JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,894
- 2,220
Dont see where anything close to five of seven were kept off the ballot.
Did I miss it?
Va Primary: Gingrich, Perry fail to get on ballot.
- Thread starter zzzz
- Start date
Dont see where anything close to five of seven were kept off the ballot.
Did I miss it?
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,894
- 2,220
What is new is the scrutiny that they are using as they compare all the data to the voter registration data base.
Are you really that stupid or does it require some effort?
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
Last edited:
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,894
- 2,220
Lol, I mean just name one PRIMARY where this percentage of major candidates were disqualified.
Sorry I didnt word the question better.
paperview
Life is Good
For the honest conservatives out there.
Read this part again: ""Romney, Fred, Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, and Paul all filed over 15,000 signatures each – well above the recommended minimums."
They all filed over 15,000 in 2007. Seems like they knew then about the buffer necessary and didn't take chances. Enough people were easily convinced to sign the petition.
And now, when Gingrich obviously failed to be aware of what his own party in the last election knew was necessary, the narrative turns to how it's the RPV's fault.
This is what Gingrich is famous for - changing the narrative. He has cleverly convinced his swallowers to focus on how the rules shouldn't apply to him and they actually should turn a blind eye to petition fraud. The focus is off him or his failures.
The real narrative here, and this should not be lost on anyone, is how this major candidate, in his own state of residency , which is a significant Super Tuesday Primary was so organizationally weak and frought with incompetence he could not even garner more than 11,050 signatures.
It's a pretty bad sign when people have to defend a guy who can't even get a .003 of those registered voters. With *months* of advance notice, he should have been able to get 20,000 signatures! The people should have been eager to sign petitions if he is so popular. Yet, they didn't. That says a lot.
Read this part again: ""Romney, Fred, Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, and Paul all filed over 15,000 signatures each – well above the recommended minimums."
They all filed over 15,000 in 2007. Seems like they knew then about the buffer necessary and didn't take chances. Enough people were easily convinced to sign the petition.
And now, when Gingrich obviously failed to be aware of what his own party in the last election knew was necessary, the narrative turns to how it's the RPV's fault.
This is what Gingrich is famous for - changing the narrative. He has cleverly convinced his swallowers to focus on how the rules shouldn't apply to him and they actually should turn a blind eye to petition fraud. The focus is off him or his failures.
The real narrative here, and this should not be lost on anyone, is how this major candidate, in his own state of residency , which is a significant Super Tuesday Primary was so organizationally weak and frought with incompetence he could not even garner more than 11,050 signatures.
It's a pretty bad sign when people have to defend a guy who can't even get a .003 of those registered voters. With *months* of advance notice, he should have been able to get 20,000 signatures! The people should have been eager to sign petitions if he is so popular. Yet, they didn't. That says a lot.
L.K.Eder
unbannable non-troll
newt coulda been a contender.
paperview
Life is Good
Gingrich: Once a cheater, always a cheater.
Inthemiddle
Rookie
- Oct 4, 2011
- 6,354
- 675
- 0
- Banned
- #328
Yes it would. Nobody is trying to rig the system. Gingrich failed. Why can't you understand that?
Nobody got anybody disqualified. Gingrich FAILED.
Where is the "fair play" in ignoring the election laws of the state that have been established for years, all for Gingrich?
paperview
Life is Good
I read this ealier on the FrumForum, a comment of good merit:
" Let me make sure I understand the concern . . .
10,000 validated signatures are required to get on the ballot. The concern here is that the State GOP might have done something radical for this election cycle in response to the mentioned lawsuit. The alleged action? Check to make sure the signatures were valid.
Is this a shift in the rules? No — the signatures always had to be valid. This would be the shocking and radical change of actually enforcing the long-standing rules. The GOP, the party that has been screaming about voter fraud, checked to make sure Mickey Mouse didn’t sign the petition.
This is a big concern for the GOP. It is remarkably unfair to expect Newt and Rick to both understand the rules and comply with them. The long-standing occurrence of being able to file false signatures with impunity is a hallowed tradition, and the State GOP should be ashamed of itself for expecting candidates to obey the laws.
Do I have that right? Because if I do, I’d like to respectfully suggest that the GOP might want to consider if this episode indicates a perhaps slightly more serious issue that y’all ought to think about looking at."
Don’t Blame Romney for Ballot Trouble | FrumForum
Ay-ep.
" Let me make sure I understand the concern . . .
10,000 validated signatures are required to get on the ballot. The concern here is that the State GOP might have done something radical for this election cycle in response to the mentioned lawsuit. The alleged action? Check to make sure the signatures were valid.
Is this a shift in the rules? No — the signatures always had to be valid. This would be the shocking and radical change of actually enforcing the long-standing rules. The GOP, the party that has been screaming about voter fraud, checked to make sure Mickey Mouse didn’t sign the petition.
This is a big concern for the GOP. It is remarkably unfair to expect Newt and Rick to both understand the rules and comply with them. The long-standing occurrence of being able to file false signatures with impunity is a hallowed tradition, and the State GOP should be ashamed of itself for expecting candidates to obey the laws.
Do I have that right? Because if I do, I’d like to respectfully suggest that the GOP might want to consider if this episode indicates a perhaps slightly more serious issue that y’all ought to think about looking at."
Don’t Blame Romney for Ballot Trouble | FrumForum
Ay-ep.
Full-Auto
Gold Member
- Jun 13, 2009
- 13,555
- 1,625
- 153
I read this ealier on the FrumForum, a comment of good merit:
" Let me make sure I understand the concern . . .
10,000 validated signatures are required to get on the ballot. The concern here is that the State GOP might have done something radical for this election cycle in response to the mentioned lawsuit. The alleged action? Check to make sure the signatures were valid.
Is this a shift in the rules? No — the signatures always had to be valid. This would be the shocking and radical change of actually enforcing the long-standing rules. The GOP, the party that has been screaming about voter fraud, checked to make sure Mickey Mouse didn’t sign the petition.
This is a big concern for the GOP. It is remarkably unfair to expect Newt and Rick to both understand the rules and comply with them. The long-standing occurrence of being able to file false signatures with impunity is a hallowed tradition, and the State GOP should be ashamed of itself for expecting candidates to obey the laws.
Do I have that right? Because if I do, IÂ’d like to respectfully suggest that the GOP might want to consider if this episode indicates a perhaps slightly more serious issue that yÂ’all ought to think about looking at."
DonÂ’t Blame Romney for Ballot Trouble | FrumForum
The solution is super delegates and being able to vote in both caucus and primary events.
It worked for Obama, why not the GOP
Toro
Diamond Member
I read this ealier on the FrumForum, a comment of good merit:
" Let me make sure I understand the concern . . .
10,000 validated signatures are required to get on the ballot. The concern here is that the State GOP might have done something radical for this election cycle in response to the mentioned lawsuit. The alleged action? Check to make sure the signatures were valid.
Is this a shift in the rules? No — the signatures always had to be valid. This would be the shocking and radical change of actually enforcing the long-standing rules. The GOP, the party that has been screaming about voter fraud, checked to make sure Mickey Mouse didn’t sign the petition.
This is a big concern for the GOP. It is remarkably unfair to expect Newt and Rick to both understand the rules and comply with them. The long-standing occurrence of being able to file false signatures with impunity is a hallowed tradition, and the State GOP should be ashamed of itself for expecting candidates to obey the laws.
Do I have that right? Because if I do, IÂ’d like to respectfully suggest that the GOP might want to consider if this episode indicates a perhaps slightly more serious issue that yÂ’all ought to think about looking at."
DonÂ’t Blame Romney for Ballot Trouble | FrumForum
It's a big giant conspiracy that the VA GOP consistently follows its rules in every election.
paperview
Life is Good
If only Gingrich had picked up this at his last Barnes & Noble stop.
zzzz
Just a regular American
- Thread starter
- #333
Notice put out by Pat Mullins, Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia earlier this year.
These are the petition requirements:
http://rpv.org/sites/default/files/2012 Petition Certification Process_1.pdf
These are the petition requirements:
http://rpv.org/sites/default/files/...residential Primary Election 3_6_12 Rev 5.pdf
Last edited:
Toro
Diamond Member
Derp!
Last edited:
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #335
The Republicans in VA will vote for candidates who are competent.
The others failed, all by themselves, to get on the ballot and are doofi.
The losers are going to have to live with their acts.
The others failed, all by themselves, to get on the ballot and are doofi.
The losers are going to have to live with their acts.
Last edited:
paperview
Life is Good
Well, howdy do-do!
Lookie there. A formal paper dating back to May of 2011.
"ADOPTED BY THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ON MAY 25, 2011."
Sent out this summer. And the connie idiots somehow want to pretend 'it's all a con-speer-a-SEE. See?
Good find zzzz.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 83,327
- 75,964
- 3,605
from the sopurce this was taken from (a conservative VA magazine) - another anonymous, but I can't see why someone would lie about this:
Josh December 24, 2011 10:20 am I was one of the volunteers getting signatures for Romney. We had nearly 500 volunteers working every parade, GOP event, metro/VRE station, mall, craft fair, etc. in VA.
We made sure volunteers qualified the signers as registered VA voters and watched them properly sign & print their name, put their address down, give the date and the last four of their SS number.
There is no VA conspiracy. It was simple hard work by dedicated volunteers and a superior organization. What does this say about the rest that failed to qualify? Maybe the big leagues aren’t for them just yet. Romney had their efforts underway at the end of the summer til December. That is why they submitted the most – 16,000. I also saw Ron Paul supporters out too getting signatures. Why didn’t the other campaigns think they might need to do the same? Maybe they didn’t think they’d be around in March 2012.
BREAKING: Gingrich 2,000 Ballot Signatures Short? – Bearing Drift: Virginia's Conservative Voice
Bingo!
paperview
Life is Good
In case any of you Newt swallowers missed it:
^^^^^ WRITTEN IN MAY. MAY 2011.
Clear as the little pimples on the end of your nose.
So, try again with the new spin that "they changed the rules" just a week before...it's a conspiracy!...the fix was in....blah blah...
Try it.
If you can.
^^^^^ WRITTEN IN MAY. MAY 2011.
Clear as the little pimples on the end of your nose.
So, try again with the new spin that "they changed the rules" just a week before...it's a conspiracy!...the fix was in....blah blah...
Try it.
If you can.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 83,327
- 75,964
- 3,605
And that's a good thing! It weeds out the "The Rent Is Too Damn High" candidates.
Tell me: Disney has raised it's admission to around $80. If I show up with $100, but a percentage of it is in Mexican Pesos and Korean Wan, do they have to let me in? No. They have successfully "KEPT ME OUT OF THE PARK".
It's a CONSPIRACY!!!! It's the Amusement Park Elite rigging the game!!!
See, they only take U.S. currency. Their rules. I should know the rules and show up with at least $80 U.S.
Newt should have known the rules. Especially since he's such a brain.
Last edited:
Inthemiddle
Rookie
- Oct 4, 2011
- 6,354
- 675
- 0
- Banned
- #340
All this belly aching from the Gingrich lackeys. And we're still left with these facts:
*Gingrich did not submit the necessary signatures
*All the candidates were given ample notice of the requirements
*It is Romney's fault. Or Obama's fault. Or "the Establishment's" fault.
All this talk of signatures and addresses, I'm realizing more and more where the blame lies: GINGRICH AND HIS CAMPAIGN STAFF.
I'm sure that most of you here have never been involved in collecting signatures to get a candidate on the ballot. But I have. So let me tell you a little bit about how things tend to go....
First, there are two basic approaches one can take. You can try to get volunteers out to collect signatures, or you can try to pay people to collect signatures. The benefit of volunteers is that it's free, but the drawback is that you have to have more of them, while having more difficulty recruiting people who are willing to do the work, and you're gambling on whether they're going to put forth much effort. The benefit of paying people is that you can more easily recruit people and they are more likely to go out and attempt to collect signatures, all of which leads to more overall signatures. The drawback is that it can become expensive, you have to worry about unscrupulous workers forging signatures for extra money, and paying for invalid signatures that are collected by honest mistake which don't get you any closer to where you're going.
I'm betting that Gingrich's campaign used paid contractors to collect signatures. When I've done this, the deal usually goes that for every signature you collect, you get a small payment, say $2 per signature. But, there's an additional criterion, to help mitigate some of the problems I just mentioned. Usually, there's a threshold for your valid signatures which determined whether you get paid for every signature you collect, or only the ones that turn out to be valid. So, let's say that the threshold is 85%. That means that if 85% or more of your signatures are valid, then you'll get paid for 100% of your total signatures. On the other hand, if less than 85% are valid, you'll be paid for only your total valid signatures.
Now, in my experience, the people running the show tend to encourage collectors to collect as many signatures as possible, and not worry as much about validity. They'll tell you "If someone says they aren't sure whether they've changed their address on their registration yet, take the signature anyway. You can't get paid for their signature if you don't collect it." Of course, it makes sense that they encourage this. They want the signatures. If it's invalid, the campaign doesn't lose anything, as opposed to not having it at all. But there's another side of it. The campaign wants you to have less than that 85% validity because they don't want to pay for invalid signatures. And since they recruit by advertising things like "TEMP WORK, MAKE UP TO $500 A DAY" they tend to draw in alot of idiots foaming at the mouth for get-rich-quick BS, who just don't think about it.
In any event, when I've done this stuff, I took a very different approach. I was intent on quality over quantity, and intent on having at least 85% valid signatures. I would always firmly question people to ensure that their signature would be valid, and would decline to take their signatures if I felt there was a good chance that their address wasn't going to match, or whatever. I was in it for the money after all. And I NEVER once fell short of whatever my validity threshold was. I still always managed to average 50 signatures an hour. I was just that smart and that good.
So the point to all of this is that collecting valid signatures is NOT that difficult by any means. It just takes a little bit of effort (and I mean LITTLE) and a little bit of the right focus and priorities. If Gingrich needed 10,000 valid signatures I could have gotten him in two months by myself. Now that I'm thinking about it, too bad we didn't know in September how this was going to turn out. Maybe I should have sent him my resume. I would have given him 15,000 signatures with at least 85% validity, for the bargain price of $23,000 plus travel accommodations. Small beans in terms of campaign expenses.
Gingrich has nobody to blame other than himself and his campaign.
*Gingrich did not submit the necessary signatures
*All the candidates were given ample notice of the requirements
*It is Romney's fault. Or Obama's fault. Or "the Establishment's" fault.
All this talk of signatures and addresses, I'm realizing more and more where the blame lies: GINGRICH AND HIS CAMPAIGN STAFF.
I'm sure that most of you here have never been involved in collecting signatures to get a candidate on the ballot. But I have. So let me tell you a little bit about how things tend to go....
First, there are two basic approaches one can take. You can try to get volunteers out to collect signatures, or you can try to pay people to collect signatures. The benefit of volunteers is that it's free, but the drawback is that you have to have more of them, while having more difficulty recruiting people who are willing to do the work, and you're gambling on whether they're going to put forth much effort. The benefit of paying people is that you can more easily recruit people and they are more likely to go out and attempt to collect signatures, all of which leads to more overall signatures. The drawback is that it can become expensive, you have to worry about unscrupulous workers forging signatures for extra money, and paying for invalid signatures that are collected by honest mistake which don't get you any closer to where you're going.
I'm betting that Gingrich's campaign used paid contractors to collect signatures. When I've done this, the deal usually goes that for every signature you collect, you get a small payment, say $2 per signature. But, there's an additional criterion, to help mitigate some of the problems I just mentioned. Usually, there's a threshold for your valid signatures which determined whether you get paid for every signature you collect, or only the ones that turn out to be valid. So, let's say that the threshold is 85%. That means that if 85% or more of your signatures are valid, then you'll get paid for 100% of your total signatures. On the other hand, if less than 85% are valid, you'll be paid for only your total valid signatures.
Now, in my experience, the people running the show tend to encourage collectors to collect as many signatures as possible, and not worry as much about validity. They'll tell you "If someone says they aren't sure whether they've changed their address on their registration yet, take the signature anyway. You can't get paid for their signature if you don't collect it." Of course, it makes sense that they encourage this. They want the signatures. If it's invalid, the campaign doesn't lose anything, as opposed to not having it at all. But there's another side of it. The campaign wants you to have less than that 85% validity because they don't want to pay for invalid signatures. And since they recruit by advertising things like "TEMP WORK, MAKE UP TO $500 A DAY" they tend to draw in alot of idiots foaming at the mouth for get-rich-quick BS, who just don't think about it.
In any event, when I've done this stuff, I took a very different approach. I was intent on quality over quantity, and intent on having at least 85% valid signatures. I would always firmly question people to ensure that their signature would be valid, and would decline to take their signatures if I felt there was a good chance that their address wasn't going to match, or whatever. I was in it for the money after all. And I NEVER once fell short of whatever my validity threshold was. I still always managed to average 50 signatures an hour. I was just that smart and that good.
So the point to all of this is that collecting valid signatures is NOT that difficult by any means. It just takes a little bit of effort (and I mean LITTLE) and a little bit of the right focus and priorities. If Gingrich needed 10,000 valid signatures I could have gotten him in two months by myself. Now that I'm thinking about it, too bad we didn't know in September how this was going to turn out. Maybe I should have sent him my resume. I would have given him 15,000 signatures with at least 85% validity, for the bargain price of $23,000 plus travel accommodations. Small beans in terms of campaign expenses.
Gingrich has nobody to blame other than himself and his campaign.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Geez.... Iran is betting that our fists wear out before their face does....
- Started by justoffal
- Replies: 6
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Trump Has Exposed Iran As The Paper Tiger They Always Were- Latest: Seymour Flops
