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

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is really sleazy. She needs to go.

LOL. Of all the unethical things that take place daily among DC politicians, taking a poll for which a candidate later has to reimburse the costs of is the final straw for you?

Not the final straw because there are a thousand reasons to get rid of her. She is a truly awful person. I don't know why people like her even go into politics. She seems to despise voters.

And no one fought harder than Silverman to keep schools closed here long, long, long after they had opened everywhere else. We're now seeing the results of that in the ridiculously bad test scores coming out of DC that are a direct result. That alone should be disqualifying.

But since you asked, and regarding this in particular:

1. You can't spend campaign money on races in which you're not even running!

2. You can't use public money to thwart the will of voters. If she hadn't done this, Goulet would have won.

3. All of this is obviously an illegal in-kind contribution to the other candidates in that race.

Multiple, serious violations.

Not the final straw. Just another reason to get finally get rid of her.

I claim BS on this.

The person who won the primary has DEEP ties across Ward 3, had a ton of organic support in the form of donations and volunteers at public places throughout the campaign. He was the clear leader from the drop of the hat, ran a solid campiaign and would have won, with, or without Silveman;s interference.

There is absolutely no proof that Goulet would have won, because his only real support was among developers and the Washington Post endorsement.

So it was just a coincidence that Silverman polled voters in the middle of the summer, right before an election, in which she wasn't a candidate, in a contest where the moderate Democrats was poised to win, because progressives were splitting their votes among other candidates, and shortly after Silverman conducted the poll, some of those progressive candidates suddenly dropped out, allowing the lefties to unite behind a single candidate to defeat the moderate? That was just happenstance?

Three progressive candidates suddenly dropped out of the race within a week of Silverman's poll, even though people were just beginning to vote, and they threw their support behind Frumin, the candidate Silverman backed. Probably just a random series of events though...

Are you new to politics? This is pretty standard stuff. Do you remember Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Steyer dropping out of the Democratic primary just before the South Carolina vote? That was to help Biden and prevent Sanders from winning. Did you collapse on your fainting couch back then? Do you think there might have been a poll or two involved?

You're skipping over a few facts. The other progressive candidates refused to drop out -- that's why Silverman conducted the poll, to show them Goulet was going to win. Polling in local races is sparse and those other candidates couldnt afford polling because they had run through all their money. That's why Silverman stepped in with this highly illegal arrangement. I do enjoy though how Silverman just blatantly lies about how the poll had nothing to do with any of that, that she just wanted to know what people there were thinking.

I don't think you are in a position to know Silverman's motives unless you are a skilled mindreader. But, again, using polls to demonstrate that vote splitting is hurting a candidate is just normal political behavior. No different than what happened before the Democratic primary in South Carolina. No different than what happens in elections all over the place. The fact that a poll was used to convince candidates to drop out is perfectly normal and not unethical in the least. The only issue that concerned OCF was who paid for it. OCF determined that public funds shouldn't have been used, not that a poll shouldn't have been taken.

Keep digging. By your own admission she illegally used public funds to influence an election. You previously have argued that DFER’s now proven legal support to Goulet was disqualifying. It’s cool if you want to be like this. But just understand that you’re not fooling anyone.

Yes, DFER's legal support of Goulet was disqualifying. Not because it was illegal or unethical, but because of what it represents. Maybe you like your politicians to be bought and paid for by out-of-state big money interests who want to privatize education, but too bad for you, Ward 3 voters didn't.

Let's not forget that DFER paid for a poll and shared the results with Goulet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is really sleazy. She needs to go.

LOL. Of all the unethical things that take place daily among DC politicians, taking a poll for which a candidate later has to reimburse the costs of is the final straw for you?

Not the final straw because there are a thousand reasons to get rid of her. She is a truly awful person. I don't know why people like her even go into politics. She seems to despise voters.

And no one fought harder than Silverman to keep schools closed here long, long, long after they had opened everywhere else. We're now seeing the results of that in the ridiculously bad test scores coming out of DC that are a direct result. That alone should be disqualifying.

But since you asked, and regarding this in particular:

1. You can't spend campaign money on races in which you're not even running!

2. You can't use public money to thwart the will of voters. If she hadn't done this, Goulet would have won.

3. All of this is obviously an illegal in-kind contribution to the other candidates in that race.

Multiple, serious violations.

Not the final straw. Just another reason to get finally get rid of her.

I claim BS on this.

The person who won the primary has DEEP ties across Ward 3, had a ton of organic support in the form of donations and volunteers at public places throughout the campaign. He was the clear leader from the drop of the hat, ran a solid campiaign and would have won, with, or without Silveman;s interference.

There is absolutely no proof that Goulet would have won, because his only real support was among developers and the Washington Post endorsement.

So it was just a coincidence that Silverman polled voters in the middle of the summer, right before an election, in which she wasn't a candidate, in a contest where the moderate Democrats was poised to win, because progressives were splitting their votes among other candidates, and shortly after Silverman conducted the poll, some of those progressive candidates suddenly dropped out, allowing the lefties to unite behind a single candidate to defeat the moderate? That was just happenstance?

Three progressive candidates suddenly dropped out of the race within a week of Silverman's poll, even though people were just beginning to vote, and they threw their support behind Frumin, the candidate Silverman backed. Probably just a random series of events though...

Are you new to politics? This is pretty standard stuff. Do you remember Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Steyer dropping out of the Democratic primary just before the South Carolina vote? That was to help Biden and prevent Sanders from winning. Did you collapse on your fainting couch back then? Do you think there might have been a poll or two involved?

You're skipping over a few facts. The other progressive candidates refused to drop out -- that's why Silverman conducted the poll, to show them Goulet was going to win. Polling in local races is sparse and those other candidates couldnt afford polling because they had run through all their money. That's why Silverman stepped in with this highly illegal arrangement. I do enjoy though how Silverman just blatantly lies about how the poll had nothing to do with any of that, that she just wanted to know what people there were thinking.

This also shows just how much Silverman hates mainstream Democrats -- so much that she was willing to break election laws to prevent them from being duly elected. Voters take note. Time to throw this extremist nutjob out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is really sleazy. She needs to go.

LOL. Of all the unethical things that take place daily among DC politicians, taking a poll for which a candidate later has to reimburse the costs of is the final straw for you?

Not the final straw because there are a thousand reasons to get rid of her. She is a truly awful person. I don't know why people like her even go into politics. She seems to despise voters.

And no one fought harder than Silverman to keep schools closed here long, long, long after they had opened everywhere else. We're now seeing the results of that in the ridiculously bad test scores coming out of DC that are a direct result. That alone should be disqualifying.

But since you asked, and regarding this in particular:

1. You can't spend campaign money on races in which you're not even running!

2. You can't use public money to thwart the will of voters. If she hadn't done this, Goulet would have won.

3. All of this is obviously an illegal in-kind contribution to the other candidates in that race.

Multiple, serious violations.

Not the final straw. Just another reason to get finally get rid of her.

I claim BS on this.

The person who won the primary has DEEP ties across Ward 3, had a ton of organic support in the form of donations and volunteers at public places throughout the campaign. He was the clear leader from the drop of the hat, ran a solid campiaign and would have won, with, or without Silveman;s interference.

There is absolutely no proof that Goulet would have won, because his only real support was among developers and the Washington Post endorsement.

So it was just a coincidence that Silverman polled voters in the middle of the summer, right before an election, in which she wasn't a candidate, in a contest where the moderate Democrats was poised to win, because progressives were splitting their votes among other candidates, and shortly after Silverman conducted the poll, some of those progressive candidates suddenly dropped out, allowing the lefties to unite behind a single candidate to defeat the moderate? That was just happenstance?

Three progressive candidates suddenly dropped out of the race within a week of Silverman's poll, even though people were just beginning to vote, and they threw their support behind Frumin, the candidate Silverman backed. Probably just a random series of events though...

Are you new to politics? This is pretty standard stuff. Do you remember Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Steyer dropping out of the Democratic primary just before the South Carolina vote? That was to help Biden and prevent Sanders from winning. Did you collapse on your fainting couch back then? Do you think there might have been a poll or two involved?

You're skipping over a few facts. The other progressive candidates refused to drop out -- that's why Silverman conducted the poll, to show them Goulet was going to win. Polling in local races is sparse and those other candidates couldnt afford polling because they had run through all their money. That's why Silverman stepped in with this highly illegal arrangement. I do enjoy though how Silverman just blatantly lies about how the poll had nothing to do with any of that, that she just wanted to know what people there were thinking.

You can see why Goulet would think the only reason he didnt win was because Silverman broke the law. It would be poetic justice though if Silverman's sleaziness on this cost her her own seat.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is really sleazy. She needs to go.

LOL. Of all the unethical things that take place daily among DC politicians, taking a poll for which a candidate later has to reimburse the costs of is the final straw for you?

Not the final straw because there are a thousand reasons to get rid of her. She is a truly awful person. I don't know why people like her even go into politics. She seems to despise voters.

And no one fought harder than Silverman to keep schools closed here long, long, long after they had opened everywhere else. We're now seeing the results of that in the ridiculously bad test scores coming out of DC that are a direct result. That alone should be disqualifying.

But since you asked, and regarding this in particular:

1. You can't spend campaign money on races in which you're not even running!

2. You can't use public money to thwart the will of voters. If she hadn't done this, Goulet would have won.

3. All of this is obviously an illegal in-kind contribution to the other candidates in that race.

Multiple, serious violations.

Not the final straw. Just another reason to get finally get rid of her.

I claim BS on this.

The person who won the primary has DEEP ties across Ward 3, had a ton of organic support in the form of donations and volunteers at public places throughout the campaign. He was the clear leader from the drop of the hat, ran a solid campiaign and would have won, with, or without Silveman;s interference.

There is absolutely no proof that Goulet would have won, because his only real support was among developers and the Washington Post endorsement.

So it was just a coincidence that Silverman polled voters in the middle of the summer, right before an election, in which she wasn't a candidate, in a contest where the moderate Democrats was poised to win, because progressives were splitting their votes among other candidates, and shortly after Silverman conducted the poll, some of those progressive candidates suddenly dropped out, allowing the lefties to unite behind a single candidate to defeat the moderate? That was just happenstance?

Three progressive candidates suddenly dropped out of the race within a week of Silverman's poll, even though people were just beginning to vote, and they threw their support behind Frumin, the candidate Silverman backed. Probably just a random series of events though...

Are you new to politics? This is pretty standard stuff. Do you remember Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Steyer dropping out of the Democratic primary just before the South Carolina vote? That was to help Biden and prevent Sanders from winning. Did you collapse on your fainting couch back then? Do you think there might have been a poll or two involved?

You're skipping over a few facts. The other progressive candidates refused to drop out -- that's why Silverman conducted the poll, to show them Goulet was going to win. Polling in local races is sparse and those other candidates couldnt afford polling because they had run through all their money. That's why Silverman stepped in with this highly illegal arrangement. I do enjoy though how Silverman just blatantly lies about how the poll had nothing to do with any of that, that she just wanted to know what people there were thinking.

This also shows just how much Silverman hates mainstream Democrats -- so much that she was willing to break election laws to prevent them from being duly elected. Voters take note. Time to throw this extremist nutjob out.

Not true at all. First of all, disagreeing with someone about politics doesn't mean you "hate" them. It just means you think there are others better suited to serve. Matt Frumin is pretty mainstream himself. The main difference between Frumin and Goulet was not their positions, but the fact that Frumin has deep roots in the community whereas Goulet had done little for the ward and was strongly backed by outside money.

And, again, Silverman wasn't "willing to break election laws". She didn't think she was. If she thought it was illegal, she wouldn't have told everyone about it or reported it on her OCF filings.

The fact that you folks repeatedly lie about this and are acting like she committed murder rather than simply misinterpreted complex rules is very telling. You obviously can't win an argument about policy or effectiveness and have to stoop to this to make a case against her. Sad. Very sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is really sleazy. She needs to go.

LOL. Of all the unethical things that take place daily among DC politicians, taking a poll for which a candidate later has to reimburse the costs of is the final straw for you?

Not the final straw because there are a thousand reasons to get rid of her. She is a truly awful person. I don't know why people like her even go into politics. She seems to despise voters.

And no one fought harder than Silverman to keep schools closed here long, long, long after they had opened everywhere else. We're now seeing the results of that in the ridiculously bad test scores coming out of DC that are a direct result. That alone should be disqualifying.

But since you asked, and regarding this in particular:

1. You can't spend campaign money on races in which you're not even running!

2. You can't use public money to thwart the will of voters. If she hadn't done this, Goulet would have won.

3. All of this is obviously an illegal in-kind contribution to the other candidates in that race.

Multiple, serious violations.

Not the final straw. Just another reason to get finally get rid of her.

I claim BS on this.

The person who won the primary has DEEP ties across Ward 3, had a ton of organic support in the form of donations and volunteers at public places throughout the campaign. He was the clear leader from the drop of the hat, ran a solid campiaign and would have won, with, or without Silveman;s interference.

There is absolutely no proof that Goulet would have won, because his only real support was among developers and the Washington Post endorsement.

So it was just a coincidence that Silverman polled voters in the middle of the summer, right before an election, in which she wasn't a candidate, in a contest where the moderate Democrats was poised to win, because progressives were splitting their votes among other candidates, and shortly after Silverman conducted the poll, some of those progressive candidates suddenly dropped out, allowing the lefties to unite behind a single candidate to defeat the moderate? That was just happenstance?

Three progressive candidates suddenly dropped out of the race within a week of Silverman's poll, even though people were just beginning to vote, and they threw their support behind Frumin, the candidate Silverman backed. Probably just a random series of events though...

Teh canddiates who dropped out had single digit numbers of contributions in the previous filing period. Their campaigns were already dead.

And if you think Silverman did this to support Fruin, you really don't understand DC politics. She wanted to support a PROGRESSIVE. Frumin isn't a progressive, and none of the progressives in the race proved to be viable. Frumin was the best option of what was viable, compared to Goulet.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is really sleazy. She needs to go.

LOL. Of all the unethical things that take place daily among DC politicians, taking a poll for which a candidate later has to reimburse the costs of is the final straw for you?

Not the final straw because there are a thousand reasons to get rid of her. She is a truly awful person. I don't know why people like her even go into politics. She seems to despise voters.

And no one fought harder than Silverman to keep schools closed here long, long, long after they had opened everywhere else. We're now seeing the results of that in the ridiculously bad test scores coming out of DC that are a direct result. That alone should be disqualifying.

But since you asked, and regarding this in particular:

1. You can't spend campaign money on races in which you're not even running!

2. You can't use public money to thwart the will of voters. If she hadn't done this, Goulet would have won.

3. All of this is obviously an illegal in-kind contribution to the other candidates in that race.

Multiple, serious violations.

Not the final straw. Just another reason to get finally get rid of her.

I claim BS on this.

The person who won the primary has DEEP ties across Ward 3, had a ton of organic support in the form of donations and volunteers at public places throughout the campaign. He was the clear leader from the drop of the hat, ran a solid campiaign and would have won, with, or without Silveman;s interference.

There is absolutely no proof that Goulet would have won, because his only real support was among developers and the Washington Post endorsement.

So it was just a coincidence that Silverman polled voters in the middle of the summer, right before an election, in which she wasn't a candidate, in a contest where the moderate Democrats was poised to win, because progressives were splitting their votes among other candidates, and shortly after Silverman conducted the poll, some of those progressive candidates suddenly dropped out, allowing the lefties to unite behind a single candidate to defeat the moderate? That was just happenstance?

Three progressive candidates suddenly dropped out of the race within a week of Silverman's poll, even though people were just beginning to vote, and they threw their support behind Frumin, the candidate Silverman backed. Probably just a random series of events though...

Are you new to politics? This is pretty standard stuff. Do you remember Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Steyer dropping out of the Democratic primary just before the South Carolina vote? That was to help Biden and prevent Sanders from winning. Did you collapse on your fainting couch back then? Do you think there might have been a poll or two involved?

You're skipping over a few facts. The other progressive candidates refused to drop out -- that's why Silverman conducted the poll, to show them Goulet was going to win. Polling in local races is sparse and those other candidates couldnt afford polling because they had run through all their money. That's why Silverman stepped in with this highly illegal arrangement. I do enjoy though how Silverman just blatantly lies about how the poll had nothing to do with any of that, that she just wanted to know what people there were thinking.

I don't think you are in a position to know Silverman's motives unless you are a skilled mindreader. But, again, using polls to demonstrate that vote splitting is hurting a candidate is just normal political behavior. No different than what happened before the Democratic primary in South Carolina. No different than what happens in elections all over the place. The fact that a poll was used to convince candidates to drop out is perfectly normal and not unethical in the least. The only issue that concerned OCF was who paid for it. OCF determined that public funds shouldn't have been used, not that a poll shouldn't have been taken.

Keep digging. By your own admission she illegally used public funds to influence an election. You previously have argued that DFER’s now proven legal support to Goulet was disqualifying. It’s cool if you want to be like this. But just understand that you’re not fooling anyone.

Yes, DFER's legal support of Goulet was disqualifying. Not because it was illegal or unethical, but because of what it represents. Maybe you like your politicians to be bought and paid for by out-of-state big money interests who want to privatize education, but too bad for you, Ward 3 voters didn't.

Let's not forget that DFER paid for a poll and shared the results with Goulet.

Which wasn't illegal, but certainly Ward 3 voters understood what it represented and chose not to support it.

It is really hard to understand why anyone would support a DFER candidate in DC, but here we are.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is really sleazy. She needs to go.

LOL. Of all the unethical things that take place daily among DC politicians, taking a poll for which a candidate later has to reimburse the costs of is the final straw for you?

Not the final straw because there are a thousand reasons to get rid of her. She is a truly awful person. I don't know why people like her even go into politics. She seems to despise voters.

And no one fought harder than Silverman to keep schools closed here long, long, long after they had opened everywhere else. We're now seeing the results of that in the ridiculously bad test scores coming out of DC that are a direct result. That alone should be disqualifying.

But since you asked, and regarding this in particular:

1. You can't spend campaign money on races in which you're not even running!

2. You can't use public money to thwart the will of voters. If she hadn't done this, Goulet would have won.

3. All of this is obviously an illegal in-kind contribution to the other candidates in that race.

Multiple, serious violations.

Not the final straw. Just another reason to get finally get rid of her.

I claim BS on this.

The person who won the primary has DEEP ties across Ward 3, had a ton of organic support in the form of donations and volunteers at public places throughout the campaign. He was the clear leader from the drop of the hat, ran a solid campiaign and would have won, with, or without Silveman;s interference.

There is absolutely no proof that Goulet would have won, because his only real support was among developers and the Washington Post endorsement.

So it was just a coincidence that Silverman polled voters in the middle of the summer, right before an election, in which she wasn't a candidate, in a contest where the moderate Democrats was poised to win, because progressives were splitting their votes among other candidates, and shortly after Silverman conducted the poll, some of those progressive candidates suddenly dropped out, allowing the lefties to unite behind a single candidate to defeat the moderate? That was just happenstance?

Three progressive candidates suddenly dropped out of the race within a week of Silverman's poll, even though people were just beginning to vote, and they threw their support behind Frumin, the candidate Silverman backed. Probably just a random series of events though...

Are you new to politics? This is pretty standard stuff. Do you remember Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Steyer dropping out of the Democratic primary just before the South Carolina vote? That was to help Biden and prevent Sanders from winning. Did you collapse on your fainting couch back then? Do you think there might have been a poll or two involved?

You're skipping over a few facts. The other progressive candidates refused to drop out -- that's why Silverman conducted the poll, to show them Goulet was going to win. Polling in local races is sparse and those other candidates couldnt afford polling because they had run through all their money. That's why Silverman stepped in with this highly illegal arrangement. I do enjoy though how Silverman just blatantly lies about how the poll had nothing to do with any of that, that she just wanted to know what people there were thinking.

This also shows just how much Silverman hates mainstream Democrats -- so much that she was willing to break election laws to prevent them from being duly elected. Voters take note. Time to throw this extremist nutjob out.

Not true at all. First of all, disagreeing with someone about politics doesn't mean you "hate" them. It just means you think there are others better suited to serve. Matt Frumin is pretty mainstream himself. The main difference between Frumin and Goulet was not their positions, but the fact that Frumin has deep roots in the community whereas Goulet had done little for the ward and was strongly backed by outside money.

And, again, Silverman wasn't "willing to break election laws". She didn't think she was. If she thought it was illegal, she wouldn't have told everyone about it or reported it on her OCF filings.

The fact that you folks repeatedly lie about this and are acting like she committed murder rather than simply misinterpreted complex rules is very telling. You obviously can't win an argument about policy or effectiveness and have to stoop to this to make a case against her. Sad. Very sad.

This isn't subtle. This is an egregious violation of elections.

1. You're not allowed to spend campaign money on races in which you're not even running.

2. You can't use public money to thwart the will of voters. If Silverman hadn't done this, Goulet would have won.

3. All of this is *plainly* an illegal in-kind contribution to the other candidates in that race.

I'm sure if Republicans did something like this, you'd be all over them. At least try to be consistent.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is really sleazy. She needs to go.

LOL. Of all the unethical things that take place daily among DC politicians, taking a poll for which a candidate later has to reimburse the costs of is the final straw for you?

Not the final straw because there are a thousand reasons to get rid of her. She is a truly awful person. I don't know why people like her even go into politics. She seems to despise voters.

And no one fought harder than Silverman to keep schools closed here long, long, long after they had opened everywhere else. We're now seeing the results of that in the ridiculously bad test scores coming out of DC that are a direct result. That alone should be disqualifying.

But since you asked, and regarding this in particular:

1. You can't spend campaign money on races in which you're not even running!

2. You can't use public money to thwart the will of voters. If she hadn't done this, Goulet would have won.

3. All of this is obviously an illegal in-kind contribution to the other candidates in that race.

Multiple, serious violations.

Not the final straw. Just another reason to get finally get rid of her.

I claim BS on this.

The person who won the primary has DEEP ties across Ward 3, had a ton of organic support in the form of donations and volunteers at public places throughout the campaign. He was the clear leader from the drop of the hat, ran a solid campiaign and would have won, with, or without Silveman;s interference.

There is absolutely no proof that Goulet would have won, because his only real support was among developers and the Washington Post endorsement.

So it was just a coincidence that Silverman polled voters in the middle of the summer, right before an election, in which she wasn't a candidate, in a contest where the moderate Democrats was poised to win, because progressives were splitting their votes among other candidates, and shortly after Silverman conducted the poll, some of those progressive candidates suddenly dropped out, allowing the lefties to unite behind a single candidate to defeat the moderate? That was just happenstance?

Three progressive candidates suddenly dropped out of the race within a week of Silverman's poll, even though people were just beginning to vote, and they threw their support behind Frumin, the candidate Silverman backed. Probably just a random series of events though...

Are you new to politics? This is pretty standard stuff. Do you remember Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Steyer dropping out of the Democratic primary just before the South Carolina vote? That was to help Biden and prevent Sanders from winning. Did you collapse on your fainting couch back then? Do you think there might have been a poll or two involved?

You're skipping over a few facts. The other progressive candidates refused to drop out -- that's why Silverman conducted the poll, to show them Goulet was going to win. Polling in local races is sparse and those other candidates couldnt afford polling because they had run through all their money. That's why Silverman stepped in with this highly illegal arrangement. I do enjoy though how Silverman just blatantly lies about how the poll had nothing to do with any of that, that she just wanted to know what people there were thinking.

This also shows just how much Silverman hates mainstream Democrats -- so much that she was willing to break election laws to prevent them from being duly elected. Voters take note. Time to throw this extremist nutjob out.

Not true at all. First of all, disagreeing with someone about politics doesn't mean you "hate" them. It just means you think there are others better suited to serve. Matt Frumin is pretty mainstream himself. The main difference between Frumin and Goulet was not their positions, but the fact that Frumin has deep roots in the community whereas Goulet had done little for the ward and was strongly backed by outside money.

And, again, Silverman wasn't "willing to break election laws". She didn't think she was. If she thought it was illegal, she wouldn't have told everyone about it or reported it on her OCF filings.

The fact that you folks repeatedly lie about this and are acting like she committed murder rather than simply misinterpreted complex rules is very telling. You obviously can't win an argument about policy or effectiveness and have to stoop to this to make a case against her. Sad. Very sad.

This isn't subtle. This is an egregious violation of elections.

1. You're not allowed to spend campaign money on races in which you're not even running.

2. You can't use public money to thwart the will of voters. If Silverman hadn't done this, Goulet would have won.

3. All of this is *plainly* an illegal in-kind contribution to the other candidates in that race.

I'm sure if Republicans did something like this, you'd be all over them. At least try to be consistent.

You are now simply repeating yourself. Expand the quotes above and you are saying the same thing word for word. The OCF did not find that that was an illegal in-kind contribution. So, quite lying. Repeating the same lie is not going to change reality. Your second point makes no sense. The poll did not thwart anyone's will. Everyone still had the right to vote for whomever they wanted.

The only issue with Silverman's poll was the funds used to pay for it. She now has to reimburse those but has no punitive damages otherwise. It's little more than an accounting error.

Why are you talking about Republicans? Are you a Republican? That would be fitting for a Goulet supporter. Frankly, I wish Republicans had done this in 2016. If Trump hadn't constantly eked out a small plurality against opponents who constantly split the vote, maybe we would not have had to endure him for 4 years.

If you are so worried about polls, why not complain about DFER's poll that they shared with Goulet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is really sleazy. She needs to go.

LOL. Of all the unethical things that take place daily among DC politicians, taking a poll for which a candidate later has to reimburse the costs of is the final straw for you?

Not the final straw because there are a thousand reasons to get rid of her. She is a truly awful person. I don't know why people like her even go into politics. She seems to despise voters.

And no one fought harder than Silverman to keep schools closed here long, long, long after they had opened everywhere else. We're now seeing the results of that in the ridiculously bad test scores coming out of DC that are a direct result. That alone should be disqualifying.

But since you asked, and regarding this in particular:

1. You can't spend campaign money on races in which you're not even running!

2. You can't use public money to thwart the will of voters. If she hadn't done this, Goulet would have won.

3. All of this is obviously an illegal in-kind contribution to the other candidates in that race.

Multiple, serious violations.

Not the final straw. Just another reason to get finally get rid of her.

I claim BS on this.

The person who won the primary has DEEP ties across Ward 3, had a ton of organic support in the form of donations and volunteers at public places throughout the campaign. He was the clear leader from the drop of the hat, ran a solid campiaign and would have won, with, or without Silveman;s interference.

There is absolutely no proof that Goulet would have won, because his only real support was among developers and the Washington Post endorsement.

So it was just a coincidence that Silverman polled voters in the middle of the summer, right before an election, in which she wasn't a candidate, in a contest where the moderate Democrats was poised to win, because progressives were splitting their votes among other candidates, and shortly after Silverman conducted the poll, some of those progressive candidates suddenly dropped out, allowing the lefties to unite behind a single candidate to defeat the moderate? That was just happenstance?

Three progressive candidates suddenly dropped out of the race within a week of Silverman's poll, even though people were just beginning to vote, and they threw their support behind Frumin, the candidate Silverman backed. Probably just a random series of events though...

Are you new to politics? This is pretty standard stuff. Do you remember Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Steyer dropping out of the Democratic primary just before the South Carolina vote? That was to help Biden and prevent Sanders from winning. Did you collapse on your fainting couch back then? Do you think there might have been a poll or two involved?

You're skipping over a few facts. The other progressive candidates refused to drop out -- that's why Silverman conducted the poll, to show them Goulet was going to win. Polling in local races is sparse and those other candidates couldnt afford polling because they had run through all their money. That's why Silverman stepped in with this highly illegal arrangement. I do enjoy though how Silverman just blatantly lies about how the poll had nothing to do with any of that, that she just wanted to know what people there were thinking.

This also shows just how much Silverman hates mainstream Democrats -- so much that she was willing to break election laws to prevent them from being duly elected. Voters take note. Time to throw this extremist nutjob out.

Not true at all. First of all, disagreeing with someone about politics doesn't mean you "hate" them. It just means you think there are others better suited to serve. Matt Frumin is pretty mainstream himself. The main difference between Frumin and Goulet was not their positions, but the fact that Frumin has deep roots in the community whereas Goulet had done little for the ward and was strongly backed by outside money.

And, again, Silverman wasn't "willing to break election laws". She didn't think she was. If she thought it was illegal, she wouldn't have told everyone about it or reported it on her OCF filings.

The fact that you folks repeatedly lie about this and are acting like she committed murder rather than simply misinterpreted complex rules is very telling. You obviously can't win an argument about policy or effectiveness and have to stoop to this to make a case against her. Sad. Very sad.

This isn't subtle. This is an egregious violation of elections.

1. You're not allowed to spend campaign money on races in which you're not even running.

2. You can't use public money to thwart the will of voters. If Silverman hadn't done this, Goulet would have won.

3. All of this is *plainly* an illegal in-kind contribution to the other candidates in that race.

I'm sure if Republicans did something like this, you'd be all over them. At least try to be consistent.

Silverman was a political reporter, who should know better. She used to cover sleaze. Now she’s in the thick of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is really sleazy. She needs to go.

LOL. Of all the unethical things that take place daily among DC politicians, taking a poll for which a candidate later has to reimburse the costs of is the final straw for you?

Not the final straw because there are a thousand reasons to get rid of her. She is a truly awful person. I don't know why people like her even go into politics. She seems to despise voters.

And no one fought harder than Silverman to keep schools closed here long, long, long after they had opened everywhere else. We're now seeing the results of that in the ridiculously bad test scores coming out of DC that are a direct result. That alone should be disqualifying.

But since you asked, and regarding this in particular:

1. You can't spend campaign money on races in which you're not even running!

2. You can't use public money to thwart the will of voters. If she hadn't done this, Goulet would have won.

3. All of this is obviously an illegal in-kind contribution to the other candidates in that race.

Multiple, serious violations.

Not the final straw. Just another reason to get finally get rid of her.

I claim BS on this.

The person who won the primary has DEEP ties across Ward 3, had a ton of organic support in the form of donations and volunteers at public places throughout the campaign. He was the clear leader from the drop of the hat, ran a solid campiaign and would have won, with, or without Silveman;s interference.

There is absolutely no proof that Goulet would have won, because his only real support was among developers and the Washington Post endorsement.

So it was just a coincidence that Silverman polled voters in the middle of the summer, right before an election, in which she wasn't a candidate, in a contest where the moderate Democrats was poised to win, because progressives were splitting their votes among other candidates, and shortly after Silverman conducted the poll, some of those progressive candidates suddenly dropped out, allowing the lefties to unite behind a single candidate to defeat the moderate? That was just happenstance?

Three progressive candidates suddenly dropped out of the race within a week of Silverman's poll, even though people were just beginning to vote, and they threw their support behind Frumin, the candidate Silverman backed. Probably just a random series of events though...

Are you new to politics? This is pretty standard stuff. Do you remember Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Steyer dropping out of the Democratic primary just before the South Carolina vote? That was to help Biden and prevent Sanders from winning. Did you collapse on your fainting couch back then? Do you think there might have been a poll or two involved?

You're skipping over a few facts. The other progressive candidates refused to drop out -- that's why Silverman conducted the poll, to show them Goulet was going to win. Polling in local races is sparse and those other candidates couldnt afford polling because they had run through all their money. That's why Silverman stepped in with this highly illegal arrangement. I do enjoy though how Silverman just blatantly lies about how the poll had nothing to do with any of that, that she just wanted to know what people there were thinking.

This also shows just how much Silverman hates mainstream Democrats -- so much that she was willing to break election laws to prevent them from being duly elected. Voters take note. Time to throw this extremist nutjob out.

Not true at all. First of all, disagreeing with someone about politics doesn't mean you "hate" them. It just means you think there are others better suited to serve. Matt Frumin is pretty mainstream himself. The main difference between Frumin and Goulet was not their positions, but the fact that Frumin has deep roots in the community whereas Goulet had done little for the ward and was strongly backed by outside money.

And, again, Silverman wasn't "willing to break election laws". She didn't think she was. If she thought it was illegal, she wouldn't have told everyone about it or reported it on her OCF filings.

The fact that you folks repeatedly lie about this and are acting like she committed murder rather than simply misinterpreted complex rules is very telling. You obviously can't win an argument about policy or effectiveness and have to stoop to this to make a case against her. Sad. Very sad.

This isn't subtle. This is an egregious violation of elections.

1. You're not allowed to spend campaign money on races in which you're not even running.

2. You can't use public money to thwart the will of voters. If Silverman hadn't done this, Goulet would have won.

3. All of this is *plainly* an illegal in-kind contribution to the other candidates in that race.

I'm sure if Republicans did something like this, you'd be all over them. At least try to be consistent.

Silverman was a political reporter, who should know better. She used to cover sleaze. Now she’s in the thick of it.

There is a massive disconnect between how she presents herself as a good governance progressive champion and how she acts, as a replacement level sleazy local politician. I would respect her more if she just owned up to who she is and what she’s doing.

[Anonymous]

don't we need that apparatus to get more candidates a chance in DC? Is it run-offs? I can't remember what it's called, but would love to see more varied political voices and less financed people have a chance too.

[Anonymous]

DC Democratic Party Chair condemns Silverman’s election interference and accuses her of low integrity.

[Anonymous]

But yet they were silent on the whole DFER thing, not just with Goulet, but the various candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But yet they were silent on the whole DFER thing, not just with Goulet, but the various candidates.

You mean the thing that OFC investigated and ruled was not illegal? That DFER thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But yet they were silent on the whole DFER thing, not just with Goulet, but the various candidates.

You mean the thing that OFC investigated and ruled was not illegal? That DFER thing?

No, outside DFER money influencing our city elections.