Clinton camp confused over at-large caucus sites

[ProSense]

Clinton camp confused over at-large caucus sites

By Tony Cook · January 17, 2008

Even at the 11th hour — and after this morning’s ruling that the at-large Strip caucus sites are OK — there’s still some confusion, at least within the Clinton camp, about who can participate in those caucuses.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign told the Sun this evening that only employees who work for companies with more than 4,000 workers can caucus at the nine at-large sites on the Strip.

That’s not true.

The issue came up after the Sun asked if any unions supporting Clinton would have members caucusing at those locations.

“If a construction company doesn’t have more than 4,000 people, they are out of luck,” said Hilarie Grey, Clinton’s Nevada spokeswoman. Clinton is endorsed by eight labor unions, some of whose members work for contractors on the Strip.

She said she learned of the 4,000 threshhold from the campaign’s political and labor directors.

State Democratic Party caucus rules, however, say the at-large sites will be created working with employers at locations where more than 4,000 employees will be working during Saturday’s caucus.

Any shift worker working within a 2.5-mile radius of an at-large location can caucus there.

We took that information back to Grey, who said she would double-check her facts with the campaign’s political director.

“Thank you for working with us on that,” she said. “I am not that literate on the rules.”

more

[L0oniX]

1. Confused? O yea...we need a confused candidate or worse ...a president.

She is a conniving witch and is trying to eliminate those who would vote for Edwards.

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. who is disenfranchising those voters? Is it only Obama supporters that get to caucus?

[stillcool]

3. Did you not read the court document?

http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/2008/01/16/OppoDemsMTNRelief.pdf

[gaiilonfong]

7. Emerald your patronTaylor Marsh was outed today

as a PAID Clinton shill. If I was you I would get the facts before I post

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. I know you are a hater of this person. I have never read anything

by Taylor Marsh. I sure wish you were just as outraged by all paid shills who attack progressives. But, I have seen you cheer when our Democratic Senator from NY is attacked, so I know that your outrage is faux.

[Egnever]

11. you read shit from Taylor here every day

how can you say you have never read anything from her hell this OP is from Marsh.

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. I have read the sites, and have seen nothing from Marsh.

I have not ever gone to his website. I have no idea who it is, except that Obama fans keep complaining about him. I guess they are so used to the royal treatment by the mainstream media, they have a hard time when someone actually is suggesting he is not King.

[Egnever]

29. so you read it here but because its not his site

you count that as never reading him? :eyes:

[pampango]

4. Some in Clinton's camp may be confused about this, but the Clintons, themselves,

seem to rarely be uninformed in any area of electoral procedure.

[dkf]

5. They were making up shit again.

I thought that part of their argument was bogus...and it is!

The Nevada caucus enfranchises a whole lot of voters who work on the strip. I'm not sure if some of the downtown casinos will get these but I hope so.

Again, the Clintons are shown to be disingenuous.

[JackORoses]

6. "“I am not that literate on the rules.”

This is coming from Hillary's Nevada Campaign Spokeswoman.

Quite a tight ship she is running. They don't have any problem with making public statements attacking rules that they aren't even literate on.

Hit the books, Hilarie!

[Egnever]

8. More fucking lies

Are we really contemplating putting this lying bullshit in office?

This woman is rotten to the core and the idea that people actually support her makes me realize how we ended up with bush for four years. people don't give a shit about reality they only care if the candidate spews what they want to hear.

[elixir]

17. Careful you're insecurity is showing...

[Egnever]

26. is it?

because I call a liar a liar?

[elixir]

32. The more you swear the more insecure you appear. Try writing concisely, it works.

[Unsane]

10. Confused? Try lying.

[HeraldSquare212]

12. They must be the "confused" people telling Dems in SC to vote this Saturday, too nt

[suston96]

14. From the OP link. Please read it.

I have just resigned in protest as a precinct chairperson for the caucus based on the outrageous and unconscionable decision by the Nevada Democratic Party to have different rules for different groups.

This is a violation of our most fundamental principles of equality and democracy. Shame on the Nevada Democratic Party and shame on those who have turned this into a racial issue.

While all other participants in the caucus will have to be physically present at their precinct where they live, the hotel workers will be able to participate at work. They are the only group who has this special privilege. What about all the other people who have to work or for other reasons can not participate at their precinct... they will not have the same opportunity. In addition, the manner in which the number of delegates will be selected at these strip locations will be different from all other precincts and likely give them a disproportion number of delegates. This is fundamentally un-American and unconscionable. It is the kind of voting methods we expect from a dictatorship and not from a democracy.

I will not be part of facilitating what amounts to a form of "jim crow" law that makes it easier for one group to participate in an election compared to other groups. The more I hear people promising "change" the more it seems nothing has changed. zb

Please read it, again and listen to what is said.

As I have been posting: elections must be equally accessible for all with no favoritism shown for a particular group of people except as provided by law for the physically disabled.

Shame on those who support their candidate using this undemocratically repulsive process.

[ProSense]

15. "I will not be part of facilitating what amounts to a form of "jim crow" law "

Wow, what a despicable comment!

Mahan said the Nevada Democratic Party had a constitutional right to write its rules for nominating its candidates.

"State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set their own rules," Mahan said.

"I don’t want to set a precedent that is not warranted."

"The parties have a right to determine how they’ll apportion delegates to their conventions."

Why the Court Supported Nevada Voting Rights

[suston96]

18. Your quote ......is bullshit!

"The parties have a right to determine how they’ll apportion delegates to their conventions."

Yes, they do but they cannot deny equal voting rights to all their party members. Many court cases about this. That federal judge must have taken naps during election law classes in federal judge college.

[ProSense]

20. The quote is from the piece your in post. It is bullshit ,and despicable. n/t

[suston96]

23. What is bullshit, and despicable? Why that precinct captain quit? Or my posting his reasons...?

He gave all the reasons I have been posting on this board for many days. I was against the Iowa caucus and I am against this one in Nevada, no matter who wins, and the one in Idaho, if Idaho uses the same process of public and non-secret caucuses.

They are violations of ballot privacy sanctity which is the integral element of our form of self-governance, regardless of whether they are political party nominating mechanisms.

Do some research on voting rights. It may help you.

[ProSense]

30. Yeah, his bias over all the other people's rights! n/t

[suston96]

31. Sorry, he is correct. It doesn't matter who "wins" or "loses" these caucuses....

...the process is universally and constitutionally repugnant. Public, as opposed to secret, voting for constitutional offices is dangerous and surely stupid.

The history of elections and voting in modern republics has been based on the secret ballot as its touchstone.

[HeraldSquare212]

16. He or she just resigned due to a decision made 10 months ago?

Kind of slow to outrage, it seems.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. Indeed

[Renew Deal]

19. And the way to make it easier to vote is to close polling locations?

Everyone that lives within 2.5 miles of the site can caucus there, so she should get over it.

[suston96]

25. Easier? How about private polling places, and secret ballots - the real democratic way.

And not making a choice in front of your work supervisors and union leaders and the TV cameras with the whole galaxy looking on.

People really know a lot about the valued principles of self-governance around here.

[Renew Deal]

33. The election method is not up to the candidates.

Obama, Hillary, and everyone else has to play by the rules.

[Egnever]

28. not entirely true

1. At-Large Precincts Caucuses are designed specifically to service shift workers
who work during or within one hour of the Nevada Democratic Party Caucuses
start-time (11:30am), and who could not return to their home precinct caucus in
time to participate.
2. Shift workers will be required to bring their Employer Identification card or badge
to their assigned At-Large Precinct Caucus to be eligible to participate in the At-
Large Precinct Caucus. The Employer ID card will serve as proof of shift worker
status.
3. Shift workers will also sign a declaration stating that they could not attend their
home Precinct Caucus because they worked during or within one hour of the
designated caucus start time.

[featherman]

21. Again a planted story by Clinton camp to lower expectations

Just Politics 101... basic stuff.

Sheesh what's wrong with some of you people. It's supposed to be a political board and you act like you just arrived from Mars with no knowledge of actual campaigning as practiced for the past 200 years.

[abburdlen]

22. were I inclided to make snarky comments

I'd say something along the lines of
'Well if Clinton can be confused about something as obvious as whether the "Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" was anything but a rush to war, it's no wonder her campaign workers get confused about the rules for a caucus'

or '35 years of experience and she find people who can read the caucus rules that have been available for 6 months?"

or "I thought it was Obama who needed help with the minor details, Clinton was suppose to ready day one."

But snarky comments bore me.
:P

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Confused my non-existent right teet

Voter suppression extravaganza take 2.

When at first you don't succeed....

:eyes: