures, and so forth to consider as well.  It'd probably be mail or absentee ballot; it's not like they've typically much time during the day of the elections, after all.

More seriously, IDK about the timing.  Apparently Sanders declared he'd be running as a Democrat from his start (April 29) which was almost a month before this report was written.  Instead of Independent, which he had always been previously...  Still, that means that the report was focusing on Hillary over Sanders.

Not that that's at all weird, much less... pff... a matter to sue over.

It's just confusing because another source said Sanders declared himself Democrat several months later, in November, but I guess he was just clarifying.

Ballot access varies from state to state just as voter laws do, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that you can technically run for a particular party's primaries in most states without being a member of that party, so long as you can get enough support from voters who are registered (at least, in those states with political registration; those that don't even have political registration are already in the clear).  I know New York explicitly codifies that non-members can offer candidacy.  Apparently, there was some minor political kerfluffle in New Hampshire during the lead-up there because it did require a formal party registration which Sanders lacked, but it was apparently smoothed over because Sanders was not only on the ballot, but took the state with a comfortable lead.  It's just typically considered political suicide as far as your campaign is concerned in common parlance if you aren't actually a member of the party, since you're highly unlikely to have access to the party's support apparatus such as funding.  If this is so, Sanders could easily have run as a Democrat while still hanging on to his party-independent status for half a year.

[Rolan7]

Bill Clinton entering that polling station, on the other hand, that actually seems quite illegal and screwy.

There were dozens of witnesses at least.  Did any of them say that he actually did any campaigning?  Because a quick google search shows Massachusetts law doesn't prohibit showing up at polling places.

For that matter, now I'm vaguely curious how candidates would actually vote at elections if they were unable to enter polling stations. I'd never actually thought of it before, but I don't think there are actually any restrictions beyond citizenship, local residency requirements, age, and whatever state-specific legislation (if any) pertains to felony charges or sentences.  Besides, there's always more on the ballot than just whichever particular race the candidate is in: there are other elected offices, ballot measures, and so forth to consider as well.  It'd probably be mail or absentee ballot; it's not like they've typically much time during the day of the elections, after all.

Of course, yeah, but he didn't vote there.  Wasn't his precinct.  It was purely publicity, even if he was just innocently thanking some poll workers.

Ballot access varies from state to state just as voter laws do, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that you can technically run for a particular party's primaries in most states without being a member of that party, so long as you can get enough support from voters who are registered (at least, in those states with political registration; those that don't even have political registration are already in the clear).  I know New York explicitly codifies that non-members can offer candidacy.  Apparently, there was some minor political kerfluffle in New Hampshire during the lead-up there because it did require a formal party registration which Sanders lacked, but it was apparently smoothed over because Sanders was not only on the ballot, but took the state with a comfortable lead.  It's just typically considered political suicide as far as your campaign is concerned in common parlance if you aren't actually a member of the party, since you're highly unlikely to have access to the party's support apparatus such as funding.  If this is so, Sanders could easily have run as a Democrat while still hanging on to his party-independent status for half a year.

Sounds about right, and helps explain why he wouldn't get much support from the DNC.  He's was an Independent senator all those years.  They didn't owe him anything just because he decided to jump on the bandwagon.

[EnigmaticHat]

... if there was something supposed to be shifty in there, I'm rather uncertain what to think. Pretty sure I've seen more underhanded tactics laid out by people planning a bake sale. A friendly one, with no animosity towards other groups trying to do the same.

Most of it is pretty innocent but:
1. The bit about convincing reporters to say what they want "with no fingerprints" is, well... I personally take issue with that?  Mostly from the reporters' perspective.

2.  HRC isn't (well, wasn't) the nominee yet.  There's kinda supposed to be an election for that.  And like yes, we all knew that she was the democratic party's choice and they were supporting her from the beginning, but... there's seems to be something different between knowing something as in its public knowledge and knowing something as in you have hard evidence.

I dunno, the link was the main point of the post.

[Frumple]

I mean, I can dig it was kinda' throwaway or whathaveyou... but you've still got me confused, a bit. Why would you have a problem with it from the reporters' perspective? One reporter or another basically doing X group/person/whatever's work without being explicit about it is... just kinda' normal? Very, very normal? These days, at the very least. Pretty sure for a while. Haven't noticed too many of them being particularly troubled by getting some extra renumeration for doing something they probably would have been doing anyway. Maybe there's some sort of concern to be had from some kind of idealized sort of journalistic integrity? But, uh. If you haven't noticed, journalistic integrity hasn't been the largest concern for a lot of journalists for longer than the two of us combined have been alive. Bills paid be bills paid, et al, and money in the pocket means more to be spared towards doin' other stuff. Ain't much difference between that sort of thing and reviewers being paid/bribed with goodies to review a game on the down low or somethin'.

As for two, I guess? I'unno, we don't even know who that was from. It was to the DNC, but if it was coming from someone explicitly advocating or preparing for the possibility of a clinton run, it referring to her as the candidate isn't exactly some sort of revelation. Even beyond that, there wasn't really anyone running at the time the DNC had much of a reason to care about beyond clinton, y'know? Biden was uncertain, bernie wasn't really of much concern,* and if there was anyone else really worth noting that hadn't pretty explicitly said hell no, I can't remember them. Wasn't much of a field to pare down, heh.

*And had previously given the DNC a lot of reasons not to cooperate much with 'im. Make no mistake, the guy was and still is mostly running an independent campaign, just trying to leech off the democratic party in the process. I don't blame the guy for it, and so far as his campaign went it was almost certainly a good idea, but that is kinda' how you burn bridges before they're built when you're dealing with getting support from an organization you were previously (and will quite possibly be so again in the future) in an adversarial relationship with.

[Dorsidwarf]

Do remember that had Bernie run for independent, the only other democractic candidate would have been the guy who might be called Omalley but I don't remember, who never polled higher than 5%. Clinton was a dead ringer for the nomination until Sanders gained steam.

[SalmonGod]

Seeing some buzz that the DNC platform committee voted to reject the $15 minimum wage?

[TheBiggerFish]

Do remember that had Bernie run for independent, the only other democractic candidate would have been the guy who might be called Omalley but I don't remember, who never polled higher than 5%. Clinton was a dead ringer for the nomination until Sanders gained steam.

O'Malley, yeah.

[PTTG??]

Seeing some buzz that the DNC platform committee voted to reject the $15 minimum wage?

Don't be fooled, the Democrats are the most conservative legitimate political party in the USA.