Brooklyn Election Official Scored Big Profit From Real Estate Deal with Hillary Clinton Supporters

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

by PETER SCHWEIZER25 Apr 2016235

Diane Haslett Rudiano, who is at the center of an investigation by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) over the mysterious purging of voter rolls in Brooklyn, was involved in a recent lucrative real estate transaction with Hillary Clinton’s political allies that bagged her a whopping 1,000 percent return on her investment.

Rudiano, who served as chief clerk of the Board of Elections in Brooklyn, oversaw the removal of more than 102,000 voters from the rolls in Brooklyn between November 1, 2015 and April 1, 2016 in the run up to the Democratic primary in New York state. On April 19, Hillary Clinton won Kings County, where Brooklyn is located, by more than 57,000 votes.

Rudiano was suspended immediately from her position with the Board of Elections over “widespread irregularities” in Brooklyn voting, reported the Wall Street Journal. Schneiderman announced immediately after the primary vote an investigation into voting problems: “I am deeply troubled by the volume and consistency of voting irregularities, both in public reports and direct complaints to my office’s voter hotline.”

Barely a year before those voter purges began, Rudiano was involved in a real estate transaction with powerful Clinton allies that netted her an astonishing 1,003  percent profit. In September 2014, Rudiano sold a brownstone that she had bought for $5,000 in 1976 for $6.6 million. The property, which included collapsed floors, crumbing bannisters and cracked stonework, was bought by an investment group called Holliswood 76, LLC.

Who runs Holliswood? That would be Dana Lowey Luttway, a developer and daughter of U.S. Congressman 

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY)

6%

. Weeks after that real estate transaction went through, Lowey endorsedHillary Clinton for President.

Congressman Lowey is a long-time Hillary Clinton friend and political ally. Lowey is also a Superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention and has pledged her support to Hillary Clinton.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Hillary Clinton

Exclusive Data Analysis: Donald Trump Wins More Than 2 Million More Votes Than Mitt Romney in 2012 in States Voting So Far -

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Breitbart

www.breitbart.com

Data compiled since the New York GOP primary shows that billionaire Donald Trump’s popular vote total in 2016 in states that have voted so far significantly exceeds the vote totals that Mitt Romney, the 2012 nominee, had in those states in total.

All in all, in the contests that have been had so far in 2016, Trump towers over Romney—having won more than 2 million more votes in the 2016 GOP primaries. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the next closest vote-getter to Trump this cycle, falls just under 300,000 votes short of Romney’s totals in the 2012 cycle.

In total, Trump has received 8,776,586 votes so far this year in states that have already held primaries or caucuses or conventions. In those same states in 2012, Romney received 6,654,029 votes—a whopping 2,122,557 votes less than Donald Trump. That means Trump has gotten a 31.79 percent increase over Romney’s totals.

Meanwhile, Cruz, in states that have voted already in 2016 has received an impressive 6,452,032 votes. While admirable, that’s still 201,977 votes less than Romney’s 2012 totals in those states—a decrease of 3.04 percent from Romney’s 2012 votes.

The analysis shows that of the nearly 40 contests so far, Trump’s 2016 vote totals have demolished Romney’s 2012 vote totals in most places.

In Alabama, for instance, Trump’s 373,721 votes in 2016 were 193,385 votes more than Romney’s 180,336 votes in 2012. In Arizona, Trump won 47,576 more votes than Romney. Trump beat Romney by more than 300,000 votes in the swing state of Florida—which Romney lost to President Obama in the general election in 2012—and Trump similarly outperformed the former Massachusetts Governor in the critical state of Ohio by more than the margin Romney lost Ohio to Obama in the general election. Trump, in the 2016 primary, won 713,404 votes in Ohio—252,573 more than Romney’s 460,831 in the 2012 primary. Romney lost Ohio to Obama in the general election in 2012 by only 166,214 votes. Trump even beat Romney in his home state of Massachusetts by more than 46,000 votes.

In Trump’s home state of New York, too, the real estate developer finished well more than four times better than Romney did four years earlier. Romney in 2012 only received 118,912 votes in the Empire State while Trump in 2016 received 515,091 votes.

The analysis shows national competitiveness on Trump’s part, meaning that like Romney—and better than Romney so far—Trump can win everywhere in the country, rather than just regionally like Cruz.

Trump outperformed Romney in the following states and territories: Alabama, Alaska,Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. It’s worth noting that Idaho went from a caucus in 2012 to a primary in 2016, so Trump probably got a boost in turnout due to that shift in system.

States and territories where Romney’s 2012 vote totals outperformed Trump’s 2016 totals were: Washington, D.C., Utah, North Carolina, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Texas, Vermont, Wyoming, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It’s worth noting that D.C. went from a primary in 2012 to a convention in 2016, something that significantly decreases turnout. Kentucky went from a primary in 2012 to a caucus in 2016. Utah, a Mormon stronghold very favorable to Romney, also went from a primary in 2012 to a caucus in 2016. And while Romney did better than Trump in North Carolina, Trump still won the state back on March 15. What’s more, part of Trump finishing in 2016 lower than Romney in 2012 in the state of Texas is a result of Cruz being in the race—and being the U.S. Senator from Texas.

A Romney spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request for comment. Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who appeared on Breitbart News Saturday this weekend, made the point that Trump doing significantly better than Romney did—while Cruz isn’t doing better—is a good sign for the businessman should he make it to the general election.

“If Ted Cruz were to be nominated, there is no state that Mitt Romney lost last cycle that Ted Cruz can win. That’s not the case with Donald Trump,” Lewandowski said. He argued Trump could potentially win Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, New York, California, and Massachusetts in the general election, when Romney couldn’t in 2012. “We have the ability to expand the map,” Lewandowski said.

Cruz did finish higher than Romney in several states when comparing the Texas senator’s 2016 vote totals up against the former Massachusetts Governor’s 2012 totals, but not nearly as many as Trump did.

Cruz beat Romney in the following contests: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Again, with this one, the shift in Idaho’s system from 2012 caucuses to 2016 primaries probably benefitted Cruz just like it probably helped Trump’s totals versus Romney’s totals.

There are several more contests, however, where Romney’s 2012 numbers are much greater than Cruz’s 2016 finishes. They include: Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Nevada, the Northern Mariana and U.S. Virgin Islands.

Cruz has forged an alliance with Ohio Gov. John Kasich in upcoming states, in several of which including Oregon, Indiana and New Mexico they plan to collude to try to stop Trump. It’s unclear if they’ll be successful, especially if Trump continues on this tear he’s been on all year.

Breitbart News compiled this data analysis from information purchased from Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. That data, available at USElectionAtlas.org, is widely used by academics and media organizations including the New York Times, the Economist, Harvard, Columbia, Cornell, and many more reputable organizations. Technically, Breitbart News did not include Colorado in these totals for Trump, Cruz or Romney since voters in Colorado were not afforded an opportunity to be heard at a caucus or primary.

This is the second in a multi-part series in Breitbart News’ election metadata analysis. The first examined a massive spike in GOP primary turnout in 2016.

COMMENTS

Speaker: I Can see why Trump comments rattle Mideast allies

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

hosted.ap.org

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday the whole world is watching American politics and that he can understand how Middle East allies would be rattled by Republican front-runner Donald Trump's provocative comments.

The Wisconsin Republican, who recently led a congressional delegation to the Middle East, dismissed the notion that a war-weary United States could retreat, as reflected by Trump's demand that allies pay more or else America will step back. Ryan, who has been compelled to tamp down speculation that he could be the GOP's eventual presidential nominee, said that approach is unrealistic.

"There is a commonality that this has been our problem too long, it shouldn't be our problem any more if we just pull out, we can fortress America and we will be better off. I don't buy that," Ryan told a group of reporters. "The reason I don't buy that is it is going to come to us. Who else is going to help lead the world ... to ultimately extinguish radical Islamic terrorism? And if we just pull back and think our oceans are going to save us, the evidence of the last couple of decades disproves that theory."

The congressional delegation traveled to Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Germany. Back on American soil, Ryan faulted President Barack Obama's foreign policy on dealing with Iran and Syria, and said allies wanted to know if the United States is "still in the game."

He said allies were rattled a bit by administration policy. Asked if Trump's comments had rattled them as well, Ryan said, "Sure. I get that too. Everybody pays attention to our politics."

Ryan expounded on his tacit criticism of Trump, who has proposed a ban on Muslims coming to the United States. Earlier this year, Ryan rejected that idea. He said allies knew about it and thanked him for speaking out.

"When he proposed the Muslim immigration ban, that really got under my skin, so I spoke out very forcefully the day after," he said. "When you see our beliefs our values and conservative principles being disfigured, you have to speak out for it if you're a party leader."

Ryan also has assailed Trump on other occasions, but never by name. He complained about Trump's slow disavowal of white supremacist groups.

Ryan, the 2012 vice presidential nominee, hastily called a news conference this week to state that he would not accept his party's nomination and that the choice should emerge from among the candidates who have sought the party nod, including Trump, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

But Republicans fear that a Trump nomination will alienate women, minorities and independent voters, costing them not only the White House but control of the Senate as well.

On foreign policy, Trump suggested in an interview with The New York Times that the United States boycott oil from Saudi Arabia unless the country provides ground troops in the fight against Islamic State militants. He also has suggested withdrawing U.S. forces from Japan and South Korea if the countries don't pay more to cover the cost of the American military presence.

In other interviews, Trump has said NATO is obsolete and questioned U.S. involvement after more than half a century of ensuring Europe's protection.

During his trip, Ryan said the Saudis "didn't say Donald Trump this and Donald Trump that. They just said, 'Where is America?'"

The speaker said he raised the issue of allegations of human rights abuses with Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi. Secretary of State John Kerry and several Western European nations have rebuked Egypt amid reports of killings, torture and secret detentions.

"You make it more difficult for us to be supportive of you when you have so many human rights violations," Ryan said he told the Egyptian president.

Ryan, a foe of the international nuclear agreement with Iran, also expressed concern about business deals with Tehran and other outreach in the aftermath of the landmark pact that lifted years of economic sanctions in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program.

"I worry about that," Ryan said. "I worry that so much toothpaste is going to get out of the tube that we're not going to be able to put much back in. And I do believe that next year, with the new government, we need to put as much of this toothpaste back in the tube that we can."

COMMENTS

Exclusive Audio — Rubio Campaign Manager Plots Brokered Convention In Manhattan Donor Meeting To Take Nomination From Trump

Listen To Military Veteran Talk Radio

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Facebook.com/SmythRadio

by MATTHEW BOYLE2 Mar 2016Washington, DC6107

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is plotting to take the Republican nomination away from Donald Trump using surreptitious tactics at a so-called “brokered convention,” according to an audio recording of his campaign manger in a private meeting with high dollar donors in Manhattan obtained exclusively by Breitbart News.

Last Wednesday evening in New York,according to CNN, Rubio campaign manager Terry Sullivan met privately with a group of supporters and top donors to chart Rubio’s path forward heading into Super Tuesday after abysmal performances from the first-term Florid Senator so far. During the meeting, Sullivan walked Rubio’s money men through the scenario he envisions he will use to stop Trump.

An audio recording of Sullivan giving the powerpoint presentation obtained exclusively by Breitbart News shows Sullivan plotting for a brokered convention.

“That is – I know if you watch the cable shows, they’re pretty breathless right about now that this is it, nothing is stopping Donald Trump,” Sullivan says at the opening of his remarks on aiming for brokered convention. “He can’t be stopped. He has got more momentum, this is it. It is over.”

But, Sullivan argued in the pre-Super Tuesday session: “5.3 percent of the delegates allocated in this thing. We have 94.7 percent remaining. You need to get to 1,237 delegates to win this thing.”

LISTEN TO THE AUDIO RECORDING:

The presentation came the day after Trump destroyed the rest of the field in Nevada among every demographic including Hispanics. Rubio finished more than 20 percent behind Trump, getting only 7 delegates—half of Trump’s 14 delegates. That was an embarrassing finish for Rubio, who spent much of his childhood in Las Vegas and emphasized the Silver State, campaigning there heavily throughout the course of 2015 and early 2016. That bad finish for Rubio came after three previous disappointments.

On Feb. 1, Rubio finished in third in Iowa with just 23 percent of the vote. He pulled in 7 delegates, the same amount Trump’s second place with 24 percent won the national frontrunner and one fewer than Iowa caucuses winner Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)who got 8 delegates there. In New Hampshire, Trump’s astounding 35 percent victory—20 points better than Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s 15 percent—won Trump 11 delegates. Kasich got 4, Cruz won 3 with an 11.7 percent third place finish, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush beat Rubio out for fourth place winning 3 delegates. Rubio’s abysmal fifth place finish with just 10.6 percent won him only 2 New Hampshire delegates.

A couple weeks later in South Carolina, Rubio similarly failed to meet expectations. Even with the Palmetto State’s governor, Nikki Haley, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) campaigning for him—and Sullivan hailing from South Carolina—Rubio failed to win the state after his team was previously telling people he’d finish in third in Iowa, second in New Hampshire and first in South Carolina, his 3-2-1 strategy. Trump’s definitive 32.5 percent victory there won him all 50 delegates in South Carolina, and Rubio came up empty as did everyone else.

Sullivan argued in the meeting in Manhattan that according to South Carolina exit polling, late deciders in these primaries are breaking for Rubio in a big way—so it’s not time to throw in the towel just yet. Exit polling from Virginia on Super Tuesday seemed to back that point up, but again like South Carolina—it was too little too late and Rubio lost to Trump.

“This is the exit polling in South Carolina, just kind of to give you a little – kind of a snapshot of the public,” Sullivan told the donors.

All of these states, when you start to looking at it, they close quickly at the end. People start paying attention, voters – there’s a big difference between a voter’s position on who they support and who they’re going to vote for two weeks before the election, a week before the election, a day before the election. That’s when it matters. We start to see here – and this is voters who decide in the last week who they are going to support, 28 percent chose Marco Rubio. On the electability, that was 47 percent. That is an angle we’re pushing hard because we know that we are the best candidate to beat Hillary, or Bernie. We are confident about that, and we know the voters are confident about that and they want him to win.

Sullivan added that this trend has been seen around the country. “That 28 percent close in the final week, that’s indicative of what we saw in Iowa and then, to a lesser extent in New Hampshire, obviously, that was not a good state for us – had a bad run there,” Sullivan said.

When Sullivan was giving this presentation, the final delegate counts from Nevada had not yet been totaled. But heading into Super Tuesday, Trump had 82 delegates while Cruz had 17 delegates and Rubio had 16 delegates. While the totals aren’t yet completely tabulated for Super Tuesday, Rubio—by any calculation—fared especially poorly since he failed to hit the 20 percent threshold statewide in Texas meaning he only will from there win a handful of delegates from congressional districts in which he topped 20 percent.

Rubio similarly failed in Alabama, winning just 1 of 50 delegates up for grabs—and the first term Florida senator only one won state, a victory in Minnesota. That prompted comparisons between Rubio and Walter Mondale, with some calling him “Marco Mondale” since the 1984 Democratic presidential candidate against incumbent President Ronald Reagan won only Minnesota and no other U.S. States. The unfortunate turn of events for Rubio also undercuts his carefully crafted image as the standard bearer of the next generation of Reagan’s legacy, since Rubio has only won where Reagan lost.

Back then, while publicly projecting that they could potentially beat Trump in a race to 1,237 delegates to win outright, Sullivan had already signaled that the race is about trying to broker the convention. At such a brokered convention, Sullivan’s plan to help swing it for Rubio even if Rubio has fewer delegates than Trump is to convince the delegates to back Rubio on a second ballot—where they would be technically unbound—and thereby essentially take the nomination away from Trump, its rightful winner if he has the most delegates.

“What this really comes down to, this race going forward on these delegates, is a race to get the most delegates at convention,” Sullivan said in the private Manhattan meeting.

If nobody gets to 50 percent of the delegates, if nobody gets to 1,237, then there’s a floor fight and delegates in most of these states, every state has different rules on these delegates, most of these states – the delegates are no longer bound after the first ballot. So if nobody has 50 percent, they do a perfunctory ballot, no one gets there. No one gets to 1,237, and then the vast majority of the next round of voting are free agents.

Sullivan further explained who the delegates actually are, and how they’re not people loyal to Trump in any way—but really party insiders.

“The interesting thing without getting too far into the weeds of these delegates is – you know, a little over 95 percent of the [inaudible], the delegates aren’t selected by the campaigns,” Sullivan said.

Donald Trump doesn’t choose his delegates for the national convention, I don’t choose Marco Rubio’s, Ted Cruz doesn’t choose his. These are people –in many cases who have already started the process, they ran on a slate at their precinct, then it was GOP conventions, then at their state conventions, to become a delegate for the national convention. Some of you I know have been delegates in the national convention here, different way, different state, it’s a pretty laborious process. It is generally not someone who just – a casual voter if you will, or someone who is just suddenly energized. These are people who have been involved in the process for a long time, have relationships with other activists, because you’re elected at your state convention. So why that’s important—and I know I’m side tracking, but this is an important [point]—when you show up at the convention, if I just say, ‘I want to go to Cleveland, because well it’s a fun place to go hangout in July—thank you Reince Priebus. After I spend 15 minutes at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.’ Most of the people go to these conventions because they believe in the Republican Party, they believe in a core set of issues, they’ve been doing this for a while.

In continuing to explain it, Sullivan even admitted that the debate audiences have been stacked against Trump and for Rubio—something the Rubio campaign and the Republican National Committee (RNC) have repeatedly denied.

“Most of them it’s not their first time: these are repeat delegates,” Sullivan said.

None of them look like a Donald Trump supporter. None of them look like a Donald Trump supporter. So my point in this little deviation here is: should this go to the convention, that’s a real problem for Donald Trump because he’s got to start persuading these same—the people that he’s getting booed at, that he’s talking about these debates that he’s mocking, you know what those are? You know what I like to call them? Delegates.

In this pre-Super Tuesday presentation by Sullivan, the Rubio campaign manager also made some fairly bold predictions that his boss fell well short of on election day. First, while he was right when he predicted that Cruz would win Texas, he was wrong about predicting a bounce for both second and third place finishers.

“Cruz will win Texas, which will be the biggest prize on March 1, but even with his win—first place finish—in Texas, he is not going to get the kind of bounce out of that … because the second place person in the state of Texas is going to get delegates, and the third place person in Texas is going to get delegates,” Sullivan said.

And that’s what matters. Whoever wrote the memos, it looks great to see Rubio in first place, second place, third place or fourth or fifth or all the way down on election night. What really matters is how many delegates do they have? That’s what is most important. And so to that point: we – coming in third in Texas, that should get you a lot of delegates. And then going over and playing in other states that matter more: Virginia is not proportional by

Watchdog Finds Billions in Possible Fraudulent Obamacare Payments

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

www.atr.org

The federal government has failed to properly monitor enrollee eligibility for Obamacare, according to a reportby the Government Accountability Office (GAO). As a result, the government has made billions of dollars in Obamacare subsidy payments to individuals that may have been committing fraud.

As the report notes, the system used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relies on data sent by three government agencies – the IRS, SSA, and DHS – to check eligibility for Obamacare. However, the system used by CMS is unable to verify many inconsistencies in the data.

This inability to properly verify enrollment has meant billions of dollars have been sent out to enrollees without verifying whether the applicants were fraudulent. As the report notes:

“According to GAO analysis of CMS data, about 431,000 applications from the 2014 enrollment period, with about $1.7 billion in associated subsidies for 2014, still had unresolved inconsistencies as of April 2015—several months after close of the coverage year.”

While CMS has information that could shed light on fraud, it has not developed any procedure to utilize it. As the report notes:

“CMS foregoes information that could suggest potential program issues or potential vulnerabilities to fraud, as well as information that might be useful for enhancing program management.”

These latest findings should not be surprising. Time and time again, watchdogs have sounded the alarm over Obamacare exchange verification and controls.

An auditor’s report examining Minnesota’s Obamacare exchange found the exchange enrolled more than 100,000 individuals who were ineligible for the program. In all, the audit estimated an error rate of close to 50 percent, and the state overpaid up to $271 million over the five-month period that was analyzed by auditors.

A December 2015 report by the Health and Human Services Inspector General (HHS OIG) found that CMS relied entirely on data from health insurers to verify whether enrollees had paid their premiums and were eligible. However, this data was completely insufficient - insurers provided payment information on an aggregate rather than enrollee-by-enrollee basis, making verification all but impossible. A October 23, 2015 report by GAO found that Obamacare exchanges (both state and federal) were failing to verify key enrollment information of applicants including Social Security numbers, household income, and citizenship.A September 1, 2015 report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) found that Obamacare exchanges are failing to provide adequate enrollment information to the IRS for proper payment and verification of tax credits.A August 2015 report by HHS OIG found that the federal exchange is failing to verify Social Security numbers, citizenship, and household income of Obamacare applicants. As a result, the exchange is unable to verify whether applicants are properly receiving tax credits. A July 16, 2015 audit by GAO found that 11 of 12 fake 'test' applicants received coverage for the entire 2014 coverage period despite many using fraudulent documents, and others providing no documentation at all. From these 11 applicants alone, Healthcare.gov paid $30,000 in tax credits.A June 16, 2015 report released by the HHS OIG found that $2.8 billion worth of Obamacare subsidies and payments had been made in 2014 without verification.A June 10, 2015 TIGTA report found the IRS failed to properly administer nearly $11 billion in Obamacare tax credits.A May 21, 2015 report by TIGTAfound that the IRS failed to testObamacare processing and verification IT until a week before the filing season began.

COMMENTS

Ted Cruz’s Iowa Mailers Are More Fraudulent Than Everyone Thinks - The New Yorker

www.newyorker.com

With the Iowa caucus fast approaching, Senator Ted Cruz is in trouble for sending out letters telling voters in the state that they’re being graded on whether they vote. CreditCredit Photograph by Brendan Hoffman / Getty

Ted Cruz’s Presidential campaign prides itself on being data-centric and on integrating insights from political science into its tactics. In 2008, academics at Yale published an influential paper showing that one of the most effective ways to get voters to the polls was “social pressure.” Researchers found that registered voters in a 2006 primary election in Michigan voted at a higher rate if they received mailers indicating that their participation in the election would be publicized. The mailer that had the biggest impact included information about the two previous elections and whether the recipient and his or her neighbors participated or not. “We intend to mail an updated chart,” the mailer warned. “You and your neighbors will all know who voted and who did not.”

Insights from the Yale study have since been adopted by several campaigns, including MoveOn, which also faced criticism when it used the tactic to turn out voters for Barack Obama’s reëlection, in 2012. Given its obsession with political science, it’s no surprise that the Cruz campaign decided to adopt the “social pressure” techniques to turn out voters in Iowa for Monday night’s caucuses. On Saturday, Twitter came alive withpictures from voters in the state who received mailers from the Cruz campaign. At the top of the mailers, in a bold red box, are the words “VOTING VIOLATION.” Below that warning is an explanation:

You are receiving this election notice because of low expected voter turnout in your area. Your individual voting history as well as your neighbors’ are public record. Their scores are published below, and many of them will see your score as well. CAUCUS ON MONDAY TO IMPROVE YOUR SCORE and please encourage your neighbors to caucus as well. A follow-up notice may be issued following Monday’s caucuses.

Below that, a chart appears with the names of the recipient of the mailing as well as his neighbors and their voting “grade” and “score.”

A further explanation appears below the chart:

Voter registration and voter history records are public records distributed by the Iowa Secretary of State and/or county election clerks. This data is not available for use for commercial purposes – use is limited by law.Scores reflect participation in recent elections. [Emphasis added.]

After seeing the mailers, Iowa’s secretary of state, Paul Pate, issued astatement condemning Cruz’s tactic:

“Today I was shown a piece of literature from the Cruz for President campaign that misrepresents the role of my office, and worse, misrepresents Iowa election law. Accusing citizens of Iowa of a “voting violation” based on Iowa Caucus participation, or lack thereof, is false representation of an official act. There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. Any insinuation or statement to the contrary is wrong and I believe it is not in keeping in the spirit of the Iowa Caucuses.

Additionally, the Iowa Secretary of State’s Office never “grades” voters. Nor does the Secretary of State maintain records related to Iowa Caucus participation. Caucuses are organized and directed by the state political parties, not the Secretary of State, nor local elections officials. Also, the Iowa Secretary of State does not “distribute” voter records. They are available for purchase for political purposes only, under Iowa Code.”

On Saturday night, Cruz responded. “I will apologize to no one for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote,” he toldreporters during a campaign stop in Sioux City.

A voter mailing used by the Cruz campaign employs “social pressure” tactics that have been criticized by Iowa’s secretary of state.

The secretary of state was mostly concerned that Cruz’s campaign mailers appeared partially disguised to look like an official communication from the state government. Direct mailers always push these boundaries, and Iowans are bombarded with mail, and one way to get them to open something is to make it look more official. And, in Cruz’s defense, the mailer does clearly indicate that it’s “Paid for by Cruz for President.”

After looking at several mailers posted online, I was more curious about how the Cruz campaign came up with its scores. On all the mailers I saw, every voter listed had only one of three possible scores: fifty-five per cent, sixty-five per cent, or seventy-five per cent, which translate to F, D, and C grades, respectively. Iowans take voting pretty seriously. Why was it that nobody had a higher grade?

In Iowa, although voter-registration information is free and available to the public, voter history is not. That information is maintained by the secretary of state, who licenses it to campaigns, super PACs, polling firms, and any other entity that might want it. So was the Cruz campaign accurately portraying the voter histories of Iowans? Or did it simply make up the numbers?

It seems to have made them up. Dave Peterson, a political scientist at Iowa State University who is well-acquainted with the research on “social pressure” turnout techniques, received a mailer last week. The Cruz campaign pegged his voting percentage at fifty-five per cent, which seems to be the most common score that the campaign gives out. (All of the neighbors listed on Peterson’s mailer also received a score of fifty-five per cent.)

Peterson, who is actually a Hillary Clinton supporter, moved to Iowa in 2009. He told me that he has voted in three out of the last three general elections and in two out of the last three primaries.

“There are other people listed on my mailer who live in my neighborhood that are all different ages, but everyone on this sheet has the same score of fifty-five per cent,” he said. “Some are significantly younger and would have not been eligible to vote in these elections, and others are older and have voted consistently, going back years. There is no way to get to us all having the same score.” (Peterson also spoke with Mother Jones.)

If the Cruz campaign based its score on local elections, Peterson said, the number also wouldn’t make sense, based on his participation in those elections as well. A source with access to the Iowa voter file told me that he checked several other names on Cruz mailers and that the voting histories of those individuals did not match the scores that the Cruz campaign assigned them in the mailer.

A mailer template used by the Rubio campaign also seeks to mobilize voters via “social pressure.”

I e-mailed Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for the Cruz campaign, and asked her what the campaign’s methodology was for arriving at its voting scores and whether the scores were fraudulent. “This was a mailer designed from public information and modeled on past successful mailers used by the Iowa GOP to turn out voters, so that we can have as high of a turnout as possible on caucus day,” she said. “I’ll leave it at that.” She did not explain the methodology used, nor did she answer my question about whether the numbers were made up.

The political scientist Lynn Vavreck, the co-author of “The Gamble,” a book the Cruz campaign has publicly stated it has studied for its strategic insights, said there was a major difference between the 2008 study in Michigan and what Cruz is doing in Iowa. “In the political-science work published in the American Political Science Review,” she said, “the mailing listed the elections (three of them) in which voters’ histories were being observed—and listed whether the secretary of state recorded that the voter participated that year. So it was more transparent than the Cruz mailer, which implied that it used public records but delivered voters letter grades, which are not part of the official file.”

It’s unclear how many Iowans received the Cruz mailers. Ideally, the mailers would go to potential caucus-goers who are leaning toward the Texas senator and just need some additional incentive to participate. In at least one case, that backfired. Independent Journal Review reportedthat one Iowan who received the Cruz mailer will now caucus for Marco Rubio.

Rubio’s campaign also sent out a mailer that employs social pressure to induce participation in the caucuses, but, notably, the Rubio campaign did not mention the names of the target voter’s neighbors.

The Cruz mailers have been widely condemned by Iowans. “I just wonder how many of these went out to people who might seriously believe they committed a violation or were embarrassed that their neighbors might know about their alleged voting record,” Braddock Massey, a Rubio supporter who lives in West Des Moines and received one of the mailers, said.

Donna Holstein, who was listed on one of them, was upset to learn that she had been given a failing grade and that her neighbors might be told whether she participates in the caucus. She told me that she has voted consistently but that she can’t this time because of a disability.

“I’m crippled, so I can’t go to the caucus,” Holstein said. She was not happy about being shamed in front of her neighbors. “That’s what you call a bully,” she said about Cruz’s tactics. “I wish he would quit.”

Sign up for the daily newsletter.Sign up for the daily newsletter: the best of The New Yorker every day.

COMMENTS