Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Randy Quaid Banned from Actors... | Currently Hanging »

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Dirty Tricks?

posted by on February 7 at 10:07 AM

Slog tipper Paul writes…

I hadn’t seen anything anywhere else about this yet, but thought I’d mention.

I got robocalled at about 6:30 last night by recording of a woman who urged me in very enthusiastic and empowering language to “make my vote count by mailing in my primary ballot.”

I’m on the Hill in the 43rd, I’ve never voted anything but Democratic ever, gave to Obama this year, and voted Dem in the 2004 caucus. They certainly didn’t get my number as an identified Republican voter.

No org was identified in the call before it abruptly ended and caller ID yielded nothing but a blocked number. All of the above makes me wonder if someone’s working to suppress the caucus vote turn-out by misinforming people who are clearly Dems. If they’re doing it on the Hill in a traditionally liberal district, gawd knows what misinformation dems in the rest of the state are getting fed.

If you’re a Dem voter, the primary ballot you received in the mail is meaningless. No delegates will be awarded to Obama or Clinton based on the results of the state primary. You have to go to the caucuses this Saturday if you want a say in awarding delegates to Clinton or Obama.

Who is making these robocalls? Well, that depends on who stands to gain by suppressing turnout at this weekend’s Democratic caucuses…

UPDATE: If anyone out there reading has the call on his or her answering machine, and can make a digital recording of it, please send it to us.

RSS icon Comments

1

Umm... Hillary Clinton

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 7, 2008 10:16 AM
2

I blame the Masons. And maybe the Paultards.

Posted by J.R. | February 7, 2008 10:18 AM
3
Who is making these robocalls? Well, that depends on who stands to gain by suppressing turnout at this weekend’s Democratic caucuses…

Er, no. It depends on who's paying for it. The answer to that question may be implied by who stands to gain, but implication isn't proof.

I seem to recall you struggled with this concept in the Capitol Hill knife slaying as well. Maybe a little remedial study is in order.

Posted by Judah | February 7, 2008 10:20 AM
4

Why would Clinton or Obama gain by robocalls supressing turnout? Even if only 5 people show up to caucus, Washington still gets the same number of delegates, right? But I believe the 2012 primary delegates are partially allocated by how many Dems show up Saturday if I'm remembering correctly. So the question you have to ask is, who is planning to run in the 2012 primary who doesn't think Washington will go their way?

Posted by arduous | February 7, 2008 10:23 AM
5

Wooo Hillary! Ugh! Fuckin' bitches!

Posted by Mr. Poe | February 7, 2008 10:25 AM
6
Why would Clinton or Obama gain by robocalls supressing turnout?

Targeted turnout suppression could certainly help. The recipient of this robocall, as noted, was an Obama donor, and thus probably on a list somewhere.

Posted by tsm | February 7, 2008 10:27 AM
7

Plus the voters for some one who is expected to win in a landslide are less motivated to caucus if an impediment gets in their way such as bad weather, since their candidate is likely to win anyway.

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 7, 2008 10:35 AM
8

Arduous, you gdt partial credit. The '12 Dem delegates are awarded based on votes for the Dems in the general election.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 7, 2008 10:39 AM
9

@6, yeah but targeting Obama donors would be a huge waste of money for a strapped Clinton campaign, don't you think? Of anyone, campaign donors are probably the most savvy as to how exactly the Washington primary process works. So none of them would fall for the trick.

Posted by arduous | February 7, 2008 10:40 AM
10

There's a PSA running on the local stations from the Secretary of State informing voter's how important the primary is. It can be seen at:

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/office/video/Presidential%20Primary%20revised%202.wmv

It's a very misleading ad if nominating delegates are chosen via caucuses.

Posted by Bauhaus | February 7, 2008 10:41 AM
11

I've received 2 robocalls from Hill's camp in the last 24 hours. She's the only one calling me, getting on my last nerve.

I hate robocalls. At least have a human try to talk me into your shit.

Posted by kerri harrop | February 7, 2008 10:44 AM
12

Wow, I miss out on so much drama by not having a land line. Whatever will dirty tricksters do when everyone is like me and robocalls can't reach anyone anymore?

Posted by tsm | February 7, 2008 10:47 AM
13

I used to like Sam Reed, if he wants to be a primary state rather than a caucus one, he needs to be honest with voters about why that is better. But don't lie to us

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 7, 2008 10:51 AM
14

tsm @12

Whatever will dirty tricksters do when everyone is like me and robocalls can't reach anyone anymore?

They'll change the rules about calling mobile phones, duh.

Posted by lostboy | February 7, 2008 10:53 AM
15

Sam Reed doesn't want us to be anything. He's just following the law. The law says there has to be a primary. Reed has no say in whether the WA Dems pay attention to it or not.

Posted by Fnarf | February 7, 2008 10:54 AM
16

He can frame the issue in a way that is not misleading. thats his whole fucking job, informing voters and running the elections.

Posted by vooodooo84 | February 7, 2008 11:05 AM
17

Sam Reed isn't following the law when he writes in the Voters' Pamphlet that voting in the primary will help choose the nominees. He lied and tried to mislead the voters.

Posted by Brendan | February 7, 2008 11:19 AM
18

Suspicious as this might be--Does the Stranger maybe want to investigate the last-minute changes of a caucus location in Eastern Washington from a student-friendly location to one miles away?

Posted by Andy Niable | February 7, 2008 11:24 AM
19

The intent of the law is that the primary will choose the delegates. The party is going against the law. Reed is not in the business of adjudicating intra-party squabbles.

Posted by Fnarf | February 7, 2008 11:45 AM
20

Reaks of Hillary. Read the headlines: Obama is huge in Seattle; KeyArena will be packed; robocalls are relatively cheap (especially if you maxed out on your donation and want to do something "independent" to influence the caucus) "Young" voters (or make that just "most" voters) are confused by the primary/caucus system. Do we need to trace the breadcrumbs all the way to Chappaqua?

Posted by Lose-Lose | February 7, 2008 11:53 AM
21

We got a Repub call last night too, and we're deep in McDermott territory. Unless we're voting for first in line in hell, we're not voting Repub for anything.

Posted by left coast | February 7, 2008 12:08 PM
22

>They'll change the rules about calling mobile phones, duh.

There are rules about that? Because I've gotten a few robocalls on my cell phone.

Posted by hm | February 7, 2008 12:15 PM
23

why the sam reed hate? he seems pretty fair to me. especially in this case, where he is just following the law.

Posted by infrequent | February 7, 2008 12:31 PM
24

@21 - oh, I don't know, I'd vote for GOP for drafted for the war, or for drafted to be waterboarded ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 7, 2008 2:06 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).