Title: Voter Intimidation in Nevada
JamesAquila - January 18, 2008 05:09 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| Culinary pushing hard, but inside lines Experts say pressure is one thing, threats another By Michael Mishak Fri, Jan 18, 2008 (2 a.m.) As the Culinary Union worked feverishly this week to persuade its members to support Barack Obama, a prickly question arose: What is the difference between tough political tactics and unethical, or illegal, intimidation? Some Culinary members say they have felt intimidated by the pushy approach of some organizers. But labor experts say a vigorous back-and-forth is the norm as unions work to spread the word of an endorsement -- and the tactics don’t cross the legal line of voter intimidation unless workers are threatened. None of the Culinary members interviewed by the Sun claimed to have been threatened by union activists gathering pledge cards for Obama. Some, however, were told they would have to caucus for Obama, period. If so, it raises the question of where a union draws the line between hard-nosed politicking and intimidation. “One person’s intimidation is another person’s persuasion,” said Nelson Lichtenstein, a labor historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Labor experts said that although member-on-member intimidation prevailed a half-century ago, it’s exceedingly rare today, especially in the context of a caucus, in which voters must show up at a particular place and time and publicly declare their support for a candidate. In other words, caucusgoers need to be highly motivated to turn out. Intimidating the voter pool would be counterproductive. “That would be stupid,” said Peter Francia, a political scientist at Eastern Carolina University who has studied labor unions. “It would alienate the people you need to mobilize your political muscle.” Organizers cross the legal line, experts said, when they threaten a worker’s union status or job security. “Those sorts of practices, with the very exceptional outlier, are not common,” said Robert Bruno, professor of labor and industrial relations at the University of Illinois. “It would be deeply offensive to the labor movement if they were being practiced in such a high-profile event.” Having endorsed Obama just last week, 10 days before the Nevada caucus, organizers are working overtime and making the hard sell. Some members -- including ones identified to the Sun by the Clinton campaign -- find the approach off-putting. Take, for instance, the case of Ruben Beltran, a Culinary member and Clinton volunteer who helps set up conventions at Mandalay Bay. Union representatives, he said, are telling employees they must caucus for Obama on Saturday, making it sound more like a demand than a suggestion. Beltran said workers feel intimidated because the union holds sway over their jobs. “It’s intimidation because the workers are not knowledgeable,” he said. “They don’t know their rights.” Beltran told the Sun he was not threatened, though, and plans to back Clinton. Then there’s Maria Garcia, who works in the housekeeping department at Wynn Las Vegas. Her complaint: A union rep removed a pile of Clinton fliers from the cafeteria and asked workers where they came from. She said many members support Clinton and would be following their conscience Saturday. Most troubling is the case of Sylvia Antuna, a cook at Paris Las Vegas, who said she was filling out a voter registration form in the employee cafeteria when two union reps approached her about Obama. When she told them she wasn’t sure about caucusing for him, one rep took her registration form, telling her that she couldn’t participate Saturday if she wasn’t supporting Obama. (Antuna is undecided.) Marie Angers, a fellow cook, and her son, Matt DeFalco, a kitchen runner, said they witnessed the incident and engaged the organizers in a heated discussion. Angers is a Clinton backer. Both said they saw one organizer hand Antuna an Obama pledge card, telling her she had to sign it to participate in the caucus. In an interview, Antuna said she didn’t recall the pledge card, but said the incident was upsetting. On reflection, she said the organizers spoke broken English, adding that the incident could have been a misunderstanding. Still, deceiving members about election rules is unethical, said Taylor Dark, a professor of labor and politics at California State University, Los Angeles. “I would expect the union to be putting a lot of emotional and psychological pressure on members. That’s what unions do,” Dark said. “Passions are running high. But just because someone says they feel intimidated, it’s not an indication that they are being intimidated in a truly unethical fashion.” Asked Thursday about allegations of voter intimidation, D. Taylor, secretary-treasurer of the Culinary Union, said members were having “vigorous debate” throughout Las Vegas. |
earthmother - January 18, 2008 10:29 PM (GMT)
And we wonder why Gore didn't want to be involved in campaigning for president again . . . :rolleyes:
earnAlGore - January 19, 2008 05:42 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| Culinary pushing hard, but inside lines Experts say pressure is one thing, threats another By Michael Mishak Fri, Jan 18, 2008 (2 a.m.) ... Most troubling is the case of Sylvia Antuna, a cook at Paris Las Vegas, who said she was filling out a voter registration form in the employee cafeteria when two union reps approached her about Obama. When she told them she wasn’t sure about caucusing for him, one rep took her registration form, telling her that she couldn’t participate Saturday if she wasn’t supporting Obama. (Antuna is undecided.) Marie Angers, a fellow cook, and her son, Matt DeFalco, a kitchen runner, said they witnessed the incident and engaged the organizers in a heated discussion. Angers is a Clinton backer. Both said they saw one organizer hand Antuna an Obama pledge card, telling her she had to sign it to participate in the caucus. In an interview, Antuna said she didn’t recall the pledge card, ... |
So, this was 'witnessed' by 'Clinton supporters', but the
'victim' doesn't remember it???? Something fishy here.
The Paraclete - January 19, 2008 03:56 PM (GMT)
Senator Obama better get on this pronto. Were these actual Clinton Supporters or Rove Operatives? :?:
It sounds fishy in this respect, during the LAST Democratic debate I saw, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards were very cordial to each other even to the point of highlighting each other's achievements...THEY WERE PRETTY MUCH STICKING TOGETHER AND I AM PROUD OF THEM! ;)
Remember this, Rove is having special Playbook sessions with the Attack Machine...That is why Hannity was missing and then Limbarf...Beck got his session while he was sucking on Fentanyl Patches... :dripple:
Also remember, Rove is still very much active in the GOP and the NEOCONS still have a virtual 'stranglehold' there...Don't put ANYTHING by the 'BOYS FROM BRAZIL!'...They've crooked elections and passed out dis-information via their surrogates like Bob Novak! As I said, Obama has to put out this fire ASAP! :good:
It sounds fishy in this respect, during the LAST Democratic debate I saw, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards were very cordial to each other even to the point of highlighting each other's achievements...THEY WERE PRETTY MUCH STICKING TOGETHER AND I AM PROUD OF THEM! ;)
Remember this, Rove is having special Playbook sessions with the Attack Machine...That is why Hannity was missing and then Limbarf...Beck got his session while he was sucking on Fentanyl Patches... :dripple:
Also remember, Rove is still very much active in the GOP and the NEOCONS still have a virtual 'stranglehold' there...Don't put ANYTHING by the 'BOYS FROM BRAZIL!'...They've crooked elections and passed out dis-information via their surrogates like Bob Novak! As I said, Obama has to put out this fire ASAP! :good:
trueconservative - January 19, 2008 10:20 PM (GMT)
papa, proud as you may be, President Bill Clinton reported this abuse because he says he observed it with Chelsea. How much you depend on this report depends on how much you trust the messenger. Senator Clinton squeaked out a win anyway, so this should be made a 'moot' point.
Questions - January 20, 2008 04:45 AM (GMT)
Besides union endorsements-
If the GOP neocons wanted an opportunity to help insure an HRC win, Nevada was wide open for it. That's going along with the assumption that they really want to run against Hillary.
You can change your registration at the caucus door in Nevada.
It was pretty much a given, with the heavy Mormon influence in the state, that Romney would get the GOP nomination. If that's a given, then send a bunch of people over to the Democratic caucuses, reregister at the door, and caucus for Hillary.
Then they just reregister again back to the GOP.
OK, that's a scenario. But geesh, the system is wide open to be gamed by the other party. :?:
If the GOP neocons wanted an opportunity to help insure an HRC win, Nevada was wide open for it. That's going along with the assumption that they really want to run against Hillary.
You can change your registration at the caucus door in Nevada.
It was pretty much a given, with the heavy Mormon influence in the state, that Romney would get the GOP nomination. If that's a given, then send a bunch of people over to the Democratic caucuses, reregister at the door, and caucus for Hillary.
Then they just reregister again back to the GOP.
OK, that's a scenario. But geesh, the system is wide open to be gamed by the other party. :?:
JamesAquila - January 20, 2008 07:48 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Questions @ Jan 19 2008, 11:45 PM) |
| Besides union endorsements- If the GOP neocons wanted an opportunity to help insure an HRC win, Nevada was wide open for it. That's going along with the assumption that they really want to run against Hillary. You can change your registration at the caucus door in Nevada. It was pretty much a given, with the heavy Mormon influence in the state, that Romney would get the GOP nomination. If that's a given, then send a bunch of people over to the Democratic caucuses, reregister at the door, and caucus for Hillary. Then they just reregister again back to the GOP. OK, that's a scenario. But geesh, the system is wide open to be gamed by the other party. :?: |
You have any proof that this happened?
trueconservative - January 23, 2008 04:46 PM (GMT)
I think Tom Toles is saying it all right here.
To Democrats, seems like the Karl Rove Playbook is working yet again. If you don't hang together then you'll get 'swiftboated' separately.
Meanwhile the GOP and McCaine will be planning on staying in Iraq for 100 years, and a timetable for invading either Iran or Pakistan or both!
Also if nobody has noticed the US markets are in free-fall right now due to these 'resource wars'. Yesterday morning the DJIA lost 466 points. Even after a 75 point rate decrease from the Fed the markets continue to sag badly. So George W. Bush follows in Daddy's footsteps and leaves a MASSIVE Recession thanks to his free billion dollar give-a-ways to rebuild Iraq to Halliburton & Bechtel.
JamesAquila - January 23, 2008 09:36 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (trueconservative @ Jan 23 2008, 11:46 AM) |
| I think Tom Toles is saying it all right here. To Democrats, seems like the Karl Rove Playbook is working yet again. If you don't hang together then you'll get 'swiftboated' separately. Meanwhile the GOP and McCaine will be planning on staying in Iraq for 100 years, and a timetable for invading either Iran or Pakistan or both! Also if nobody has noticed the US markets are in free-fall right now due to these 'resource wars'. Yesterday morning the DJIA lost 466 points. Even after a 75 point rate decrease from the Fed the markets continue to sag badly. So George W. Bush follows in Daddy's footsteps and leaves a MASSIVE Recession thanks to his free billion dollar give-a-ways to rebuild Iraq to Halliburton & Bechtel. |
The Bickersons have to cut it out. They are tearing the party apart and squandering a golden opportunity to hand the GOP it's worst defeat since 1932.
I loved it last night on Letterman when John Edwards said he represents the Adult wing of the Democratic Party.
earthmother - January 23, 2008 11:10 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (JamesAquila @ Jan 23 2008, 09:36 PM) |
| I loved it last night on Letterman when John Edwards said he represents the Adult wing of the Democratic Party. |
I didn't see that (way past my bedtime :rolleyes: ). Funny! :laugh:
Questions - January 31, 2008 06:35 PM (GMT)
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/2...n-dems-numbers/
Republicans switch, fatten Dems’ numbers
By Alexandra Berzon, David McGrath Schwartz
Sun, Jan 20, 2008 (2 a.m.)
Perhaps the biggest winner in Saturday’s caucus will be the state Democratic Party. Judging from observations by Sun reporters at precincts across the state, many voters who had been registered as independents or Republicans declared themselves Democrats.
......
In Republican-rich Elko, 13 people of 76 in one downtown precinct changed their party affiliation from Republican to Democrat before the caucus, as party rules allow. Other caucusgoers said they’d switched parties before Saturday.
In a precinct in an older Las Vegas neighborhood, 16 of 51 people registered as Democrats on Saturday in order to caucus. Many of them had been Republicans.
And at a school near Tropicana Avenue and Pecos Road, 23 Republicans switched their affiliation to caucus as Democrats, which officials said caused them to run out of ballots and registration forms.
To be sure, this is all anecdotal. The number of people who registered as Democrats on Saturday probably won’t be known for weeks, party officials said. New registrants had to fill out paper forms, which will be sent to county registrars.
.......
Whether newly registered Democrats reflect a one-day spike or will remain loyal to the party is the next question. Some Republicans think that if Clinton is the nominee, lost party members might return to the fold.
“If we have a good Republican candidate, the pendulum swings,” said Pete Ernaut, chairman of the Nevada Republican caucus. “If Hillary is the nominee, the chances of keeping crossover registration is much less likely.”
....... End of story quotes......
In my previous post, I was careful to call what I said a "scenario." I didn't state it as a fact. This story says itself this is anecdotal- but because it's impossible to count up how many crossed over for the caucus until later.
Now, because I checked, in the Democratic caucuses, in Nevada, they could change registration at the door. For the Republicans, it has to be done 30 days before.
What I'm about to say I'm calling a scenario, as I did in a previous post- that's to differentiate it from known fact. I just find it wise to figure out how the system can be gamed. The above article said that Clinton would probably change the chances of keeping the crossover registration.
So, in a state where the Mormon population is high, chances are, Romney had the win.
Given that- and the potential, as widely suggested all over, that the GOP wants to run against Hillary- GOP cross overs to Democrat to vote for Hillary. Not because they support her but because she's the one they think they have the best chance of defeating in a Presidential election.
The Republicans who switched to Democrats can switch back registration.
I am not stating this as fact- I'm saying that this is a potential "play" in the game of electoral politics.
I posted the article to show that the switching of parties was observed all over southern Nevada. And Southern Nevada is going to have the most influence because it has the most population.
I also believe it is informative to consider that there are alternatives: Best and acceptable to the GOP.
Best- A GOP president
Acceptable- HRC
I believe she is acceptable because she isn't going to rock the boat and any meaningful investigation of the current administrations crimes just isn't going to happen, IMHO. She voted for the Iraq war, for one.
Republicans switch, fatten Dems’ numbers
By Alexandra Berzon, David McGrath Schwartz
Sun, Jan 20, 2008 (2 a.m.)
Perhaps the biggest winner in Saturday’s caucus will be the state Democratic Party. Judging from observations by Sun reporters at precincts across the state, many voters who had been registered as independents or Republicans declared themselves Democrats.
......
In Republican-rich Elko, 13 people of 76 in one downtown precinct changed their party affiliation from Republican to Democrat before the caucus, as party rules allow. Other caucusgoers said they’d switched parties before Saturday.
In a precinct in an older Las Vegas neighborhood, 16 of 51 people registered as Democrats on Saturday in order to caucus. Many of them had been Republicans.
And at a school near Tropicana Avenue and Pecos Road, 23 Republicans switched their affiliation to caucus as Democrats, which officials said caused them to run out of ballots and registration forms.
To be sure, this is all anecdotal. The number of people who registered as Democrats on Saturday probably won’t be known for weeks, party officials said. New registrants had to fill out paper forms, which will be sent to county registrars.
.......
Whether newly registered Democrats reflect a one-day spike or will remain loyal to the party is the next question. Some Republicans think that if Clinton is the nominee, lost party members might return to the fold.
“If we have a good Republican candidate, the pendulum swings,” said Pete Ernaut, chairman of the Nevada Republican caucus. “If Hillary is the nominee, the chances of keeping crossover registration is much less likely.”
....... End of story quotes......
In my previous post, I was careful to call what I said a "scenario." I didn't state it as a fact. This story says itself this is anecdotal- but because it's impossible to count up how many crossed over for the caucus until later.
Now, because I checked, in the Democratic caucuses, in Nevada, they could change registration at the door. For the Republicans, it has to be done 30 days before.
What I'm about to say I'm calling a scenario, as I did in a previous post- that's to differentiate it from known fact. I just find it wise to figure out how the system can be gamed. The above article said that Clinton would probably change the chances of keeping the crossover registration.
So, in a state where the Mormon population is high, chances are, Romney had the win.
Given that- and the potential, as widely suggested all over, that the GOP wants to run against Hillary- GOP cross overs to Democrat to vote for Hillary. Not because they support her but because she's the one they think they have the best chance of defeating in a Presidential election.
The Republicans who switched to Democrats can switch back registration.
I am not stating this as fact- I'm saying that this is a potential "play" in the game of electoral politics.
I posted the article to show that the switching of parties was observed all over southern Nevada. And Southern Nevada is going to have the most influence because it has the most population.
I also believe it is informative to consider that there are alternatives: Best and acceptable to the GOP.
Best- A GOP president
Acceptable- HRC
I believe she is acceptable because she isn't going to rock the boat and any meaningful investigation of the current administrations crimes just isn't going to happen, IMHO. She voted for the Iraq war, for one.