I am pissed about this Nevada Caucus suit..

[mckeown1128]

Everyone here has been condemning for years the similar voter disenfranchisement done by the republicans. NOW all of a sudden it is ok to challenge the voting locations that will help working people of color to vote. NOW it is ok to bring a suit on the week of an election. When people have NO more time to come up with a plan to get of work to vote.


Those here who think this is ok are SICK. You should all be ASHAMED of yourselves. Shove democracy out the door because your f&%^ing candidate didn't get a nomination from a union. I can't believe that so many here are ok with voter disfranchisement. These rules were made a year ago. They need to stand. And Bill Clinton's BULLSH%T argument about how it is unfair for these casino workers to vote when the teachers union had MONTHS and MONTHS to ask for their own accommodations to vote. But do they sue to get their own accommodations? NO, they sue to do away with other people's votes.

I am pissed. I will NOT be voting for Senator Clinton in the GE because of her campaigns support of this law suit. By doing this she is weakening our legitimacy as a party. HOW I ASK you can we ever again condemn the pukes for dirty "don't get out the vote" techniques if our own nominee does the same thing. We need to put a stop to this right NOW!!!
:rant:

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. why should only a select few get special rights? Why not for all?

Lots of different type of workers can't show up to the polls? How is it fair to focus on a select few? How would that skew the count? Wouldn't that disenfranchise others? I do not see how only giving a certain group special treatment is fair at all.

[1corona4u]

3. I agree....

but, but, but, this is all Hillary's fault. :sarcasm:

I HATE caucuses, and it's time for these fucking states to step into this century!!!!!!!

[Andy823]

54. I agree

We wouldn't have this mess if we did away with these stupid "caucuses"!

[question everything]

62. That's pretty much sums it (nt)

[mckeown1128]

4. These are not a select few these are tens of thousands

and the biggest voting block in Nevada Democratic party. All they had to do was ask for those caucus locations. The teachers could have a year ago but they didn't because they didn't' see a problem with the system until Obama got the endorsement. By the way letting working people vote isn't a special treatment it is a right.

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. but only certain working people?

How is that fair?

[mckeown1128]

13. If other's need accommodations they should have asked for them..

The at large caucuses are not denying people from voting. The suit is trying to Deny votes. Ohh... and please tell me how many of these teacher will be in class this saturday?

[cloudythescribbler]

43. Two reasons: (1) sites r open to any1 w/in 2 1/2 miles; (2) these r largest concentrations ...

of workers (thousands and thousands concentrated along 'the strip'.


Here's a legal commentary on the case:

Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor who does voting rights cases (he’s also chair of Montgomery County for Obama and running to serve as a Delegate), told me that the case is without merit: “The Equal Protection claim in this case is silly and would be thrown out even if it hadn’t been raised in the eleventh hour in a transparently political way. The claim boils down to the argument that it discriminates against teachers and other professionals to set up polling places in casinos for people who work there since these employees then get an unfair advantage in access to the polls. On this curious theory, of course, it would violate Equal Protection for some people to live two miles away from a polling place while others live on the same block. The irony is that most polling places are in public schools ! Setting up polling stations in workplaces where there are tens of thousands of voters who would otherwise be unlikely to vote is perfectly rational. It’s also a public policy that progressives should celebrate and duplicate, not try to thwart.”

[Mass]

15. The rules have been made in May. Why did the complaint come last week?

[MH1]

50. What I don't understand

is why the teachers union didn't make sure their issue was addressed when the rules were changed for the others. It looks to me like the teachers union screwed up. Now they want to hurt others because they failed to protect their own interests at the time it was up for discussion.

[Donna Zen]

55. Heh?

I'm sitting in a school at the moment, behind my desk. In a few weeks I'll be going to my state's caucus. You know why no arrangements need to be made for me? Because my caucus is on a Sunday, and just like the teachers in NV, I don't work on weekends. Nor do my support staff work on Sundays. If anyone comes in over the weekend, they will have a key.

Acting like this is somehow stopping the voting of thousands of teachers while pampering those who do work on the weekends, is pure bullshit that is such a transparent lie that it is insulting to anyone's intellegence.

Face the truth! Stand in the light! People who are defending this lawsuit or in anyway involved don't want people to vote.

[MH1]

60. Not trying to defend it at all

I heard on the radio this morning, what I thought was a good analysis.

In it, the claim was made that some teachers are required to work at their schools, if those schools are hosting caucuses. If a teacher works at a school that is not in their district, that teacher will miss the caucus, and no accommodation has been made for them.

I think it is fair to acknowledge that - if that story is true - it is unfortunate for the affected teachers. However, that is NOT a basis for defending the lawsuit, for several reasons:

1) the teachers union should have dealt with this problem when the rules were being revised for the casinos (my point above)

2) the teachers union waited too late to submit the suit - waiting until after CWU endorsed Obama just REEKS. If it was innocent, too bad - that means they screwed up again, strike 2.

3) just going with my gut here, it seems like the numbers affected are much lower than if you nullify the accommodation made for the casinos. If it's like 5-to-1 or so (affected casino workers to affected teachers), it's just wrong to disenfranchise so many in the name of being "fair" to a few. Especially in light of points 1 and 2.

[Donna Zen]

81. Could we all take a deep breath?

The district contracts teachers for their professional duties and that contract is rather specific. How do I know? I'm a negotiator for my union. Believe me there is no way that the contract contains language assigning a teacher to work during a political event. There is the possibility that the custodial staff is being asked to work. Often when there are games or night-classes in the building, there is a janitor around. However, this is not the entire staff or even a majority of the staff.

Teachers don't work on Saturdays or Sundays. Nope.

I'm a little fuzzy on the exact rules because I run a caucus in Maine, not Nevada. We even have absentee ballots. During this month's state Dem. meeting we were working on making the process more user friendly. The conversation centered on making sure that the absentee process can be clearly understood on our website. Many people commented that it would look bad if our state party was suppressing the vote. Can you imagine? A teacher, a union member, and Democratic Party representative who actually wants people to vote?

[adabfree]

74. You know why it came last week.

Its because Da Hillster didn't get the nod from the union!

[Bullet1987]

2. I think this is more proof that real

Election Reform may never happen...because it seems both parties play the same games. That shouldn't be a big surprise though. I was wondering why the DNC never got up in arms about Ohio and Florida...maybe because they don't want to GOP bringing any of their elections scams into the light?

[MethuenProgressive]

5. Why should certain voters get special treatment? Because they're for Obama?

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

[Bullet1987]

8. Would you still feel the same way if Hillary got the CWU vote

and Obama was doing this? Wait, don't answer that because I already know...

[MethuenProgressive]

19. That dog won't hunt either, bull.

Your talking point is tired, trite, and timid.

[Bullet1987]

23. And TRUE,,,don't forget that one

[MethuenProgressive]

24. Right... It's TRUE special treatment for your guy's supporters is OK.

Fuck democracy!:puke:

[Bullet1987]

25. Nope. Spinning is not one of your strong points I see

It's true because if the shoe were on the other foot, the Clinton supporters wouldn't be saying shit about it. It's called hypocrisy.

[mckeown1128]

26. the right to vote is NOT special treatment nt

[MethuenProgressive]

27. mck, are all NV voters getting the special treatment Strip workers are?

Why do you oppose non-Strip Nevada Democrats having the same voting rights?

[mckeown1128]

31. The republicans have been using that very argument...

to attack civil rights legislation that protects minority voters. No one is oppose non-strip nevada democrats from having the same voting rights. The teachers union had every oppurtunity to ask for there own at large caucuses. They didn't. They had no problem with this until the week before the election. Again, allowing people to vote is not giving them special treatment.

[MethuenProgressive]

37. "allowing people to vote is not giving them special treatment" All should have an equal chance, mck.

Fixing it so Strip workers have a better opportunity than others, cancling early voting and absentee balloting is simply wrong. All should have an equal opportunity to vote.

[mckeown1128]

40. The Caucus is a messed up system...they should have a

primary... but since they don't they need to make sure as many people as possible get the chance to vote. Everyone had the opurtunity to ask. Did the teacher union get turned down for there own at large caucuses? NO, becuase they didn't ask. There was no "fixing" it. The culinary uninion asked for accomidations so that their THOUSSANDS of workers could vote and they recieved at large caucuses. Again, the only thing trying to limit voter turnout it the lawsuit.

[Mass]

16. Why did the complaint start just after the CWU endorse Obama.

The rule was implemented in May.

[cloudythescribbler]

44. The caucus setup was made LONG before the CWU endorsed Obama ...

The system was established many many months ago, in a meeting where a group of Democratic party officials voted UNANIMOUSLY for the plan. NO ONE raised a stink, including the teachers' union. Now, it is much too late to restructure the caucuses to allow for, say, extra sites at the 11th hour, and the suit just seeks to close down existing options of voting on the strip.

You might try looking up the concept of "laches".

Note also that the strip is said to be the center, the heart of downtown Las Vegas (I've never been to LV -- confession). These are the largest concentrations of workers in LV, in particular those working Saturday lunchtime. The polling sites are open to anyone working within 2 1/2 miles. So it's hardly a special treatment for just one set of workers.

Here's a legal analysis, the CONTENT of which (rather than just the source) you might want to grapple with:

Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor who does voting rights cases (he’s also chair of Montgomery County for Obama and running to serve as a Delegate), told me that the case is without merit: “The Equal Protection claim in this case is silly and would be thrown out even if it hadn’t been raised in the eleventh hour in a transparently political way. The claim boils down to the argument that it discriminates against teachers and other professionals to set up polling places in casinos for people who work there since these employees then get an unfair advantage in access to the polls. On this curious theory, of course, it would violate Equal Protection for some people to live two miles away from a polling place while others live on the same block. The irony is that most polling places are in public schools ! Setting up polling stations in workplaces where there are tens of thousands of voters who would otherwise be unlikely to vote is perfectly rational. It’s also a public policy that progressives should celebrate and duplicate, not try to thwart.”

[adabfree]

76. You're confused...the Dog not only hunts...it catches too

Those voters for Obama aren't getting special treatment...it's
all about the Culinary Union's endorsement of Obama.

In addition, three of the individuals that filed the lawsuit,
actually sat on the committee that discussed and approved it
back in March.  The national Dem. Committee voted on it and
passed it in August.

So, why would the teacher's union cry foul now?  And why would
the same three individuals wait until after the Culinary union
endorsed Obama to file it, it's because they expected Hillary
to get the endorsement. Since that dog didn't hunt...they
figured they can disenfranchise voters...to block the
endorsement and its members

[MNDemNY]

6. You might feel differently if you lived in Nevada...

If you lived in a precinct where you felt that your representation was being diminished by the installation of artificial "at large" precincts. And also I don't think HRC's campaign is supporting the lawsuit. At least not officially.

[mckeown1128]

10. Her husband has come out for the suit.

[1corona4u]

Nice spin

HE SAID;
Also today, former president Bill Clinton weighed in, echoing the teachers union position on the at-large caucuses. " make a special rule only for these workers, for the rest of you other workers, tough luck," he said at a rally in Nevada, according to the website of the Las Vegas Sun.

"I think the rules ought to be the same for everyone. I question why you would ever have a temporary caucus site and limit to a certain kind of workers... I don't think you ought to favour one kind of worker over another."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/barackobama/story/0,,2240869,00.html



Also, is it just me, but all of a sudden, after NH, there seems to be issues in SC, and now, NV?? AND, Obama, has said little about the race issue, but has spoken about the lawsuit....seems odd if you ask me. Other than MI, which state votes next? What will be the new 'issue' in the next state?? I bet there will be one, whatever it is, and it too will be Hillary's fault. :eyes:


If people are going to blame this on Hillary, I say prove it, or shut the fuck up about it.

[mckeown1128]

35. That sounds like bill is supporting the lawsuit to me.

Your claim that somehow Obama has created this issue is idiotic. Why would he want to limit his own voters from voting for him?! Also, what is odd about Obama talking out against the voter disenfranchisement in Nevada? The proof is in the facts. The teachers union supports Hillary, and has brought this suit, even though three of their board members personally approved the rules months ago. The suit benefits Hillary and has been brought right after she fails to get the Culinary endorsement. Bill supported what they were doing at a campaign event. Hmm...that sounds like proof to me.

[1corona4u]

47. Yes, the suit benefits Hillary....

but the way it is NOW, it benefits OBAMA. I guess he doesn't give a shit about HER supporters rights. Just the ones that support him.

[jenmito]

53. Yet the Clintons had no problem with it when they thought HILLARY would get the CWU endorsement

because that would've benefitted HER. It's not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of the Clintons wanting the advantage.

[1corona4u]

58. Prove it or shut up about it.

[jenmito]

64. The proof is in the FACT that they agreed to this arrangement months ago-until Obama got the

CWU endorsement.

[1corona4u]

67. YES,. and was HILLARY the one that brought the SUIT...

you can't prove she did, and neither can anyone else. BFD if it benefits her. I'm sick of people making everything HER fault. It's just IGNORANT and uncalled for. WHEN, and IF the FACTS prove she had anything to do with it, THEN you can find it outrageous.

DID HILLARY approve of this arrangement, PERSONALLY????? IF so, I'd like to SEE the links to that info PLEASE.

[jenmito]

69. She SUPPORTS the lawsuit which just HAPPENED to be brought by

a group supporting Hillary. You're naive as hell if you don't think she didn't have anything to do with it. "BFD" that HILLARY would have an advantage? Why couldn't you have just said "BFD" if it's OBAMA that has the advantage? The Clintons thought nothing of the advantage when they thought it would be THEIRS. Hypocrites.

[1corona4u]

71. And you're paranoid.

SO WHAT if she agrees with it. I DO TOO, am I behind the suit also!!!

I'll tell you, the more I see shit like this, the more sure I am I made the right choice to NEVER vote for Obama.

[jenmito]

72. Paranoid?

"BFD" that HILLARY would have an advantage? Why couldn't you have just said "BFD" if it's OBAMA that has the advantage? The Clintons thought nothing of the advantage when they thought it would be THEIRS. Hypocrites. Just like you.

[1corona4u]

73. You know what....

you're just pouncing on everything. Probably while you're on company time as well.

I'm done with you.

And you know what else, I hope they both fucking lose.

There, happy now.

[jenmito]

78. Um, no...

and no, I'm not on "company time." I'm disabled and therefore at home. :eyes:

[GalleryGod]

17. Smells like "plausible deniability" or "Triangulation" maybe?

My only trip to the East Room of the White House.
Lt. Gen Hal Moore congratulates Col. Bruce "Snakeshit" Crandall on his
Congressional Medal of Honor...only 42 years late!

[MNDemNY]

33. Your post makes no sense.

[mckeown1128]

21. Are you honestly complaining that...

this is bad because more people voting will lead to your vote meaning less. (same sized slice but bigger pie) Just wait till the republicans tell you that you can't vote because your vote will diminish their votes. :banghead:

[MNDemNY]

32. You obviously have no idea what this issue is.

So keep shilling for your corporate candidate, be it BHO, or HRC, but this issue has more to do with representation and fairness. "At large" precincts go against the Democratic principle of proportional representation. These primary races are not "winner take all" if they were, the issue would be moot.

[mckeown1128]

38. Sorry, but these hard working voters still need to vote.

I am sure that their schedules are already put in for this Saturday... a little late to change the rules to deny them the right to vote without losing their job. I agree that caucuses are out of date but you don't use a screwed up system to tell people that they can't vote. We wouldn't have this problem if they just voted like a primary.

[MNDemNY]

39. Sorry, but it just is not right.

You can argue the caucus system, but this is a caucus, you can argue access, but only at the expense of other's representation.

[mckeown1128]

41. again... you really need to stop using the...

there vote hurts the other sides representation argument. If you want to use that rediculous argument I will turn the tables on you. "Those teachers shouldn't get to vote because they don't work on saturdays and that gives THEM unfair representation because the caucus saturday."

[MNDemNY]

48. Tripe.Your lack of comprehension of the issue is glaring.

This is a Nevada Democratic party issue, if your not in Nevada, It's not any of your business.

[mckeown1128]

75. NO, it is an AMERICAN ISSUE...

Those workers have the RIGHT to VOTE. It is funny that you say it is a Nevada Democratic party issue because the Nevada Democratic Party were the ones who made the rule allowing the damn at large caucuses in question. So, by your own logic the caucuses should stand.

[cloudythescribbler]

68. Bill Clinton has publicly argued that the suit was meritorious nt

[MNDemNY]

84. It is.

[ellacott]

9. This is a very iimportant point

<But do they sue to get their own accommodations? NO, they sue to do away with other people's votes.>

I didn't know that Bill was supporting this suit. That's very disappointing.

[1corona4u]

30. He's not...

:eyes: See my post above.

[ellacott]

36. That sounds like support to me

What am I missing? :eyes:

[1corona4u]

46. It's a fucking opinion....

since when is that a crime. I swear, the democrats are really going to lose this year.

[ellacott]

59. What is wrong with you??

who said it was a crime? Again, what the fuck is wrong with you? My goodness. You responded to my post and I gave my answer.


OF COURSE IT'S AN OPINION!! AN OPINION OF SUPPORT. I'm SORRY YOU CAN'T WRAP YOUR BRAIN AROUND THE FACT THAT THIS IS ALL OPINION.

What a silly chick.

One thing I might agree, we just might lose. Please look in the mirror.

[GalleryGod]

11. Me too,friend. Talk about "Elitists" ? Three of the Plaintiffs in this bogus suit

sat on the Committee that finalized the rules they are NOW attacking. How dare those Culinary Workers have a "mind of their own !" Perish the thought!

[Debi]

57. Don't forget Jim Bilbray's law firm is the one who was hired to bring the suit

I'm sure just a coincidence. :eyes:

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. There is no such thing as "ideals" in politics, as people here are always happy to tell me

There is no such thing as "ideals" or "what is right" or "helping others." There is only "win at all costs." If that means engaging this season in exactly the same tricks you condemned in your opponent last season, so be it. You either win or you are a loser.

:banghead:

[Gman]

14. Doesn't NV have early voting??

If there is early voting in a state, no one has an excuse for not voting. If there is early voting, these at large polling places are unnecessary.

[ellacott]

20. For this caucus they suspended the early and absentee voting n/t

[Dhalgren]

18. Kick and Recommend! This is a terrible move on the Clinton campaign's

part. Everyone in the Nevada Democratic Party signed off on this caucus plan a long time ago. Everyone was set for this arrangement, now supporters of Clinton want to change things at this late date? Shame on Clinton and her supporters. This is the kind of thing that could and might shatter the Party. But winning the primary is all that matters, right? The Party can go to hell as long as my candidate wins! Well, welcome to it...

[arewenotdemo]

22. I couldn't agree more. We all KNOW that Clinton wouldn't have contested

it if she had the endorsement.

[indimuse]

28. Obama said "legal tactics were justified"

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what

honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"

In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot."

But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents' signature sheets. "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

[HeraldSquare212]

29. I think it's pretty hard for the Clinton campaign to sell that they're doing it on principle

Standing up for principles is a trait that's been generally lacking in their respective careers.

[suston96]

34. These are caucuses? People stand around in groups supporting their candidate?

And we are talking about voters doing this where they work in the presence of coworkers and their supervisors? Sorry, something very awkward about that.

Voting is done in secret precisely to avoid coercion. Nothing said here can defend this democratically repugnant system.

[mckeown1128]

42. We wouldn't have this problem if they voted via primary. nt

[CTyankee]

45. Yes, but while it does have the drawback you mention, it is a method that they have selected

for themselves. It is still a democratic process. I would hope they would go back and change to private ballot precisely for the reasons you cite, but they haven't.

And a drawback to private ballot is, of course, hacking voting machines and fraudulent voting. No system is, unfortunately, perfect.

[suston96]

61. "...it is a method that they have selected for themselves. It is still a democratic process. "

"Democratic process"? So are lynch mobs. Very democratic. Usually unanimous.

I'll take my chances with secret paper ballots which are manually recountable.

[CTyankee]

70. Bit over the top, don't you think?

A lynchee doesn't get to vote, so your conclusion about unanimity is pretty seriously flawed...

[suston96]

80. "Bit over the top....."? Yeah, so say those being lynched.

[CTyankee]

87. And the lynched doesn't get to vote, so your analysis is flawed.

You didn't get to that...

[CTyankee]

88. But did the union members themselves decide this?

I really want to know. It is a very different thing if the union members have made this decision: how can we judge and decide differently from what they have decided? I am not being judgmental on one side or the other, I just want to know...

[formercia]

49. Open warfare against candidates who aren't ring kissers

The way it has always been.

Things have to change before we can get our Country back.

[sandnsea]

51. I hear you, the lowest of the low

I don't see how the Clinton campaign can get any lower, but every time I think that, they manage. I don't understand people either and have been regularly disappointed by the values of the supposedly superior left.

[jenmito]

52. And the Clintons had NO problem with this until OBAMA won the big union endorsement!

That is proof that the Clintons are trying to suppress voter turnout, just like Repubs. :puke:

[Andy823]

56. I think this is a mess!

First off as has been said, we shouldn't have a "caucus", just a primary where anyone can get out to vote during the day. Second, if they are doing this for some, but not everybody that may have to work on Saturday, then it's wrong. Nurses, firemen, police and others who have to work are not being considered. Third, they should have thought about this before they came up with this idea. Now it may be that it was set up to benefit Hillary, but that's not the issue. I also think that there would be the same lawsuit of Hillary "had" gotten the backing of the sevice workers union. Sorry, but I really do think Obama's camp would be doing the same thing if things were reversed!

[F.Gordon]

63. IT'S A FUCKING CAUCUS

The very nature of these strange cluster fuck get-togethers promotes "voter disenfranchisement". If you go in to vote for a certain candidate and they don't meet the Nevada 'viability' rule, of which only Yoda can understand the math, you are FORCED to vote uncommitted. Please, tell me how that is 'fair' on any level. Please.

The 'at large' rules are so vague that you could walk in with a Drivers License and a Slot Club Card and participate... errr... "vote" :eyes: Maybe you don't even need the Drivers License.. just the Slot Club Card.

I'd have more respect for you and your post if ya' just said you weren't going to vote for Hillary because she's an ugly old hag that cackles like a witch.

[HughMoran]

66. caucus = clusterfuck

:rofl:

I love your concluding sentence too - I feel much the same...

[HughMoran]

65. Filing a lawsuit is meaningless

...unless you think they stand a chance of winning it. Why would the suit be a threat if it had no merit or you didn't perceive that it may threaten your candidates chances? This kind of bias is all too transparent to me.

[mckeown1128]

77. It is a threat and that doesn't mean it has any merit.

Funny, someone stopping people from voting makes me worried that it might hurt my candidate. WTF that crap about "if the suit has no merit why am I worried" argument reminds of what fox news says about Illegal wiretaps... "if you haven't done anything wrong why don't you want wiretaps" The point is they are trying to close down voting sites. That is a problem whether or not they succeed.

[HughMoran]

79. "special" voting sites

Don't fox news me with that half-assed spin.

[JackORoses]

83. LEGAL EXISTING voting sites...How about that, Moron?

This lawsuit is set to dissolve already existing and approved voting sites.

If the Teacher's Union really wanted equal treatment, why are they not suing to have more sites created?
Why do they instead sue to destroy those already made?

[Califooyah Operative]

82. Agreed. nt

[mckeown1128]

85. self kick...

[RoadRage]

86. This may be an issue that prevents me from voting for HRC in a GE

Policies, Politics, etc... i've stated from day one that Obama is my first choice, Hillary is my second, and i'd vote for her in a General Election if she gets the nomination.

But this issue is really bothersome to me. There was NO PROBLEM with this before Obama got the nod from the Cullinary union, and now that he has - Hillary wants to change the rules because they're not "fair"? Why were they fair in August, October, December? Why not challenge it then?

This kind of politics, and disinfranchise of minority voters is NOT what the Democratic Party should stand for. This is the kind of issue that can keep me home in November. I won't vote for a Repug.. I just won't vote at all.

And before all of the Obama Basher/ Hillary Supporters jump on me - please realize, YOU NEED ME to vote in November. You need Millions of people just like me to come out on election day because you need me to cancel out one of the Millions of votes that will be cast by Republicans voting against Hillary instead of for their candidate.