In my opinion, it should be illegal to pay people to gather signatures in order for a candidate to gain access to the ballot. That signature gathering task should be performed by volunteers. If candidates do not have enough grass roots support to have sufficient volunteers to do the job, then their name should not be on the ballot.

[new] ACORN pays their people to register voters… are they buying voters?,/blockquote>

Most people registered by ACORN are Democrats so can we implicate the Democrats as paying for voters?

Everybody should be registered to vote. It is a constitutional right. The fact that we have to pay somebody to go out and actually register people to vote is, in my opinion, shameful. But the history of disenfranchising voters through purges, poll tests and taxes… in word and deed the difficulty put before many of those who’ve been disenfranchised… makes this the much much lesser evil.

Paying for signatures on a ballot petition or for a single candidate is furthering the interest of one and only one person. Paying for voter registration registers voters.

When you allow payment for people to gather signatures, you also open the door for many possible abuses, particularly in the age of Citizens United.

I endorsed, and volunteered, for Jamie Eldridge’s campaign for the MA-05 special election primary. But the manner in which the candidates comported themselves therein meant that I had no real problem working for Tsongas when she won (despite the fact she was about 3rd or 4th on my preferred list of candidates). And when Eileen Donughue, who came in second to Tsongas, ran for the state Senate a couple cycles later, I happily jumped on board that campaign.

We’re all on the same side, and the candidate that realizes this can benefit even as the underdog. Maybe now, maybe later. Maybe on just moving the debate and pushing the issues. But a defensive candidate attacking on nonissues who persists in some notion that she just merely deserves consideration for existing, well…if we’re set on edge over this, it’s because the edge was already created.

I’m the FIRST person to debate “on the issues” with a candidate who wants to engage in that manner. Read my posts from the MA-05 race. (Where me and my coblogger Mimi were at odds because her first choice candidate was my second choice, and vice versa.)

Ahh, good times. Especially compared to this flame war we never asked for.

What frustrates me is the disregard (or ignorance) for how things work. Anyone can declare himself a candidate. That’s not enough to be taken seriously. You need money and/or organization. Not having met or seen her, I’m hesitant to make a judgment about Defranco’s personality. All I can do is make inferences, which, given the campaign and the attitude, are not good ones.

The original poster deleted the whole pic. Awww, controversy makes them unhappy.

Can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen, peeps! And if you don’t like being debated, then don’t ask for debates. LMFAO!

I never got a call. Maybe they were smart enough to mark me early as a Warren supporter, but I doubt it – since my blog doesn’t use my last name in an obvious way, and the people doing the marking are usually the volunteers who might not be up on the latest in blogavism.

Calling 1.5 weeks ahead shows me disorganization, though, I suppose, at least it’s something.

I had a call from the Neal campaign as well. Said the same thing. The Nuciforo people had shown up at our caucus, and I received a couple of phone calls, but running on a platform of term limits and knowing that he had planned to run against John Olver, I had less than no interest in him.

And for the record, you are probably the most even-handed person on this board, more willing than most to listen and respond to concerns of our differently-winged brethren without getting personal.

Yes, the votes are public. The convention is a representative body and votes for candidates are taken by roll call. There have been rumors at every contested convention I’ve attended of tally-fixing, but I’ve never seen evidence.

Finally, to Roger it sounds like Johnt001 is walking back which exact event he met her, but as an activist I don’t doubt for a second that he did meet her somewhere and did ask her to be in touch. Even if he were legitimately mistaken your accusations of lying are still obnoxious. I still think your more than just a run-of-the-mill volunteer if you can claim to know every place she has and hasn’t been. I volunteer for Elizabeth Warren in Lowell. I know a handful of places she has been where I have seen her, but if you say you saw her at some other event that I happened not to attend, who am I to say, “No you didn’t, you liar!”? I’d also love to know where I attacked you personally. The “worst” I have done is point out where it appeared there were some gaps in your knowledge of how things work, but if that’s personal to you grow a thicker skin. If I do say so myself I think I have a fairly decent reputation here of not getting personal.

The whole point is that Warren will be a better speaker and have more reasonable positions than DeFranco, to give her more gravitas and stature.

I guessed 2500 (big ballpark) with 32 districts. By this guesstimate, Defranco will need plus or minus 350 delegates to get 15%.

Bye bye. You just lost a BUNCH of votes on this thread.

When there were three rounds of voting, the insiders were able to pull Gabrielli some votes via backchannel deals. However, that was before Walsh’s time, and using an entirely different set of convention rules. If you can say anything for the new rules, it’s that the chips will fall where they may one way or another.

ESPECIALLY after they hear Warren speak vs. DeFranco. A lot of undecideds will go Warren.

Now, I can do a survey and find out for sure, but it seems like outside 495 has been largely ignored.

Regarding the slate thing, precisely. You gotta do the work to get the votes at convention. This is how Deval Patrick got his endorsement – rank, ground-level organizing.

In Lowell, it would have been EASY to get some delegates elected specifically on the DeFranco slate, though we’re largely Warren country it would seem. There are EMPTY seats in many of our wards. This would have been easy to figure out based on past caucuses.

I will say this: DeFranco was AT our caucus herself (and of course made one of her gut-flinching speeches that I hate, where she sounds defensive and victim-y), but there was no organization that I could see. A speech does not delegates make.

Whatever, if he doesn’t think I know what I’m talking about and am somehow a Warren campaign staffer, everyone else knows differently and can judge this guy for what he is – an astroturfer, at best.

Now, call me a liar again. Please.

Your attitude, Roger, is the same as every other Warren supporter we’ve seen on this board lately. Your behavior towards people you most likely agree with is what is reprehensible, and you’re doing your candidate no favors. You really should quit while you’re behind…

But, man, what is your goal here?

Is it to protect your pride or help your candidate?

You’ve reached a point where the two are in contradiction. Before you dig yourself in too much deeper, why don’t you take a breather? Why not contact some of 39 other volunteers on the campaign and get some feedback on how best to proceed?

Undoubtedly your Political Director will have a more effective strategy than picking a fight with everyone on BMG.

If someone says that they have met Marisa DeFranco at an event that she did not attend this is a lie pure and simple. I’m sorry that this site is so pro-Warren that they have dissolved into attacking the only remaining Democratic Candidate but that is what has happened and it’s pathetic.

Many of the attacks on Marisa on this site I have found to be disgusting and untrue and I have responded to them of my own volition. You will find that I have NOT made such attacks against Elizabeth Warren.

You want to support your candidate fine. But saying that the campaign hasn’t worked hard to contact every delegate is wrong. It’s offensive to those of us that have given several hours of our time to get a candidate that we believe in on the ballot by calling delegate after delegate.

It is also false and unfair to characterize answers to interviewers questions as “gloming on” to right wing attacks on Warren’s heritage. If you think that setting the record straight on this reflects badly on the DeFranco campaign then so be it.

Unfortunately Christopher you and several of your colleagues have chosen to attack me personally as opposed to respond to my arguments. That just shows me that my arguments are sound and I am making points that you cannot refute. Otherwise you would attempt to refute them as opposed to attacking me.

Quite frankly the behavior of many Democrats towards someone who’s politics they most likely agree with has left me embarrassed for the party. It certainly doesn’t leave me wanting to vote for any of them ever again. Maybe you guys should think about that when you act so hatefully towards one of your own. By the time you are through you won’t have anyone left in your big tent.

And again all of the comments made on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the campaign or the candidate herself.

Be that as it may, I have met her more than once, and each time I reminded her that I wanted her to call me. As Outreach Director of the Greater Blackstone Valley Dems, I wanted her to come to a meeting and talk to our members. She never called or emailed, Roger – sorry, that is just the truth.

Your ad-hominim attacks just show that I have a point. You can’t engage in

By the way, I am a volunteer for the campaign yet speak for myself.

John you stated above that you had met Marisa DeFranco at the “first meeting” for ProgMass and that she didn’t respond to you. Since she didn’t attend this event there is no way that this exchange took place.

One can only hope, for their sake, that this is not how they do blog outreach.

If the signature gatherers were compensated solely by the hour, then I don’t see the issue, but if they were paid by the name or other variable means, then I consider it less than wholesome.

I wish her, and you, well.

An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

I advise you to actually read the Wikipedia article. It will prove educational.

Since no one here knows you from Adam, you are not a victim of any sort of ad hominem attack. Instead, here and elsewhere the response has been to the content of what you wrote. If you write stupid stuff and people say, “That’s stupid stuff!” then then it is dressing up your whining in misspelled and misunderstood Latin to write

John this is nothing more than an ad-hominim.

I replied to you with my full name and a partial list of my progressive bona fides on another comment thread, but here it is again – I’m John Tehan from Milford.

Now you’re going to tell me that I’m mistaken, because the campaign may have left a message with a third party? Or maybe I didn’t get called at all, since I told Marisa’s canvasser at the caucus that I had already decided to support Warren? Or maybe your database will say that I was contacted, and you’ll call me a liar – of course, the person who entered the information saying I was contacted might be the liar, but, whatever…

For me, the kicker is that you’re admitting that the DeFranco campaign didn’t reach out to delegates they identified as Warren supporters. Yet you call Lynne a liar for saying she’s talked to many delegates who said they hadn’t been contacted by the DeFranco campaign. Do you realize how stupid this makes you look?

As a point of information paying signature gatherers is NOT paying for signatures. Weather the signature gatherer is paid or not is irrelevant. Every person who signs does so of their own volition without pay and they don’t know or care if the signature gatherer is a volunteer or a paid participant. Saying that the candidate “paid for signatures”, implies that those who signed the petition were paid to do so, and that’s not right.

John,

Give me your real name and where you are from and I’ll tell you for sure if you are a liar or not, or just mistaken. By the way, this is MY real name and you are welcome to contact me on Facebook if you desire to remain anonymous.

If it turns out that you have indeed been contacted, even if a message was left with a third party that you were not told about are you willing to say so publicly? I’d be happy to do the same.

Keep in mind also that people who were identified as strong for Warren previous to this month were not contacted. Also, bad numbers and full mailboxes were not contacted either.

The DeFranco campaign made a phone call to my machine last week, but as far as I can tell, she has never campaigned this side of Worcester. Warren, on the other hand, has been out here at least four times.

One wants to win. The other wants to be a gadfly.

Tell you what. If the person in question would come forward and correct their mistake I would be happy to apologize for insinuating that it was done on purpose. Mistakes happen and are acceptable as long as they are corrected as soon as possible. My hope is that this was all it was.

The delegates in question may have been correct at the time they posted what they posted. But their statements are no longer correct. Let me ask you this David, do you think that a delegate who claims not to have been called report back to us if they are subsequently called? I would hope out of a sense of honor that one or two will.

Clearly I was referring to what the anecdotes said not weather she heard anecdotes. I have no idea weather she heard anecdotes or whom she heard them from and it’s irrelevant. The information contained in these anecdotes is false.

“You just showed up and you’re lecturing us.”

I see, so I do not have the right to correct the dissemination of false information because I just got here? Tell me when do I earn that right?

The information contained in Lynne’s post was false and I resent the defense of the dissemination of false information for ANY reason.

You are doing yourself and your candidate no favors by charging out of the gate like this. It seems pretty obvious to me that you don’t spend much time on blogs, or know much about how they roll. Here’s an important hint: credibility is earned over time. Lynne and a number of others you’ve attacked have already earned it. You have not. You might want to start trying.

My hope is that you are just misinformed and aren’t someone from the Warren campaign or one of her supporters spreading lies to prevent Marisa from getting her 15%.

I think you’d agree that such tactics would be pretty disgusting and have no place in the democratic party.

Furthermore, a statement beginning “all the anecdotes I’ve heard” is neither refuted nor even answered by “That’s false too”. We know who Lynne is. We know she’d hear from other activists. We have an idea that she’s an honest reporter.

You on the other hand…

I am all for opinion especially on a message board. I am against the spread of misinformation. Doing so is something that we should be all against as that’s what the other guys do.

To say that Marisa DeFranco has “glommed on” to the Cherokee Indian story is completely inaccurate. She IS however repeatedly asked about it during interviews and appearances. Often the talk show host or interviewer may give their opinion on the subject. Obviously the candidate isn’t responsible for the questions asked during an interview, nor is she responsible for the opinions of the talk show host interviewing her.

Her comments have never suggested that Warren was unqualified to be a professor or that her listing herself as a Cherokee Indian disqualifies her from being Senator or an honorable person in general. She HAS said that the whole thing has been handled quite poorly by her and her campaign as it’s still a story weeks after it initially broke. That’s quite different than the right wing argument that you falsely accuse her of glomming on to.

“All the anecdotes I’ve heard so far from delegates indicates DeFranco hasn’t even done the VERY minimum of work. One phone call per delegate shouldn’t be any harder than signatures.”

That’s false too.

I dare you to find a single interview where DeFranco has ever said that Ms. Warren was at Harvard because she said she was Cherokee

I’ll be in the First Hampden/Hampshire District.

I’ll email everyone who posted their address and maybe we can connect. I’ll see Sabutai at the MTA breakfast.

We can argue about who’s better, but when it comes down to it, you were chosen to represent your community as you see fit and you should do so.

Sorry to hear about your troubles at home. I’ll keep you in my thoughts.

I’ll be in the Brighton delegation and oh-so-proud to cast my vote for Elizabeth Warren. If anyone would like to meet, email me at dbreiff.at.yahoo.com.

I’m not seeing it myself.

When I was at the 2002 convention, candidates, after they made their 15%, released their delegates to vote for other candidates on subsequent ballots. Do they still do that? I won’t vote for DeFranco, even if Elizabeth Warren offers to cook dinner at my house.

Remember, Gab got his by backroom maneuvering too, it wasn’t like he got them all on his lonesome. That was a three way race of course, but still.

She just does not come across as a serious candidate. That will show on the convention floor, and influence undecided delegates not to bother to help her.

All the anecdotes I’ve heard so far from delegates indicates DeFranco hasn’t even done the VERY minimum of work. One phone call per delegate shouldn’t be any harder than signatures.

As one who froze my bum off many Saturday mornings in front of a Post Office in February and March doing actual, hard work collecting signatures for Elizabeth, I’m seriously put out by this revelation in the NYT.

Getting 10,000 signatures by paying for them — even only some of them — is a hollow victory. If DeFranco can’t even get signatures without paying for them, then what pray tell earns her a place on the ballot?

It’s a threshold, just like the signatures. And its a test of a campaign’s field just like the signatures. You know you need 15%, you know the number of total Delegates, you can research the usual turnout. Campaigns need to do their homework. Call and ID Delegates. Make sure they are attending. It’s basic GOTV.

No one “gave” the candidates their signatures – they worked to earn them (paid collectors or not). No one should “give” the candidates 15%. They should work to earn the votes at the Convention.

I predict that Marisa gets her 15%. Elizabeth is the overwhelming winner of the Dem Primary on Sept. 6th and the winner of the November election by 2-4%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-11-nader-signaturees_x.htm

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/2427264/voters-outreach-connection-to-nader-campaign?clienttype=printable

Of course, we don’t really know how Marisa De actually got her signatures. I don’t think that, even if she really had 40 volunteers, that number of volunteers could get 10,000 certified signatures. Remember how Ralph Nader had republican help to get onto the ballot? Do we really know how Marisa got her signatures?

If she is really serious about running, she should release four years of tax returns BEFORE the convention. What is she hiding?