With regard to our Democratic candidates, we're seeing a lot of

[MineralMan]

old material, much of it originally brought forward by right-wing republicans many years, or even decades ago. We're seeing old so-called "scandals" relating to Bill and Hillary Clinton that failed to keep Bill Clinton out of the White House for two terms. With Bernie Sanders, there are all sorts of old writings by him being promulgated, as well, the say things he would never say today.

I mean, all that stuff exists. How relevant it is in 2016 is highly questionable. Personally, I'm not interested in either old Arkansas "scandals" about the Clintons, nor in rumors of things that never even happened. I'm not interested in Bernie Sanders writings in ancient publications that nobody even read at the time, from decades ago. Why would that affect my opinion of him today? He has ample very positive history and a few blunders that are more recent to examine.

Whichever candidate becomes the nominee, you can expect to see all of this irrelevant nonsense return to the media, this time fed to it by the Republicans. It's the nature of how Republicans conduct themselves, since they have nothing positive to offer.

However, I suggest that we do not suggest irrelevancies to the Republicans. None of those things are going to change Democrats primary election decisions. I'll warrant that just about everyone on this website has already decided who they support.

Let's not, please, assist the Republicans with opposition research. Let's let them spend money digging out the half-truths and rumors for themselves. Let's let them try to make decades old stuff relevant today.

Why on Earth would we help them do that? I mean, I have some theories about that, but I don't discuss my odd theories that have no actual evidence.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Big Lie: If they repeat a lie often enough,

People will believe it.

[MineralMan]

2. Yes. Well, I expect Republicans to do that.

That's their only tool. I do not expect fellow Democrats to do that, though. Perhaps they're not, really, doing that. Perhaps those who are aren't really fellow Democrats at all. Who can say?

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. For some, whether the accusation is fact or lie does not matter.

They will use anything to advance ce their argument.
They don't care about fact.

[whatchamacallit]

3. So just to be clear what Mineral Man expects

1) Anything factual that has been, or may be, used by republicans is not acceptable for discussion.

2) Anything older than unspecified-date-variable-by-convenience is irrelevant and not acceptable for discussion.

Is that correct?

[MineralMan]

4. Ah, thanks for your kick, as always.

What you have stated is your opinion of what I expect. I expect that people will do as they please. I also expect that I will comment on that. I further expect that you will continue to kick my posts with an opinion about me. I KNOW that my opinion has zero effect on what happens. But, I get to share it here, and you're happy to help more people see it. As always, you have my thanks for that.

[DrDan]

5. oh my goodness . . .

he said neither

but you knew that

[Bluenorthwest]

6. What bothers me is when a candidate brings forth material originated by right wing Republicans.....

All that polishing of Reagan's reputation and the denial of the actual heroes of the movement, the speaking about AIDS as if it was a thing of the past which belongs to the gay men alone, all of these are Republican and right wing claims and she made them of her own free will. What people say on DU, who really cares about that? As we know, many internet posters are dishonest constructs and persons with agendas driven by rabid bigotry. They are also not running for President.

I have a huge problem with your candidate's revision of history and the casual way she has tried to pretend that did not happen. She was there without the mask. And it shocked me.

[Aerows]

9. I have a bigger problem

that when people show up to vote, they can't because suddenly there is not enough ballots.

That is currently annoying the *fuck* out of me, and I have to ask why that particular situation is occurring, and hoping it isn't a dress rehearsal for November.

[Aerows]

8. I'm more concerned by the fact

that people show up to vote, and they have to wait hours because there is not enough ballots, paperwork, etc.

You are a precinct leader. Are you concerned about this?

[MineralMan]

10. Of course I am. In fact, at our precinct caucus earlier this month,

we did not have enough official ballots for the number of attendees. However, there is a standing policy about how to deal with that. I tore typing paper into quarters and people wrote the name of the candidate they wanted to vote for on those and then folded them and put them in the envelope to be counted. Our election tellers, who were elected at the caucus, counted them twice and I checked them myself for accuracy. That counting took place with all caucus attendees able to see it happen. Some stood looking over the tellers' shoulders. Perfectly OK.

Those ballots were perfectly OK under our rules. We have anticipated possible shortages and have found solutions. Our caucuses votes were counted.

In all the busy activity surrounding this, I did not ever have time to mark my own ballot. I was too busy making new ones, assisting people to find the correct precinct and doing other things to make sure everyone had a chance to vote.

Does that sound like I was unconcerned? Really? I told that story already in an OP the day after the caucus. Perhaps you didn't see it.

I have nothing whatever to do with voting in any other state but my own. We have meticulously fair elections in Minnesota. If your state does not, then you need to help make sure they do. I don't live there.

[Aerows]

12. *How* did you fail to have enough ballots?

You already have a voter roll. You knew how many people could potentially show up.

Are you expecting people to be so stupid as to believe that "I couldn't believe the turn out, despite the fact that I know exactly how many voters could turn out"?

Seriously?

[MineralMan]

16. Read my post downthread, please.

[Aerows]

11. *Crickets*

A precinct chair that has nothing to say about the inability of people to vote.

[MineralMan]

13. Look up one post.

I am not sitting at my computer at all times. I answered your question as soon as I saw it.

[Aerows]

14. MM, something fishy is going the hell on.

People have to wait hours because there are not enough ballots.

That is *FUCKED* up. I don't like to curse, particularly, but there is no other way to state it.

[MineralMan]

15. I can't speak to issues in other states.

Minnesota is a caucus state. In my precinct, which is the only one I have anything to do with, we have roughly 2200 registered voters. About 60% of those are registered Democrats. At our caucus, however, you can sign up and participate whether you are a registered voter or not.

How many ballots do we need at the caucus? Some years, we have about 12 people show up. This year, we had about 60. In 2008, we had between 150-200. The official ballot is a quarter of a sheet of paper with the eligible candidates' names and a check box. That's it. When I opened the convener's packet, I found 12 of those official ballots in it.

So, I immediately folded about 25 sheets of printer paper into quarters and tore them. Using blank paper as ballots is completely valid in our caucus system and avoids the problem altogether. When it came time to open the voting, I told the participants that we had only a small number of official ballots, so voting would be done by writing the preferred candidate on a blank piece of paper, folding it and putting it in the envelope.

Nobody cared. They were going to be able to vote. I observed every ballot being put into the envelope. Some people didn't even bother to fold them, so anyone standing nearby could see how that person voted. Nobody cares. They're voting for their preference.

At the time the voting was supposed to be closed, I asked several times if everyone had voted. Nobody hadn't voted. Most had voted and left. Then, the two election tellers elected by the caucus came forward. The ballots were counted by being put in separate piles for each candidate by the tellers. Then, they counted the piles individually. So the piles were counted twice. As they were counted they were checked to see if the right names were in the right piles. No problem.

As the caucus chair, I observed the ballot counting. It was done on a table at the front of the room, and anyone in attendance was free to come up and watch, too. A few did. Once the count was over, I announced the result, filled out the ballot tally form, and then put it all in the envelope and sealed it. The sealed envelope was delivered to the district official. They communicated the tallies to the state party officials and they were reported.

I don't see the problem. I had more paper and could have made 500 ballots if that many were needed. I brought about 2 dozen Bic stick pens to the caucus. When I left that evening, I found 4 of them. I brought the blank paper, too. Everyone was smiling and enjoying the caucus and Bernie Sanders got 37 votes while Hillary got 21. If you click the link in my signature line, you'll see that count on our precinct website.

What happens in other states is up to the people in those states. I have nothing to do with that. I have only to do with my own precinct, for which I am the DFL Party chair.

[Aerows]

17. Then you are organized, and you make yourself accountable.

I applaud that.

What makes me sick inside is people that do not hold themselves accountable, fail to even make the voting place prepared, and don't even avail themselves of the process.

I hold voting rather sacred.