Fenty Buying Votes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do not care.

corruption is okay, as long as i am not personally affected

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do not care.

corruption is okay, as long as i am not personally affected

Again, I think the explosion of outrage on the far-right over voter fraud allegations against ACORN.

I thought the cynicism shown by the professional propagandists on the right was disgusting, but even more demoralizing was the complete lack of any political sophistication or critical thinking by those for whom it became an issue. Sad to see it going on here as well.

[Anonymous]

sorry should be "...I think it mirrors the explosion..."

In any case, I've said my piece. Have at it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:So answer me one question, as you seem like a pretty sharp guy, and a follower of politics: How does this make *any* sense whatsoever from a campaign strategy perspective. Are you suggesting that there's some unofficial policy of offering people $100 to register and vote for Fenty? And that this is going on with any sort of regularity?

Lots of things happen for reasons that I can't explain. For instance, I can't explain why Mayor Fenty announced a couple of days ago that he had asked President Obama for an endorsement and then said today that he doesn't expect an endorsement. Why doesn't Fenty just hold a press conference now and tell everyone that Obama has refused to endorse him? What kind of political strategy is that? For that matter, how does someone in Fenty's position even find himself in a close election? In my view, political strategy is not Fenty's strong point so there is a lot that he does that I can't explain. But, regardless of whether I can explain this, it deserves a proper investigation.

Anonymous wrote:It makes no sense whatsoever. Other than as campaign fodder. Or are these ginned-up ACORN style faux-controversies only to be taken seriously when they favor our preferred candidate?

I don't understand what you are asking. As you mentioned above, ACORN faked a few registrations for people like Mickey Mouse who were unlikely to show up and vote (to say the least). In this case, the guy actually voted. It is not the first accusation of this sort. Another guy claimed to have been paid $100 to vote for Fenty last week. This is not ginned up. It may be being hyped by the Gray campaign, but it would be almost criminal of them not to hype it. The onus is on Fenty to show that he takes such charges seriously and will act to prevent vote-buying. So far, he has not done that. Combined with his veto of the vote-buying bill, Fenty gives all signs of wanting to buy votes. He put himself in this predicament. Ask him to explain why it makes sense.

[Anonymous]

I would have held out for at least $500 bucks a day.

Jk.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I would have held out for at least $500 bucks a day.

Jk.

I told my wife that when I go to vote I'm going to wear a price tag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So answer me one question, as you seem like a pretty sharp guy, and a follower of politics: How does this make *any* sense whatsoever from a campaign strategy perspective. Are you suggesting that there's some unofficial policy of offering people $100 to register and vote for Fenty? And that this is going on with any sort of regularity?

It makes no sense whatsoever. Other than as campaign fodder. Or are these ginned-up ACORN style faux-controversies only to be taken seriously when they favor our preferred candidate?

$5 million dollar war chest and still getting crushed in the polls. I guess you can only spend so much on campaign adds before you resort to purchasing the votes outright.

[Anonymous]

Fenty is trying to take advantage of early voting by canvassing neighborhoods for possible voters, registered or not. This gives him two weeks instead of one day of vote buying.

[Anonymous]

My guess: With all that money, Fenty has hired lots of kids to go try to get the vote out (like the old "walking-around money in Chicago elections of bygone days). These kids tell other kids about the available money from the aptly named green team, and the message gets garbled.

Personally, I have felt the influx of money to be the ruination of Fenty from his early days on the Council.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So answer me one question, as you seem like a pretty sharp guy, and a follower of politics: How does this make *any* sense whatsoever from a campaign strategy perspective. Are you suggesting that there's some unofficial policy of offering people $100 to register and vote for Fenty? And that this is going on with any sort of regularity?

Lots of things happen for reasons that I can't explain. For instance, I can't explain why Mayor Fenty announced a couple of days ago that he had asked President Obama for an endorsement and then said today that he doesn't expect an endorsement. Why doesn't Fenty just hold a press conference now and tell everyone that Obama has refused to endorse him? What kind of political strategy is that? For that matter, how does someone in Fenty's position even find himself in a close election? In my view, political strategy is not Fenty's strong point so there is a lot that he does that I can't explain. But, regardless of whether I can explain this, it deserves a proper investigation.

Anonymous wrote:It makes no sense whatsoever. Other than as campaign fodder. Or are these ginned-up ACORN style faux-controversies only to be taken seriously when they favor our preferred candidate?

I don't understand what you are asking. As you mentioned above, ACORN faked a few registrations for people like Mickey Mouse who were unlikely to show up and vote (to say the least). In this case, the guy actually voted. It is not the first accusation of this sort. Another guy claimed to have been paid $100 to vote for Fenty last week. This is not ginned up. It may be being hyped by the Gray campaign, but it would be almost criminal of them not to hype it. The onus is on Fenty to show that he takes such charges seriously and will act to prevent vote-buying. So far, he has not done that. Combined with his veto of the vote-buying bill, Fenty gives all signs of wanting to buy votes. He put himself in this predicament. Ask him to explain why it makes sense.

Sorry, I still say it's crap. *You* say the guy actually voted, but if you go back and read it, that's not what the article said. There was one guy who claimed to have been offered a job paying $100 *per* *day* by someone claiming to work for the Fenty campaign team. As a condition of that employment, this Williams character claims he was required to register to vote, and then vote for Fenty. Someone else claims they got the same deal. Someone in the Fenty campaign says there's no record that this Williams person ever even actually voted.

Again, please explain how this strategy of wholesale vote buying is supposed to operate. Because I don't see it. There's a difference between "bad strategy" and "surrealist strategy". Frankly, the fact that you're riding this thing for all it's worth makes me question the validity of some of the (somewhat compelling) previous stuff you've written about Fenty.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, the fact that you're riding this thing for all it's worth makes me question the validity of some of the (somewhat compelling) previous stuff you've written about Fenty.

Frankly, what you are writing is making me question your ability to read. Dorrie has quoted the relevant part of the article. Do you have further questions?

Unlike her, I'm not sure Fenty is such an innocent party. His reaction today was basically, "If you bring me undeniable proof of vote buying, I will investigate." I think a statement saying, "we are going to investigate this and any wrong-doing will be reported to the authorities" would be a whole lot more compelling.

You may well be correct that a strategy of vote buying is surreal. What part of Fenty's strategy hasn't been? Fenty having Sinclair Skinner and Ron Moten as his brain trust is pretty surreal if you ask me.

[Anonymous]

Ok, fine. Show me two- or three-hundred more verified cases of "vote-buying" and you might have a point. Until then, it's just the same election-week B.S. and grappling we see in every single election, in every democracy since Athens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, fine. Show me two- or three-hundred more verified cases of "vote-buying" and you might have a point. Until then, it's just the same election-week B.S. and grappling we see in every single election, in every democracy since Athens.

Why waste the time and energy. You would find a reason, excuse, explanation or plausible deniability for such actions whether someone presented you with one more example or one-thousand more examples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, fine. Show me two- or three-hundred more verified cases of "vote-buying" and you might have a point. Until then, it's just the same election-week B.S. and grappling we see in every single election, in every democracy since Athens.

In most elections, vote-buying allegations are usually investigated thoroughly, and at least in the last few decades with the open cooperation of the party in question. And I do not think that you need two hundred cases to make the point. The law prohibits vote buying, not large scale vote buying. I don't know any other area of law where two hundred separate charges must be proven in order to obtain one conviction.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, the fact that you're riding this thing for all it's worth makes me question the validity of some of the (somewhat compelling) previous stuff you've written about Fenty.

Frankly, what you are writing is making me question your ability to read. Dorrie has quoted the relevant part of the article. Do you have further questions?

Unlike her, I'm not sure Fenty is such an innocent party. His reaction today was basically, "If you bring me undeniable proof of vote buying, I will investigate." I think a statement saying, "we are going to investigate this and any wrong-doing will be reported to the authorities" would be a whole lot more compelling.

You may well be correct that a strategy of vote buying is surreal. What part of Fenty's strategy hasn't been? Fenty having Sinclair Skinner and Ron Moten as his brain trust is pretty surreal if you ask me.

Different poster here. I can see how this could be volunteers (rogue or otherwise) garbling the message and I'm not convinced this is a widespread vote-buying operation -- but I think Jeff points out a key problem here -- that the extent to which Skinner and Moten are involved in his campaign is troubling, primarily because those two seem to operate in a slipshod manner, which leads them to be involved in things that at best seem questionable and at worst look like corruption. This "relationship" or whatever with people who seem to feel they were promised payment to vote a certain way is just one more thing that suggests a certain overall way of doing things that is less than straightforward.