More leaks: Democrats target ‘near dead’


On Sunday, March 20, 2016, Sara Latham <> wrote:

> What do you think of this?
> Solid plan to add to increased turnout to counter Bernie whackos.
*From:* Gary HIRSHBERG []
*Sent:* Friday, March 18, 2016 3:39 PM
*Cc:* Jake Sullivan <>
*Subject:* Thanks for whatever role you might have had in this...

Since we have now consolidated the groups re: registering dc’d voters and have their guarantees of 11-13% inc turnout for HRC should we consider looking to another sure-fire bid for hard vote count? Remember POTUS take on fickle AA and Latinos that may not show esp if bad weather. Got this proposal from Priorities USA.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

> From: Jesse Ferguson <
> Date: Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:26 PM
> Subject: Priorities USA
> To: HRCRR <>, Dennis Cheng <
>>, Marc Elias <>, Robby
> Mook <>, Charlie Baker <
>>, Jennifer Palmieri <
>>, Kristina Schake <
>We have identified a previously untapped group
>that will help insure Democratic majorities for
>years to come. While we have long relied on the
>vote of dead citizens still on the election rolls,
>we now would like to propose a campaign to go after
>the 'near dead'. These include not only elderly
>people but also chronically sick patients, many of
>whom are currently not voting. Many of these
>citizens are too mentally impaired to have an
>informed vote, making them ideal candidates for
>Democratic recruitment.
>Our current proposal involves financial
>incentives to family members to provide us
>the names of the 'near dead', and then make
>sure that those people do not go to the polls.
>This will include additional financial
>incentives to keep these people out of the
>hospital, and not report their deaths to
>authorities. This will not only allow our
>representatives to vote in place of these
>citizens in perpetuity, but will also save
>considerable money for the health system.
>In this way the program will easily pay for
>itself in the long run, with the Medicare
>savings alone possibly running into the
>billions of dollars.
>As far as mobilizing our volunteers to the
>polls to vote in place of the 'near dead',
>this can easily be done as an extension of
>our current system for voting for the already
>deceased. Our system of vans and union
>volunteers may need to be supplemented with
>buses, but we anticipate that the costs of
>this expansion will be low, and definitely
>can be offset by fewer outreach efforts for
>the living, whose votes will become less and
>less important over time.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *