The memo was written by a University of North Carolina professor emerita of anthropology who served as a volunteer Clinton precinct committee officer in the Washington state caucuses last month. It warned other volunteer organizers about so-called "strategies" alleged to have been observed by herself and by Clinton volunteers in Iowa and Nevada. The volunteer, in a phone conversation I had with her, asked that her name not be used.
The tactics witnessed were:
"1. Individuals arriving all at once in large groups can disrupt the caucus by making it difficult to keep track of sign-in sheets, among other things. It created crowding in one caucus site that I am aware of and there weren't enough chairs for people to use. Other behaviors that can make it difficult for the caucus to run smoothly are deliberate disruptions with things like chanting, sign waving, dancing or singing. The Precinct Chair (or Caucus Chair) will need to insist on order.
"2. Individuals may arrive who are not registered to vote in a particular precinct with the story that 'they just moved there.' Some places where this has been observed, the person really didn't fit the picture of somebody who had 'just moved into' the precinct. They were allowed to register to vote and to caucus. (I do not know whether this individual's vote has been certified or not.) Bottom line: know your precinct demographics and make note of individuals who are registering to vote on site. (If they are so excited about participating, why haven't they registered before.)
"3. Supporters for a particular candidate, such as Senator Clinton, have arrived at caucus sites early to decorate and organize and been told that 'the building was locked.' When they are finally allowed into the building they see that signs for other candidates had already been posted. Bottom line: know who you are dealing with in terms of the caucus coordinator ... This will usually be some volunteer for the local Democratic Party."
The memo raises the question of whether these tactics are responsible for Obama's caucus wins. Also see my report on dirty tricks reportedly used at the Texas caucuses.
Additional complaints were made in El Paso and elsewhere in Texas.
While acknowledging that there may be reports of Clinton supporters using improper tactics at caucuses that she hasn't received, Bonnie posits:
This memo is important in that Obama has fared way better than Clinton in caucus states on the whole and such tactics may have figured in those successes.
....since Clinton's victories in the Ohio and Texas primaries, much has been made of her ability to win primary votes and Obama's ability to win caucus states. How much of his ability to win caucus votes has been predicated upon these alleged tactics? I have no answer to that question and pose it to you, dear reader, to answer for yourself.
Bonnie then raises another question: How many of Obama's wins will really matter in the general election against John McCain? Consider that his wins in Idaho, Utah, Georgia, Wyoming, Mississippi and South Carolina -- even Texas assuming as expected he wins those -- are all strong Republican states. Meaning these states will go to John McCain in November.
Bonnie adds,
Meanwhile, Clinton will have won at least eight of the 11 largest states, including must-win battleground states such as Florida and Ohio ..."
Her final point:
The question of "electability" must be revisited. And although many polls have shown Obama to be the tougher competitor against Republican John McCain in a general-election match-up, one wonders whether that continues to be the case.
For more on electability, which I think is the most important issue going forward assuming Hillary wins Pennsylvania, see this earlier post, Ten Key States and a Perspective on Pennsylvania.
