Confused.
"But was this an act of attempted voter suppression? If it isn't, it's the least competent voter outreach program in American history. The call was confusing, poorly worded, and oddly targeted. It was lacking in information it was legally supposed to have, and would be utterly unlikely to actually result in any positive action. If this call had been run by the GOP I'd have no doubt."
So, you think that if you aren't a Republican there's no way you'd do such a thing? Maybe that's not what this paragraph reads, but that's what it sounds like.
I think this whole thing is a "quacks like a duck" situation. I wouldn't pin anything on Hillary Clinton, or anyone else, without evidence. But it's clearly intentional voter suppression. And I wish the mainstream papers, and media generally, would pick up on this ... and I hope it gets thoroughly investigated.
According to Pam Spaulding, this is one of many instances in several states. I've been checking the Blend for updates.
I maybe could have been clearer: the doubts I have are only because I had some respect for WVWV before this debacle. But personally, I'm dubious as to their explanation, and if not for that residual goodwill, I'm sure I wouldn't be dubious; I'd be sure they were engaging in voter suppression.
Yeah... this definitely doesn't sound very on the up and up that's for sure.
It *sounds* like a trick right out of Karl Rove's playbook; and that is disturbing to me in a way that I really can't describe properly.
Thanks for the clarification, Jeff. I love your posts and I was curious exactly what you meant. I didn't know a thing about WVWV prior to this.
I support Obama myself, but I can't see Hillary Clinton being behind this ... of course it's just speculation to say anything at this point, but it worries me that someone in the progressive movement could have up with this idea on their own to "help" their candidate, maybe?
It has spurred me to volunteer with the Obama campaign's GOTV efforts, though. I was feeling like maybe I'd rather sleep in, not do much this weekend, and didn't want to ask off any time on Tuesday. Then I thought, no, this is something I really need to do ... I'm thinking about trying to get involved volunteering at the polls also. It just seems like a good thing to be a part of. 
Dont be too hasty
Not everyone is buying that this is a "debacle."
Check out the inestimable Lambert at correntewire and his commenters, several of whom are experienced GOTV and registration drive old hands.
http://www.correntewire.com/
more...y_from_the_boiz
There seems to be a quite distinctive whiff of misogyny bubbling out of the wvwv scandal cauldron.
I dont know about you, but doesnt WVWV just seem kind of, I dont know, witchy?
Or if you don't want to go with those old standbys, you can set up robocalls advising voters that they should send their packet in before they vote next Tuesday, without mentioning that they don't actually have to send a packet back to vote if they're already registered.
As I'm still learning about the election process, I'm not sure how this suppresses voters. Does this mean that the people who send in their packets won't go to the polls on Tuesday during the primaries? Or if they don't mail the registration packets, they won't go to the polls, thinking that sending in the packet was a pre-requisite for voting? Could someone please explain this? Thanks.
Amit,
Check out lambert's post at correntewire
http://www.correntewire.com/
more...y_from_the_boiz
The post and the comments do a great job of setting the stage and explaining some of the context of what may turn out to be a truly manufactured "outrage."
For example, it seems that WVWV was working on registering voters for the general election, not the primary. Also, they have a long-standing mission of reaching out to unregistered single women in African American communities. Also, robo-calling is the only financially feasible option for a small group trying to register millions of women in 50 states . . . Also, prominent african american supporters of Barack Obama who are involved with WVWV have loudly denounced efforts to smear their organization.
IOW, dont rush to judgment.
Amit, I believe the primary effect is confusion (especially if you were already a registered voter). You get confused about what the requirements to vote are, what it means to be registered, and possibly daunted at the idea of filling out another packet of information. It looks like some people responded to that confusion by following up and complaining about these tactics. But other people may well respond to the confusion by giving up - "this voting paperwork is just too hard and confusing." That's how you get your voter suppression. It's more subtle than just lying about the voting day - but that may just mean more plausible deniability, if you want to be cynical about it.
That's why it's so fishy that there's no identification or contact information in these messages - if there was, a confused voter could just ring back. (I'm pretty sure this is absolutely SOP for non profits so its absence is bizarre to say the least). Since there's no identifying information, the confused voter has to figure out which official body is the appropriate contact, and follow up with them - a fairly daunting prospect for some people.
The whole thing stinks, stinks, stinks. I just hope that the media can pull itself together enough to look into this story.
This does smell bad. I hope that WVWV makes a full accounting because I would hate to see a progressive organization involved deliberate voter confusion/suppression. It would help to know who was in charge and how the decisions were made in regard to the text and mailings.
I hope that WVWV makes a full accounting because I would hate to see a progressive organization involved deliberate voter confusion/suppression.
Agreed. The whole "Lamont Williams" thing and no clear identification of WVWV is very troubling on its face. And I'm amazed that WVWV either didn't have an attorney reviewing the scripts for these calls before they were made OR that they did and an attorney okayed them.
I think we might want to read posts like this one before we rush to judgment.
So I guess when the organization in question has registered thousands and thousands of voters, that is to be overlooked?
"...whiff of misogyny...."?
How?
Check out lambert's post at correntewire
Oh yes there is an unbiased source.
I hope that WVWV makes a full accounting because I would hate to see a progressive organization involved deliberate voter confusion/suppression.
Thirded. I think it's awfully hard to argue that this wasn't voter suppression--and I agree, Jeff, that if it wasn't, that doesn't say anything too flattering about WVWV, either--but I'm glad to see people here steering away from trying to pin it on Clinton, which is pretty ridiculous.
So I guess when the organization in question has registered thousands and thousands of voters, that is to be overlooked?
It doesn't excuse them from breaking the law.
At the expense of exposing my ignorance, on the correntewire post, what does "haka" mean?
When you consider that both Hillary's and Obama's supporters sit on the WVWV board, it begs the question who is trying to suppress the votes.
Maybe nobody?
Haka is a Maori ritual dance. In this reference it is when the Obama Fan Boiz rhetorically posture and scream in a threatening manner to intimidate Hillary supporters.
Faux outrage comes natural to fauxgressives.
Haka is a Maori ritual dance. In this reference it is when the Obama Fan Boiz rhetorically posture and scream in a threatening manner to intimidate Hillary supporters."
Basically its an attempt to paint Obama supporters as scary dark people, what a suprise coming form hte "enlightened" types at Corrente wire.
Oook....but, from IMDb: is this our Lamont Williams?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2599227/
the fact that they were made to a community that has been historically disenfranchised using tactics similar to this is deeply troubling. Even assuming WVWV is telling the truth, that tells us that nobody in the organization thought about the implications of an unidentified robocall going to hundreds of thousands if not millions of African-American households, giving out election information that was muddled, at best.
That sounds as if the calls were mainly aimed at AA households. Were they disproportionally targetting those?
That sounds as if the calls were mainly aimed at AA households. Were they disproportionally targetting those?
dutchmarbel | Homepage | 05.02.08 - 5:35 am | #
Re-read the post, yes they were.
Haka is a Maori ritual dance.
Yes, it is. It's also a very central, and for some spiritual, part of our culture and national identity.
So, I would please ask that anyone thinking about using this as a descriptor, particularly with a negative slant, to not do so. It's quite offensive for it to used like this.
Thank you.
Liss, is William McNary respected in Illinois circles? He says this at Huffington Post:
During five election cycles, I have worked with the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition where I co-directed targeted voter registration campaigns and 'get out the vote' efforts to the African American community. I have also had the great privelege of serving on the Board of Directors of Women's Voices, Women Vote -- a non profit, non partisan organization whose mission is registering underrepresented Americans, primarily, unmarried women.
I am also a voter. And in this election, I am supporting Barack Obama, whom I've known and worked with for years. I am also an elected delegate to the Democratic Convention for Barack Obama.
Given my candidate preference and my background and associations in voter registration efforts, I can say with great conviction, there was no effort to suppress or confuse African American voters, or any other voters in the state of North Carolina by Women's Voices, Women Vote.
I have seen up close the work of Women's Voices. Women Vote and know well the commitment, passion and leadership our organization has shown in helping make the voices of unmarried women and other underrepresented voters heard. There may have been mistakes made in this particular registration drive in North Carolina, but Women's Voices, Women Vote's motives were not malicious or intended in any way to confuse voters. Ironically, just the opposite. I know the staff is making every effort to right the situation.
By William McNary, President of USAction, Co-Executive Director Citizen Action/Illinois and Board Member of Women's Voices, Women Vote
Commenters there call him a liar and a fake, even claiming he isn't really an Obama delegate, because they want so much to believe that Clinton is an evil vote stealer. It took me a couple clicks on Google to find this bio. I haven't been able to find an official list of elected delegates. Do you know anything about him?
It's quite offensive for it to used like this.
Especially when you're accusing others of being "fauxgressives." I mean, geez. Come on.
Please don't be too hasty, as another said. We are still trying to find out who was behind all of this. I am not saying it is right, but let's find out who are the real parties involved.
The HuffPo piece by Obama-delegate McNary is dispositive. There's no malice -- let alone a Clinton plot.* And a nefarious plot to suppress the vote by actually getting women to register always did seem a little too much of a bank shot, to me. We might want to consider the people pushing the story, and the timing. And we also might want to consider whether the "Women" in the organization's name could have anything to do with the intensity with which the matter is being pursued.
To me, this looks like another attempt to discredit a Clinton win -- just like the long-forgotten attempts to discredit her wins in NH and NV, about which there was much furor from Obama forces at the time, and all to no result.
I'm disappointed that the poster simply retails this story, with no links, and no value add in terms of analysis. Tsk. Not what I come to Shakespeare's Sister to find.
* Unless, of course, Clintonian Mind Control Rays* beamed from Mount Evil have scrambled the brains of Obama's supporters, causing them to act in ways that discredit themselves and their canidate. Many would consider this not plausible.
I forgot to say: A lot of the commentary on this is of the "But it looks really bad" variety. However, very rarely is that which "looks bad" linked back to a primary source. Rather, it echoes the surely rather tendentious talking points of the story's originators. Back in the day when we had a media critique, things weren't like that. It's a sadness.
Okay still confused, Jeff can you possibly clarify for me how this is supressing anyone's vote? Because suppose you send in your packet when you didn't have to, it doesn't stop you from being able to vote if you already can right? And if you missed the registration deadline you couldn't vote whether or not you got this call. So making people think they can vote when they can't is screwing with people who don't know the system, granted. But I still don't see how it's voter suppression because that's stopping/impeding people from voting who normally would.
And re haka:
Maybe the use of the term needs to be rethought. The sense is not that it is a Maori display, but rather that it comes from Rugby, where a NZ team does it before taking the field. A definition would go something like this, in the context of 2008 primary invective:
Haka. N. A ritualized display of collective male dominance whose vehemence is inversely proportional to the actual prowess of the males involved. Usage example: The Boiz on the Blogs are having another haka. See circlejerk.
All this said, perhaps the use of the term should be reconsidered. Could readers suggest a better one?
I am really dissapointed in seeing this story here. I stopped reading Kos because it was all Hillary conspiracy and hate all the time. I don't need to come here for it.
I am really dissapointed in seeing this story here. I stopped reading Kos because it was all Hillary conspiracy and hate all the time. I don't need to come here for it.
Agreed.
Jeff, come on.
All this said, perhaps the use of the term should be reconsidered.
Yes.
Because even in the context of the All Blacks, the NZRFU were given permission by tribes to do so. So even in that context, it's even more a statement of cultural and national identity, and a very secularly sacred one at that.
Seriously, if I see anyone using this term, I know honestly there is nothing I can really do. But I certainly won't bhe frequenting their blog or consider anything they write to be of consequences.
Think of how you lot feel when you see images of people burning your flag overseas, or spray-painting graffiti on the Statue of Liberty.
I've read this post and others on other blogs and I don't understand how this is suppression.
I've read this post and others on other blogs and I don't understand how this is suppression.
votermom | 05.02.08 - 9:13 am |
The more red tape you put into an optional process, the more people will decide it simply isn't worth it and decide not to do it.
When you don't have the power to create real red tape, you can fool people into thinking that red tape exists when it does not. This is just as effective, if they buy it.
Convincing people that there are extra regulations or requirements on voting that they aren't aware of increases the chances that they'll just decide "Eh, this is too complicated. Screw voting."
Thus, their vote is removed from the pool. Thus, suppression.
To assume that the intent here was voter suppression, you also have to assume:
1. People who are already registered to vote are too stupid to realize that they're already registered, an assumption I refuse to accept and one that appears to me to be racist at its core, as this voter registration effort was apparently targeted to African-Americans.
2. Receiving a voter registration form in one's mailbox, filling it out, and returning it by mail is somehow more cumbersome and difficult than digging out the necessary ID and driving or taking other transport to the courthouse in order to register.
3. An organization that is known for its voter registration efforts and has both Obama and Clinton supporters on its board suddenly decided to engage in voter suppression.
That's a bit of a stretch for me, absent some real evidence.
votermom,
I'll be sending you an information packet. Once you get it, please fill it out and send it in, and then you'll be able to vote. As to whether or not that's for the current primary, or what happens if you don't get the packet first, talk to the dialtone.
And never mind that North Carolina lets people both register *and* vote early, simultaneously, without sending anything in, or that it's illegal to make those robocalls without identification in North Carolina... or that this same thing has already happened in quite a few other states, or that the organization in question promised to shape up months ago, and hasn't, or...
Jeez, Jeff posts a possible case of voter suppression and explicitly states that he doesn't think Sen. Clinton or her campaign is behind it, and yet it's awful to read such "Hillary conspiracy and hate".
Wow- so talking about voter suppression should be disallowed if it could possibly be construed as reflecting badly on Sen. Clinton, even if the author of said post explicitly disconnects said suppression from Sen. Clinton.
Wow, just wow.
Why do I suspect that if the exact same tactics were being used by a republican organization OR by the Obama campaign, there'd be no complaints here about discussing it?
Liss, is William McNary respected in Illinois circles?
I don't know anything about him, to be honest.
As for the accusations that Jeff is trying to advance Clinton conspiracy theories, I don't know how much more clear "I think it's silly to try to pin this directly on Hillary Clinton, or on her campaign" can be.
Several of us discussed this issue before Jeff posted on it, and no one -- and I mean no one -- thinks in even the remotest way that this is connected to Clinton.
The reason it was mentioned is because there are people elsewhere advancing that theory.
Why do I suspect that if the exact same tactics were being used by a republican organization OR by the Obama campaign, there'd be no complaints here about discussing it?
I don't know why you suspect that. You'd most certainly be wrong, at least on the Obama angle, I can assure you of that.
Haven't you heard that I have it in for Obama and if this were about Clinton...?
We get creamed either way.
Wait, Lambert from corrente doesn't think this story is a big deal? Does Jeralyn from TalkLeft think that too? Because then I'd be entirely convinced.
LittleMac:
The HuffPo piece by Obama-delegate McNary is dispositive regarding malice. We merely bring it to your attention, since it seems to have become lost in the fray. For some reason.
Melissa- I should have been clearer. I wasn't talking about you or any of the people who POST. I was talking about the comments section. "here" is horribly non-specific and I apologize for that.
On reflection, you're right. There would be complaints about talking about voter suppression by Obama. They'd eventually reveal themselves as mysogynists and be laughed off the board. But the people who are complaining about Jeff's post are suddenly blind to the history of voter suppression in the African American community and the similarity in form to this effort. FOR THOSE RESPONDENTS (not you or Jeff or any of the people who post items), I'd be surprised if they were as sanguine about suppression targetting women instead of African Americans. The indifference to the voting rights of African Americans from some of the commenters here is pretty distressing to me. But I should have been clearer in my response.
Why do I suspect that if the exact same tactics were being used by a republican organization OR by the Obama campaign, there'd be no complaints here about discussing it?
"...OR the Obama campaign" implies that this tactic is being used by the Clinton campaign. I haven't seen any evidence of that, and as Liss says, it wasn't implied in Jeff's post. It's being stated with great certainty elsewhere, however.
Kathy- I didn't mean to imply that. I should have said "by a group with some implicit links to the Obama campaign". I find it annoying that we can't discuss voter suppression because otehr people have linked this group to the Clinton campaign, and I am skeptical as to whether the same people who fear such loose affiliations would be as protective of the Obama campaign from such a chain.
miceelf, here's the problem with just assuming this is a voter suppression effort: WVWV has a demonstrated history of registering voters from underrepresented groups. Why do we immediately impute evil motives to them?
I'm not getting into motives. I'm talking about effects. Whatever their motivations, the effect is suppression.
Re: Haka
No intent of "scary dark people," as I hope the definition showed (or usage examples). Never occurred to me, since I only use it for the Boiz, who are hardly scary, and circle**** isn't suitable in all contexts, so I welcomed an alternative.
All that said, I take the points made, and we're looking for another word. Molly Dance is a leading candidate:
"The ploughboys would tour around the village landowners, offering to dance for money. "
We may have a winner...
We merely bring it to your attention, since it seems to have become lost in the fray. For some reason.
It's linked in the Dana Goldstein piece at TAPPED, to which Jeff's post links -- which is where I found it. So I'm not sure it's fair to imply that it's "become lost in the fray" here.
Whatever their motivations, the effect is suppression.
Evidence, please? And by that I mean more than an assumption that the people targeted are too stupid to know whether or not they are registered to vote, which, as I said above, is racist on its face.
It's linked in the Dana Goldstein piece at TAPPED, to which Jeff's post links -- which is where I found it. So I'm not sure it's fair to imply that it's "become lost in the fray" here.
Not to mention I linked to it and quoted it in full here in comments.
Thought experiment: Imagine the same robocall being traced back to a Republican 527.
Kathy, that's EXACTLY the defense that the GOP uses in the south when they do the same thing, or when they demand literacy tests ('what? literacy tests suppress the African American vote? you can't say that- it's racist").
"Whatever their motivations, the effect is suppression."
You cannot seperate the two once you draw a line between unintentional mistake and intentional suppression. It has been documented that there are supporters from both campaigns on WVWV, it has been documented they have a history of registering under-represented voters, and it has been documented that they claim this was a mistake. If you're going to argue they intentionally tried to suppress votes you have to go beyond effects, because the effect would be the same whether it was an intentional act or not.
Melissa/Kathy:
"Lost in the fray" in the sense that NPR, as linked above, for example, and others who push this "scandal," omit mention of McNary. Not in the sense that people aren't correcting it on this thread. (The comment was directed to a single commenter, IOW.) Sorry I was cryptic.
...that's EXACTLY the defense that the GOP uses in the south when they do the same thing, or when they demand literacy tests..."
Perhaps, but this, whatever kind of fuck-up it may turn out to be, is not a literacy test. A literacy test is a specific effort to ensure that people who were denied educational opportunities by a racist system are also denied the vote.
You've read, and bought into, the reports that say this is voter suppression, and you've implied in several comments that it is an effort tied in some way to the Clinton campaign, both without citing any evidence. It's possible that both of your implications are true, but without some evidence, I'm not buying it. I'm getting a little tired of the "let's jump on the bandwagon to assume the worst about everyone" meme. I don't do it to Obama, and I'm not going to do it to Clinton either.
I haven't read thoroughly upthread yet, but re: how this is voter suppression --
In many states, there is a cut-off for mail-in registration, but in-person registration is still possible until just before the election/primary -- I believe that I read in one article covering this that, if people waited for a packet (which was already expired in terms of registration-by-mail cutoff) they would be less likely to realize that they needed to register in person.
Also, I know that this type of stuff can also confuse elders, who have seen decades and decades of confusing rule-changes in government -- and who might believe that they are somehow not registered yet, even though they think they are.
The robo-call serves no purpose but to confuse and mislead, in either case -- and because of that, I'd say that the intent is vote-suppression. Which sucks.
To assume that the intent here was voter suppression, you also have to assume:
1. People who are already registered to vote are too stupid to realize that they're already registered, an assumption I refuse to accept and one that appears to me to be racist at its core, as this voter registration effort was apparently targeted to African-Americans.
I don't find it difficult at all to believe that some small percentage of registered voters would have forgotten they registered, or registered for an earlier election, and thought they needed to re-register. You don't need to assume that African-Americans are more prone to this type of mistake, but they are usually the targets of deliberate supression efforts.
2. Receiving a voter registration form in one's mailbox, filling it out, and returning it by mail is somehow more cumbersome and difficult than digging out the necessary ID and driving or taking other transport to the courthouse in order to register.
Again it seems very plausible to me that some percent of people will get the package, and just not send it in and then think they can't vote on election day.
3. An organization that is known for its voter registration efforts and has both Obama and Clinton supporters on its board suddenly decided to engage in voter suppression.
That's a bit of a stretch for me, absent some real evidence.
Agreed. I'd still like to know what went on, particularly since it seems as though NC isn't the only state they had problems in.
KarateMonkey, I agree that I'd like to know what went on. This looks to me like a colossal case of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and it certainly needs to be investigated. Where I have a problem is with the assumption that the program was designed with the intent to suppress voter turnout -- and with the immediate assumption (not here but elsewhere) that it is a Clinton plot to steal NC.
S.H. | 05.02.08 - 10:44 am | #
I think the point was that it isn't really important whether or not the group is intentionally engaging in voter suppression: regardless of their motives, everything about their robocalls is ultimately misleading, whether it is by not mentioning that they are calling about the general in the middle of primary season, to their refusal to identify themselves, to the fact that they don't say something like "if you aren't already registered".
They've apparently received complaints all over the country about their (either malicious or supremely incompetent) tactics. I don't think the Clinton campaign is directly responsible for this, but the fact that it can be linked indirectly to the Clinton campaign is causing people who would normally oppose voter suppression to suddenly realize that it's not such a big deal after all, and that's a little messed up.
Where I have a problem is with the assumption that the program was designed with the intent to suppress voter turnout -- and with the immediate assumption (not here but elsewhere) that it is a Clinton plot to steal NC.
Again I agree. That's why I was really happy to see this addressed here. I've wanted to hash this out with some people who don't immediatly jump in with "OMG Hillary is teh EVIL."
I can see where the leap to assuming this was a deliberate attempt to supress votes comes from though. I mean, if a group wanted to depress turnout in a targeted community just enough to help in a close primary while holding onto plausible deniability I suspect they'd come up with something that looked awful similar to what WVWV did.
One of the hardest things about politics is learning old tricks all over again. I doubt very much there's anyone in this country over 50 who's been politically active all their life who didn't immediately think harsh thoughts about the Clinton campaign after reading this.
This is what it is, and no excuses can change the fact that this "mucked up" outreach campaign has had a predictable result: suppressing the primary vote.
When the conversation sticks to "let's wait until we have more information," the vote suppressors win every time.
I did not imply that it was the Clinton campaign doing this. I stated that some people here were reluctant to talk about it because OTHERS had suggested the Clinton campaign had something to do with it. In this primary season, the organization has had similar issues in other states. I am making no assumptions about their motivations, but the EFFECT of their incompetence/younameit is to suppress votes. I noted that some here arent' willing to even discuss the issue for fear that it might reflect badly on Clinton. I did not say that it did reflect badly on Clinton, but noted the apparent double standard from some commenters who are one hopes usually more concerned about voter rights.
I'm a young, unmarried woman in the target demographic. If I were to get a robocall like this, my primary instinct would be to call the board of registrars--whose phone number would likely be on the packet. The packet, I believe, would be arriving before the primary.
This might annoy the Board of Registrars, but it's in the name of the democratic process. For people to assume that everyone would be so annoyed as to say "fuck this, I'm not voting" is a specious conclusion.
For people to assume that everyone would be so annoyed as to say "fuck this, I'm not voting" is a specious conclusion.
Nobody is saying that. We're saying that some percentage of people will believe there's another step they need to complete in order to vote. Some of them won't complete that extra step, and won't vote because they think they can't. That's how voter supression works.
Wait, Lambert from corrente doesn't think this story is a big deal? Does Jeralyn from TalkLeft think that too? Because then I'd be entirely convinced.
How about Matt Stoller? He provides some context here of what WVWV is doing (registering unmarried voters).
(Breaking this up, because there were too many links)
And here and here cautions against jumping to the conclusion that there was any vote suppression, let alone that there was any nefarious intent on the part of WVWV, or that the Clinton campaign was behind it. (He does, however, walk back his opinion a bit here).
And some more at Open Left from Mike Lux, who provides more context.
And Open Left is an anti-Clinton blog, and Stoller has done a lot of work on voter suppression. So if they're not jumping on the This Is Clearly Vote Suppression! bandwagon, perhaps it might be a good idea for others to take a deeper look at it.
KarateMonkey | 05.02.08 - 11:39 am | #
First of all, I realized that I shouldn't've made that comment in the first place, as it's a bit of a (insert logical fallacy that requires buying into "Members of demographic X will do Y, I am a member of X, and I wouldn't do Y, therefore, it's not an issue." I think it might be reductio ad absurdum, but it's been a while since I had freshman Philosophy of Logic in college.). Coffee first, comment later, MsFeasance. Especially when you were awake until 5:00 AM. (Law school is hard work, people! Hard! Work!)
Secondly, "But other people may well respond to the confusion by giving up - 'this voting paperwork is just too hard and confusing.' " Somehow this came across to my addled brain as being "people may well respond to the confusion by giving up." My mistake.
As to ameliorating measures, I think that WVWV can salvage this not by spending its time parading its board members through HuffPo, and immediately, as in yesterday, taking out newspaper ads and other urban forms of advertising detailing the registration process--including the register-on-site process-- intimately and correctly, and conclude it with their humblest apologies.
I doubt very much there's anyone in this country over 50 who's been politically active all their life who didn't immediately think harsh thoughts about the Clinton campaign after reading this.
What, people over 50 instinctively hate and distrust women?
The organization has ties to both camps. The group in target affect African-American women - a section of voters that could reasonably identify with either nominee, and suppressing them could feasibly suppress voters for either candidate.
When the conversation sticks to "let's wait until we have more information," the vote suppressors win every time.
Yes, it much more responsible to make baseless, libelous accusations on mere suspicion - suspicion poisoned by sexist media bias, no less.
This doesn't sound like Clinton. Clinton's MO is to play hard and run full-out - and within the rules. And it doesn't really sound like Obama, either, though I have less of a track record to extrapolate from. Frankly, if it was intentional, it sounds like Rove/GOP tactics, trying to leverage the natural divisions within the parties.
Kathy, reading the comments at Huffpost is the beginning of the path to madness. Too many kooky people post there. Its' like expecting good commentary about Vista on Slashdot, actually its' probably worse.
If this were the first time WVWV engaged in this behavior, it could be dismissed fairly easily as a mistake. However, they did virtually the same thing in Virginia before the Feb 12th primary. (The Virginia State Police initially thought it was an identity theft scam.) Again, the issue was that the calls were giving people who were already registered to vote the impression that they needed to do additional paperwork ("just fill out the registration card and send it back to us and then you'll be all set to vote") before they could vote in the primary.
WVWV said at the time they would change the way they were operating. They have not, as North Carolina shows. In fact, WVWV has done the same thing with the robocalls in numerous states, very close to the primary vote, but after the primary voter registration deadline.
If it happens once or even twice, one can suspect incompetence. When it happens in a dozen states, not so much. I think what is begetting a lot of the conspiracy theories is the fact that the repeated behavior is not yet being explained adequately by WVWV.
I doubt very much there's anyone in this country over 50 who's been politically active all their life who didn't immediately think harsh thoughts about the Clinton campaign after reading this.
That's not even in the same galaxy as making sense.
...reading the comments at Huffpost is the beginning of the path to madness.
Good point. I think I'll avoid it from now on.
Unfortunately for more than 150 years elections have been stolen in the United States , especially at the state & county level. This has been done by both parties and even more unfortunately neither one of the two major parties really want to change the system.
After all the supreme court said in 2000 there is no garaunteed right to vote. Each county let alone state has its' own standards & voting practices. And when parties are not deliberately trying to steal or suppress democracy election officials and voting machine companies do even more damage to election fairness out of galactic incompetence. A good summary of the problems with elections and the solutions are in "Voting Rights Are Too Important To Leave To The States and also in the book Steal This Vote
"One of the hardest things about politics is learning old tricks all over again. I doubt very much there's anyone in this country over 50 who's been politically active all their life who didn't immediately think harsh thoughts about the Clinton campaign after reading this."
I'm only 49 1/2, so I don't quite hit your age requirement. I am, however, old enough to know that your comment was moronic.
I doubt very much there's anyone in this country over 50 who's been politically active all their life who didn't immediately think harsh thoughts about the Clinton campaign after reading this.
Then those people would be rather lazy and jumping to conclusions awfully fast, wouldn't they? Since when did politically active people over 50 suddenly turn stupid en masse?
I don't think anyone here thinks voter suppression is a good thing, but it's depressing to see how quick some people are to link anything that sounds nefarious to Clinton - and that's not, of course, directed at Shakesville, but at certain other corners of the blogosphere. I've read all the links here and confess to remaining rather confused, but I hope WVWV gets this straightened out posthaste.
And Sarah in Chicago, thanks for the explanation of haka and its meaning. (Does "haka" take an article?) I learned something today.
Thanks for the links Zuzu. They were very helpful.
"I think the point was that it isn't really important whether or not the group is intentionally engaging in voter suppression"
But I think it should be the most important thing, because if it was unintentional then immense pressure should be put upon them to fix it, but if it was intentional they should be shut down pronto.
"but the fact that it can be linked indirectly to the Clinton campaign is causing people who would normally oppose voter suppression to suddenly realize that it's not such a big deal after all, and that's a little messed up."
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me at first I didn't see how it was supression, so I asked and I got an answer. But I think the answer as to what to do next has to do with motive, that's why I think that issue has to be resolved. But I like the idea of pushing WVWV to take out ads etc. to remedy this as soon as possible, hell why can't they do another robocall to the same people?
Hear Hear, Red State Blues.
My friends, WVWV is an organization DEDICATED to GOTV efforts among underrepresented groups. I think we would all agree that this is laudable.
With this kind of background, what the hell kind of incompetence (malicious or otherwise) exists in this organization to do this - in different states and illegally?
On TPM and on Huff Post yesterday or the day before, a WVWV employee named Sarah sanguinely laid out the reasons that WVWV just "didn't realize" and just "couldn't tailor their message" to various states. Huh?! Again, what kind of idiots are they to be in the GOTV business? They $%^& up, royally.
I still haven't seen any indication that AA households were *disproportionally* targetted. VWVW were aiming at registering single women, the white ones, the black ones and the hispanic ones. I've seen articles about how they have allready registred lots of new voters, so as voter-supression goes it would only make sense if they used different tactics for different target groups to supress a specific demographic group. Confusing older unmarried white women into not voting seems a tad weird when it is supposed to help Hillary.
Having complaints from 11 States does give a bad impression. But two of those States are Florida and Michigan and they didn't need VWVW to supress the voters. Other complaints seem to have different grounds for complaints (double registration forms burdens the civil servants, they say 30 days when it should be 29 days). It also seems to be rather lacking in figures (how many complaints? Compared with how many contacts? How does that compare with outer GOTV initiatives?).
I can understand that contacting unregistred voters and trying to register them has more impact around an election proces. People are more focussed on it and more likely to send back forms and other necessities. Otherwise it might well end on the pile of 'administrative things I have to do when I have time for it - usually procastination wins though'. That timing is also more likely to cause confusion, because their aim is not to register people for *those* specific elections, but to register them for the GE.
I can well understand that they have difficulty with the rules in all the States they aim for. Trying to understand how the preliminaries in the USA States work has left me with a new appreciation for our own simple system 
At the same time: I do think it is weird that the robo-calls don't mention for whom they are calling. That is pretty standard in any telephone script. I also don't understand why there were was no lawyer checking the 'output' (collateral, scripts) per State. The fact that the operational manager of VWVW has a husband who makes a lot of money from doing the telemarketing feels fishy too, but I've noticed before that close ties like that are more common in the States. So far Occams razor still points at 'clumsy' AFAIAC.
@Sara: tnxs for your explanation about 'haka'. If I see it used, I'll try to pass your explanation on and urge people to use another term.
In the Netherlands we use 'chestbeating' when we want to describe behaviour that is aimed at intimidating opponents into not even challenging you.
When the conversation sticks to "let's wait until we have more information," the vote suppressors win every time.
Mark, I'll disagree. What you're describing is a reaction, very different from a response based on finding out the facts first. The latter is usually considered a prudent approach.
LittleMac again:
but the fact that it can be linked indirectly to the Clinton campaign is causing people...
Anything "can" be "linked" by anyone to anybody for any reason. The fact of a link has nothing to do the facts of the case. And when the key point is intent, and you've got a WVWV board member and Obama supporter saying there is no intent, that ought to make "people" think twice about the whole And the passive voice in "is causing people"
Re haka:
We're going to experiment with wankfest. Same great snark, but without the cultural appropriation!
Thanks for the points made on this thread.
speaking of which...
http://bluenc.com/well%2C-heres-...g-
interesting...
go figure
Commenting by HaloScan
