Elisa Silverman found guilty of violating campaign finance rules with Ward 3 poll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

The filings from April and May showed that neither of these campaigns were gaining any traction. They both (and others) should have dropped out before that, but they didn't. Given how strongly Frumin polled in a few key areas, this action clearly didn't have any impact on the final results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

Do you KNOW that is what Silverman told them? Because that would be news. The reports at the time and the OCF testimony indicated that she declined providing either candidate with an endorsement, which is what they were each seeking to boost their campaigns. She likely did not share polling data and she likely did not specifically tell them or advise them to drop out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

The filings from April and May showed that neither of these campaigns were gaining any traction. They both (and others) should have dropped out before that, but they didn't. Given how strongly Frumin polled in a few key areas, this action clearly didn't have any impact on the final results.

We don’t really know that, though. You may remember that Goulet was ahead in the initial returns that were presumably based on the ballots mailed in before Bergman et al. dropped out. The vote shares of Bergman et al. fell off sharply in the later returns and Frumin overtook Goulet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

The filings from April and May showed that neither of these campaigns were gaining any traction. They both (and others) should have dropped out before that, but they didn't. Given how strongly Frumin polled in a few key areas, this action clearly didn't have any impact on the final results.

We don’t really know that, though. You may remember that Goulet was ahead in the initial returns that were presumably based on the ballots mailed in before Bergman et al. dropped out. The vote shares of Bergman et al. fell off sharply in the later returns and Frumin overtook Goulet.

Goulet had a grand total of what, 200 Ward 3 donations during his campaign? Hardly the work of someone out to get thousands of votes. It was only the Post endorsement that gave him any traction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

The filings from April and May showed that neither of these campaigns were gaining any traction. They both (and others) should have dropped out before that, but they didn't. Given how strongly Frumin polled in a few key areas, this action clearly didn't have any impact on the final results.

It doesn’t matter if the corrupt act worked or not. The point is that it was a corrupt act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

The filings from April and May showed that neither of these campaigns were gaining any traction. They both (and others) should have dropped out before that, but they didn't. Given how strongly Frumin polled in a few key areas, this action clearly didn't have any impact on the final results.

It doesn’t matter if the corrupt act worked or not. The point is that it was a corrupt act.

Interesting use of the c-word, but let's discuss what actually happened. Elissa ran a poll - funded by Fair Elections money - to decide who to endorse. Based on the results of that poll, she chose to endorse Frumin. Bergmann, Cohen, and Duncan chose to drop out not long after, partly as a result of that endorsement. Should she have used Fair Elections money to run the poll? Probably not, since it didn't have a lot to do with her campaign. But it's hardly qualifies as the kind of embezzlement that would warrant dropping the c-word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

The filings from April and May showed that neither of these campaigns were gaining any traction. They both (and others) should have dropped out before that, but they didn't. Given how strongly Frumin polled in a few key areas, this action clearly didn't have any impact on the final results.

It doesn’t matter if the corrupt act worked or not. The point is that it was a corrupt act.

Interesting use of the c-word, but let's discuss what actually happened. Elissa ran a poll - funded by Fair Elections money - to decide who to endorse. Based on the results of that poll, she chose to endorse Frumin. Bergmann, Cohen, and Duncan chose to drop out not long after, partly as a result of that endorsement. Should she have used Fair Elections money to run the poll? Probably not, since it didn't have a lot to do with her campaign. But it's hardly qualifies as the kind of embezzlement that would warrant dropping the c-word.

They all dropped out first. Then Silverman endorsed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

The filings from April and May showed that neither of these campaigns were gaining any traction. They both (and others) should have dropped out before that, but they didn't. Given how strongly Frumin polled in a few key areas, this action clearly didn't have any impact on the final results.

It doesn’t matter if the corrupt act worked or not. The point is that it was a corrupt act.

Interesting use of the c-word, but let's discuss what actually happened. Elissa ran a poll - funded by Fair Elections money - to decide who to endorse. Based on the results of that poll, she chose to endorse Frumin. Bergmann, Cohen, and Duncan chose to drop out not long after, partly as a result of that endorsement. Should she have used Fair Elections money to run the poll? Probably not, since it didn't have a lot to do with her campaign. But it's hardly qualifies as the kind of embezzlement that would warrant dropping the c-word.

They all dropped out first. Then Silverman endorsed.

Did it occur to you that she may communicated her decision not to endorse them privately first to give them the opportunity to withdraw?

[Anonymous]

Lol. So now we get to the *real* story: https://twitter.com/bzbergmann/status/1587916509757816833?s=46&t=dg7DAS6sHehsvn_egYCA5w

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

The filings from April and May showed that neither of these campaigns were gaining any traction. They both (and others) should have dropped out before that, but they didn't. Given how strongly Frumin polled in a few key areas, this action clearly didn't have any impact on the final results.

It doesn’t matter if the corrupt act worked or not. The point is that it was a corrupt act.

Interesting use of the c-word, but let's discuss what actually happened. Elissa ran a poll - funded by Fair Elections money - to decide who to endorse. Based on the results of that poll, she chose to endorse Frumin. Bergmann, Cohen, and Duncan chose to drop out not long after, partly as a result of that endorsement. Should she have used Fair Elections money to run the poll? Probably not, since it didn't have a lot to do with her campaign. But it's hardly qualifies as the kind of embezzlement that would warrant dropping the c-word.

Probably not? Not a lot to do with her campaign? It's a pretty obvious illegal act that had absolutely nothing to do with her campaign. While nowhere near the worst thing a DC pol has ever done there is no doubt that it was brazen, wrong, and a clearcut misuse of public funds. It is definitely corruption. Not Jack Evans level but definitely corruption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol. So now we get to the *real* story: https://twitter.com/bzbergmann/status/1587916509757816833?s=46&t=dg7DAS6sHehsvn_egYCA5w

I'm not a lawyer. To me the language he highlighted indicates there'd be a response within 90 days, not anything to do with the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

Between them, they had like 12 contributions for the entire month of April. That was likely enough to tell both of them to drop out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

The filings from April and May showed that neither of these campaigns were gaining any traction. They both (and others) should have dropped out before that, but they didn't. Given how strongly Frumin polled in a few key areas, this action clearly didn't have any impact on the final results.

It doesn’t matter if the corrupt act worked or not. The point is that it was a corrupt act.

Interesting use of the c-word, but let's discuss what actually happened. Elissa ran a poll - funded by Fair Elections money - to decide who to endorse. Based on the results of that poll, she chose to endorse Frumin. Bergmann, Cohen, and Duncan chose to drop out not long after, partly as a result of that endorsement. Should she have used Fair Elections money to run the poll? Probably not, since it didn't have a lot to do with her campaign. But it's hardly qualifies as the kind of embezzlement that would warrant dropping the c-word.

Probably not? Not a lot to do with her campaign? It's a pretty obvious illegal act that had absolutely nothing to do with her campaign. While nowhere near the worst thing a DC pol has ever done there is no doubt that it was brazen, wrong, and a clearcut misuse of public funds. It is definitely corruption. Not Jack Evans level but definitely corruption.

Why? There are all sorts of polls, city wide and within wards. I suppose had she polled her own race and the Ward 3 race, none of this would have been an issue, right?