Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is Hillary push polling?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:19 PM
Original message
Is Hillary push polling?
Edited on Wed Jun-27-07 06:22 PM by jefferson_dem
Clinton poll questions alienate base
By: Ben Smith
Jun 27, 2007 06:19 PM EST

Dan Comly, a technical writer and Democratic activist, was at home in Portsmouth, N.H., on April 4 when he took a call for the most detailed political poll he had ever participated in.

"Wow, this is really cool (that) someone's taking the time to ask about these issues," he recalls thinking. "Then they started specifically comparing candidates," he says, asking whether his views would be altered by Barack Obama's relative lack of national experience, or by John Edwards' background as a wealthy trial lawyer.

So after Comly got off the phone, he did what any 21st-century Democratic activist would do: He went to his favorite liberal blog, My Left Wing, and wrote about the questions, which "began to make me queasy. Someone was trying to bash John Edwards and Barack Obama, and pitch Hillary."

<SNIP>

Another New Hampshire Democrat, David Kulju, wrote on DailyKos that he was asked Sunday about a New York Times article raising questions about Edwards' work on poverty -- the same day the Times story ran.

The polls' sheer length -- more than half an hour, in many cases -- are a hallmark of Penn's work, and some of the callers identified themselves as working for Penn's Denver-based call center. Neither Penn nor a Clinton spokesman, Howard Wolfson, would comment on the polls. But other campaigns see the surveys as a sign of the Clinton camp's aggressiveness.

<SNIP>

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4696.html

And here - http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uspoll275271553jun27,0,1409878,print.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. No nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. wow that was quick
i guess you're 100% positive, then
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Because this isn't the first thread today, that's why
Another part of the article in the OP

He hastened to add, however, that despite bloggers' impressions, testing negative messages is a standard political practice aimed at getting information, not persuading voters.

"The questions are legitimate," Maslin said, and the research will help the front-runner Clinton campaign "sit at the top of the hill and shoot at whatever comes at them."

Indeed, much of negative message testing is typically aimed at gauging the weaknesses of one's own candidate.

"We test negative issues in the news on her," said a Clinton adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Neither the Obama nor the Edwards campaign would say whether it has tested negative messages this year. Penn has been polling for the Clintons since their White House days, when they famously used polls to help determine their vacation spot.

"Most people in the media don't understand the polling process, which involves testing arguments to determine what's going to be the most effective way to communicate a message," said Penn's former partner, Doug Schoen.


Push polling is something altogether different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Thank you!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. You're very welcome, redqueen
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Oh, so the *postitive spin* is that they are just "testing negative messages"?
:shrug:

...I know what push polling is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Do you? It doesn't seem so, with all respect, JD
Here is an earlier thread, if you would be so kind as to read it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3341316

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Thanks for the link.
I think you assume too much, with all respect.

The fact that some may challenge the application of the "push poll" nomenclature to certain types of election strategies is irrelevant, and doesn't detract from what may actually be happening in this instance.

We don't know to what extent the Hillary campaign is "testing their negative messages," do we? But we do know that you don't think the term "push polling" applies to whatever's going on.

***

By the way, there is a history with Hillary, Wolfson, and the rest --

Giuliani Accuses Mrs. Clinton of Negative Calls, Disguised as Polling
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

Officials with Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's Senate campaign yesterday accused Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign of engaging in manipulative telephone calls to spread negative impressions of the mayor. Mrs. Clinton's campaign immediately responded that the charges were untrue, and that the mayor was a hypocrite.

Bruce Teitelbaum, Mr. Giuliani's campaign manager, made the accusations of ''push-polling,'' a practice in which callers posing as pollsters spread negative and often false information about candidates, based on an article in this week's issue of New York magazine.

The article reported that on Feb. 14, a Westchester County resident received a call from a man identifying himself as an employee of Global Strategy Group, a Democratic polling firm. The magazine said the caller made such statements as, ''If elected, Rudy Giuliani said he would vote for Supreme Court judges who are against abortion.''

The caller then asked the resident, according to the magazine, if that changed how the resident felt about Mr. Giuliani.

Earlier this month, Mr. Giuliani said that he would not require a ''litmus test'' in voting on Supreme Court justices as a senator.

At a news conference, Mr. Teitelbaum described the call as ''the latest outrage'' from the Clinton campaign, which he said was ''push-polling in the most negative and pejorative sense.''

Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton's press secretary, responded that ''the Clinton campaign has never push-polled, and we never will.'' Mr. Wolfson also said that the Giuliani campaign had evidently not ruled out its own push-polling. Mr. Teitelbaum was quoted in the article, and then said again yesterday, that ''we have no current intentions to do push-polling.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907E6DD1330F930A15751C0A9669C8B63
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. I do think "push polling" has a very specific meaning
And so does the polling industry and political campaign professionals (Teitelbaum is blowing smoke; that is not push polling, but negative message testing).

In the Politico article, the Obama and Edwards campaigns are asked if they "tested negative messages" not if they push polled, because the issue is not about push polling - except for in the blogosphere. They won't say either way because campaigns don't usually want to let go of this stuff, but of course they are doing it - I doubt there has been a major presidential campaign in the past 50 years who hasn't done negative message testing. It's SOP.

Neither the Obama nor the Edwards campaign would say whether it has tested negative messages this year.


I would say something else, though. IF a campaign were to engage in push polling, they would hire a telemarketing firm to keep it as far away from their own inside pollsters as they could get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yep Hillary's at her shit again these people are SCUMBAGS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. If the source is "politico", I'm not sure I even buy it...
and I can't abide Hillary.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. heh... no kidding. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Politico and Newsday mention some lefty bloggers who have been reporting some dodgy calls.
I appreciate the heavy dose of skepticism, howerver.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. you got an answer for your question and proof to back it up? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. What so-called answer and what so-called proof?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
waiting for hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
8. Take at look at this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/27/94020/3696

Hillary Pollster Mark Penn's Firm Tests Negative Messages On Obama And Edwards -- Including On $400 Haircut
By Greg Sargent

Lots of people are understandably curious to know what sort of messages Hillary pollster Mark Penn is testing on behalf of her boss right now.

Well, we've got some answers to that question.

Penn's pollsters have been testing various negative messages on both Barack Obama and John Edwards. The messages tested on Obama were that he's inexperienced and that he's voted to fund the war at certain junctures.

A bit more surprising: Penn's firm polled on Edwards' $400 haircut, a line of inquiry that would seem more likely to come from a GOPer than from a fellow Dem's campaign. Penn has already created controversy for Hillary with his anti-union corporate clientele.


This isn't the first article about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Greg Sargent says several times in the comments
That he is *not* calling it "push polling" - and that's because it isn't push polling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. Did Hillary, Inc. give this story to the NY Times??????
Another New Hampshire Democrat, David Kulju, wrote on DailyKos that he was asked Sunday about a New York Times article raising questions about Edwards' work on poverty -- the same day the Times story ran.


What a coincidence!!

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Business Week ran that story in April or May
Why would anybody have to give it to the New York Times?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. This polling was following the exact points from that day's NY Times story.
Edited on Wed Jun-27-07 07:08 PM by Hart2008
There was a section on the Times piece on Edwards that included a summary of the article then "does this make you more favorable, somewhat more favorable...."


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/27/94020/3696

These polls, especially a long one like this one was, take some time to put together.

How did Penn know to prepare a poll using this story before it was published?
:wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Those polls take no time to put together at all
They're already prepared and waiting for specifics to be plugged into them. The databases are sitting there for phone banks. If it was that day's story, published that day, it would have been available the night before. I mean, I don't know. I'm just not seeing this would be so difficult to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. How would you know?
How do you know how many people they are "polling" with these questions? If they're just "testing out negative messages" they would only need a representative sample. Push Polling would involve many more "respondents". Do you know something not in the published reports that have been linked?

So Mark Penn's former partner says on Politico that it's not Push Polling? He also spins it as though Clinton is testing negatives to protect herself from attack - completely twisting the point that these questions include negatives about her OPPONENTS - not her. But hey, if he says so...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #25
32. I know nothing more than published reports
I do, however, know how polls are set up based on current news reports. The main point about including a current events question is because it's in the news that day. But the sequence of production events is pretty automatic and blocked out well in advance. It's pushing buttons once the decision is made and that decision might take all of twenty minutes to be reached. The phone script then goes up on the computer screens of the call staff and hooks into the pre-programmed data base and the calls begin. None of this takes days or even more than a few hours to initiate total.

However, it's not the numbers of calls that is the main distinction, except that a test poll is based on industry-established principles we are familiar with, sampling size, MOE, etc, and a push poll is not. Although it is one general indicator of whether a poll is a negatives test poll or a push poll, calling a representative sample or a huge sample, it's not the most major difference. The most major difference is information being taken in for analysis. No questions even need be asked at all in a push poll unless the poll wants some demographics. A push poll doesn't necessarily need "respondents" at all. But a test poll by its nature is made up of questions so that the answers can be compiled and analyzed.

It's the difference between market research (gathering data in) and telemarketing (pushing information out).

The first is a test poll and the second is a push poll.

Nothing I've read points to the latter and every polling professional who has commented that I've seen refers to the former. It's only by netroots that the poll is being called a "push poll" and the naive notion that every other candidate is NOT doing what Clinton is doing seems plausible. Is information going out with the test poll, as well? Sure. Is some of it negative? Yes.

It still doesn't make it a push poll.

Is this Penn's former partner, too, quoted in the Politico piece?

He hastened to add, however, that despite bloggers' impressions, testing negative messages is a standard political practice aimed at getting information, not persuading voters.

"The questions are legitimate," Maslin said, and the research will help the front-runner Clinton campaign "sit at the top of the hill and shoot at whatever comes at them."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. I guess it just comes down to whom you believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Pollster.com covers it today
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Link to compare the stories? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Here you go
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-27-07 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
17. Eness-Potter's story is starting to stink.
Edited on Wed Jun-27-07 06:39 PM by rinsd
"I'm pretty much ending my support for Hillary altogether here," he recalled telling the caller. "He apologized and said, 'Can we continue with the poll?'" Eness-Potter declined."

Compared with in the orginal report in the Iowa Independent

Next, the questions turned specifically to the candidates. The caller also asked the standard candidate ID question, “Who are you most likely to support in the caucuses?” (Eness-Potter identified himself as leaning towards Sen. Obama.)






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
26. Good read - I guess the Clinton campaign is not much different than Karl Rove and Co. nt
Edited on Thu Jun-28-07 12:12 AM by TeamJordan23
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. They don't hide the fact that Rove's campaign tactics for 2000 GOP nomination
is the template they are following. Why wouldn't they? It was a masterpiece of deception and character assassination that helped a mediocre Texas governor win the GOP nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
27. i don't know if it is push polling, but it had leading questions
and would not fly as a legitimate survey because of the way it leads the responder with negatively phrased questions.

i used to do phone surveys and the questions were carefully phrased--the survey takers had to read them exactly as written because we were genuinely interested in people's opinions. we weren't trying to influence them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
28. It is push polling and more and more reports are cropping up about this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
29. Hillary will hide behind "plausible deniability" while her attack dogs, Carville and Begala
do all the dirty tricks.

Do we really want this amoral bunch back in the White House? Haven't we had enough corruption from Bush that we want a different flavour of it by crowning Hillary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
31. Did you read the June 4th issue of 'Nation' and the article on Hillary?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman


<snip>

Polling Czar

After the 1994 election, Democrats had just lost both houses of Congress, and President Clinton was floundering in the polls. At the urging of his wife, he turned to Dick Morris, a friend from their time in Arkansas. Morris brought in two pollsters from New York, Doug Schoen and his partner, Mark Penn, a portly, combative workaholic. Morris decided what to poll and Penn polled it. They immediately pushed Clinton to the right, enacting the now-infamous strategy of "triangulation," which co-opted Republican policies like welfare reform and tax cuts and emphasized small-bore issues that supposedly cut across the ideological divide. "They were the ones who said, 'Make the '96 election about nothing except V-chips and school uniforms,'" says a former adviser to Bill. When Morris got caught with a call girl, Penn became the most important adviser in Clinton's second term. "In a White House where polling is virtually a religion," the Washington Post reported in 1996, "Penn is the high priest."

Penn, who had previously worked in the business world for companies like Texaco and Eli Lilly, brought his corporate ideology to the White House. After moving to Washington he aggressively expanded his polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland (PSB). It was said that Penn was the only person who could get Bill Clinton and Bill Gates on the same line. Penn's largest client was Microsoft, and he saw no contradiction between working for both the plaintiff and the defense in what was at the time the country's largest antitrust case. A variety of controversial clients enlisted PSB. The firm defended Procter & Gamble's Olestra from charges that the food additive caused anal leakage, blamed Texaco's bankruptcy on greedy jurors and market-tested genetically modified foods for Monsanto. PSB introduced to consulting the concept of "inoculation": shielding corporations from scandal through clever advertising and marketing.

In 2000 Penn became the chief architect of Hillary's Senate victory in New York, persuading her, in a rerun of '96, to eschew big themes and relentlessly focus on poll-tested pothole politics, such as suburban transit lines and dairy farming upstate. Following that election, Penn became a very rich man--and an even more valued commodity in the business world (Hillary paid him $1 million for her re-election campaign in '06 and $277,000 in the first quarter of this year). The massive PR empire WPP Group acquired Penn's polling firm for an undisclosed sum in 2001 and four years later named him worldwide CEO of one of its most prized properties, the PR firm Burson-Marsteller (B-M). A key player in the decision to hire Penn was Howard Paster, President Clinton's chief lobbyist to Capitol Hill and an influential presence inside WPP. "Clients of stature come to Mark constantly for counsel," says Paster, who informally advises Hillary, explaining the hire. The press release announcing Penn's promotion noted his work "developing and implementing deregulation informational programs for the electric utilities industry and in the financial services sector." The release blithely ignored how utility deregulation contributed to the California electricity crisis manipulated by Enron and the blackout of 2003, which darkened much of the Northeast and upper Midwest.

Burson-Marsteller is hardly a natural fit for a prominent Democrat. The firm has represented everyone from the Argentine military junta to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India, in which thousands were killed when toxic fumes were released by one of its plants, to Royal Dutch Shell, which has been accused of colluding with the Nigerian government in committing major human rights violations. B-M pioneered the use of pseudo-grassroots front groups, known as "astroturfing," to wage stealth corporate attacks against environmental and consumer groups. It set up the National Smokers Alliance on behalf of Philip Morris to fight tobacco regulation in the early 1990s. Its current clients include major players in the finance, pharmaceutical and energy industries. In 2006, with Penn at the helm, the company gave 57 percent of its campaign contributions to Republican candidates.

A host of prominent Republicans fall under Penn's purview. B-M's Washington lobbying arm, BKSH & Associates, is run by Charlie Black, a leading GOP operative who maintains close ties to the White House, including Karl Rove, and was a partner with Lee Atwater, the consultant who crafted the Willie Horton smear campaign for George H.W. Bush in 1988. In recent years Black's clients have included the likes of Iraq's Ahmad Chalabi, the darling of the neocon right in the run-up to the war; Lockheed Martin; and Occidental Petroleum. In 2005 he landed a contract with the Lincoln Group, the disgraced PR firm that covertly placed US military propaganda in Iraqi news outlets.

Black is only one cannon in B-M's Republican arsenal. Its "grassroots" lobbying branch, Direct Impact--which specializes in corporate-funded astroturfing--is run by Dennis Whitfield, a former Reagan Cabinet official, and Dave DenHerder, the political director of the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign in Ohio. That's not all. B-M recently partnered with lobbyist Ed Gillespie, the former head of the Republican National Committee, in creating the new ad firm 360Advantage, run by two admen for the Bush/Cheney campaigns. Its first project was a campaign against "liberal bias" in the media for the neoconservative Weekly Standard magazine.

As expected with such a lineup, B-M has a highly confrontational relationship with organized labor. "Companies cannot be caught unprepared by Organized Labor's coordinated campaigns," read the "Labor Relations" section of its website, describing that branch of the company (the section was altered after The American Prospect quoted it in March).

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
33. Hillary is a mole. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. John Edwards is a mole (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
huskerlaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-28-07 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
34. From what I hear...
Yes, she is.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC