Dirty Tricks for Hillary at UT (TX) [updated]

It seems some dirty tricks were afoot on the University of Texas campus on caucus night.

Volunteers who worked the Jester Center caucus on Tuesday are suspicious of at least one of the caucus lists, the precinct chairman said late Thursday night. At least three students who signed the list verified that the candidates attached to their names were not the candidates they voted for.

It really doesn't surprise me that a campaign built on negativity attracts people who would stoop so low as to tamper with the integrity of the system.

When recounting, the volunteer noticed a whole list had Sen. Hillary Clinton written in similar handwriting in the presidential preference column for each of the six voters on that list. Skidmore [the precinct captain] started calling each of the voters on the list when he reached finance senior Ronesha Holmes, who told him she did not write Clinton as her preference; Holmes said she was instructed to leave that line blank.

It's doubtful that it will affect the delegate count in any way.

Hopefully whoever it was will be caught.

source

Update: Travis Stark makes a good point that the Clinton campaign memo re: the Texas caucuses shed some light on this.

   

The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."

   It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serve as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.

   "The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."

source

•  tips for not messing with democracy

  by The Dead Man on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:11:29 AM PDT

•  Actually I suspect this was encouraged

  Rhandi Rhodes was reading a Hillary campaign memo the day before the primary stating that if Clinton supporters were in the minority at the caucus sites the important thing was to control the lists. Why would that be so important I wonder.

  by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:12:04 AM PDT

•  Sounds like the caucuses were a mess down there

  by ActivatedbyBush on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:20:13 AM PDT

  •  It varied by pecinct

    Mine ran smoothly and the Hillary contingent was very small and well behaved.

    by The Dead Man on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:37:50 AM PDT

    •  Had seen some other new reports of problems

      both campaigns had their gripes - I'm sure that many ran smoothly too, but it causes me to question the legitimacy of the outcome.

      by ActivatedbyBush on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:43:59 AM PDT

•  things got a little testy

  in our precinct convention, but I've heard anecdotal evidence from plenty of other places that held very upbeat and postitive conventions, notwithstanding the split between two candidates.

  Jerks and assholes will always be among us, some of them support Clinton, some (I'm sure) support Obama.

  The good thing, though, is that there are fewer of them than there are of us.

  by elmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:26:41 AM PDT

•  cheating in Texas

  i heard a Clinton supporter/election worker refusing to answer questions about the process from an Obama supporter. i started to say "look, if you win you need us in November," but then realized they didn't! Texas wil go GOP so Clinton can just tell us to fuck off! and that's exactly what she's doing.

  by catchaz on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:32:25 AM PDT

  •  I Love to hear how TX is going GOP..

    it could if HRC is at the top of the ticket, but we have a contender Rick Noriega who could be a Democrat Senator.. O' the days of Lloyd Bentson..

    by Blue Texas on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:44:33 AM PDT

•  It was messy in Kansas too . . .

  The man who led the caucus in our district was an unabashed Hillaryite. During his opening remarks, he said that envelopes would be passed around to collect donations to defer the cost of the caucus. Someone in the crowd shouted out: "Let's have one for Hillary and one for Obama!" The leader laughed and said "Sure!" The envelopes were marked and they began to pass them around. After a few minutes, this same leader came to the mic and said "Hey, you Obama people, you can't take any money out of Hillary's and put it in yours! Haha!"

  This was met with a chorus of "Boos!" and he hastily amended his comment "Oh, and not Hillary people either . . ."

  Other small things: While Obama's speaker was given a limited amount of time to speak, Hillary's was not. During our sessions to select delegates, the Hillary group, which was in the same HS lobby as the rest of us, was given a microphone to use, while we were not (it really was difficult to hear. They left the mic on, even when they weren't actively using it. I just walked over to the amp and turned the amp off. Solved that.)

  It may sound like nitpicking, but I was not the only person who saw a consistant bias in how the event was run.

  Good news: although my district (if the numbers are to be trusted) gave 5 more votes to Hillary (which amounted to a whole delegate :( ) the totals of contributions at the end of the evening showed that Obama's camp had collected over $100 more than Hillary's. Boy! Was that leader-guy embarassed to read those tallies!

  I would really rather see voting. I wouldn't even mind voting in a Democratic environment similar to a caucus, with discussion etc., but with a more standardized method for collecting votes - one that is not open to abuse or harassment.

  by Myrrhis on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:46:33 AM PDT

•  other clinton caucus capers documented...

  in my diary from Cameron County, TX...

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by jeroly on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:33:38 PM PDT