You may be aware that Senator Clinton has been caught putting people in the audience to ask questions at debates recently.

Do you think this is a problem? Why?

Do you think this is unethical? How?

Do you think there should be some penalty for doing this? What?

Will this have any effect on Hillary's campaign?

Do you think this is a problem? Why?

A problem? No. Welcome to politics. I'm willing to bet this type of thing has gone on for years.

Do you think this is unethical? How?

Unethical? Sure. But most political tactics are unethical.

Do you think there should be some penalty for doing this? What?

I think there is a penalty built in to being caught. The candidate is seen as being dishonest.

Will this have any effect on Hillary's campaign?

I think it will have an effect on her campaign.

Do you think this is a problem? Why?

Planted question IS a softball question, but it's still (usually) a legitimate question. Why is it a problem?
Planted question is a question designed to underline certain position of a candidate in a favourable light. I am quite positive they (all of candidates) do it all the time.
After all, Hillary (or others) don't get to say "I want a question from that man in the third row, that woman in first, and that will be it". Others have plenty of opportunity to ask their questions as well,
and the "plant" may not even get a chance to ask her question since it's up to the moderator.

Do you think this is unethical? How?

No. Not really. Is it unethical to put stools under short candidates to make them look taller? Is it unethical for President of the United States to use teleprompter when delivering State of the Union speech? All of these things are designed to improve our perception of a politician.

Do you think there should be some penalty for doing this? What?

No.

Will this have any effect on Hillary's campaign?

Maybe, but only marginal. I am not rooting for Hillary to win, my heart is with another democratic candidate, but I don't see her stumbling over this.

I wouldn't think it would be a problem, but the way CNN was identifying the plants as undecided republicans was extremely disingenuous.

See above for how it can be unethical.

The penalty is either CNN is incompetent or they are allowing the plants. Both look bad.

These plant questions were more than just from Hillary supporters.

I don't believe it's a problem, it's a run of the mill thing that goes with campaigns. Are people of the other party not to attend the opposition's rallies, phone in during call-in sessions, or attend debates like the lame-O CNN one? Really, how could you enforce something like that? What "penalty" could you have? This is truly a victimless "crime" if there ever was one. It will not have any effect on Hillary's campaign. Plants act on their own adn out of zeal. I doubt she ordered him to attend to raise trouble. I think she has other things on her mind at this point in time. Now if Karl Rove was involved in her campaign......

Do you think this is a problem? Why?

No. It's not a problem. I don't trust anyone who gets INVITED to a party rally to ask any very challenging questions (except me, of course). the party and the candidate are in the business of looking good, not of being honest. Honesty sometimes doesn't look all that good on television. Imagine a one-to-one scenario where you ask someone something. They are a well-meaning and decent person, but they don't know the answer. They say "I don't know. But I will find out and get back to you."

In personal life, or (most, day-to-day) business life, this is a perfectly acceptable situation. But on television, you just KNOW that they'll cut out the "But I will find out and get back to you" and loop it endlessly to make you look like you aren't on top of every thing all the time. Because, even though it's impossible, the modern political myth is that all candidates must be regular people just like us AND completely omniscient superbeings who know the answers to all questions and the right solutions to all problems.

The sad thing is that the politicians have bought into this as much as the rest of us have, and now seem to believe they are incapable of getting anything wrong. They'll apologise for things they have no part in (e.g. the slave trade) while refusing to acknowledge they are capable of error in, much less apologising for, they things that they alone are responsible for (e.g. engineering wars) .

Do you think this is unethical? How?

It's not especially ethical, but then neither is most TV reporting these days, especially of politics. I don't think it's a good idea, but I can see why most politicos thing it is one.

Do you think there should be some penalty for doing this? What?

Not such much a penalty, but compulsory national live phone-in debates for all candidates with a ban on earpieces, teleprompters, notes, mime artists, and anything else that mediates between the candidates' native skills and the public's eyes and ears.

It is still possible to do this - David Cameron, leader of the Tories in the UK (and no special favourite of mine) recently delivered a one hour speech at his party conference on the fly, with no notes, no teleprompter and no earpiece. He did it the old fashoned way and learned it beforehand. And Prime Minister's Questions each week, which many Americans watch with an equal mix of wistful envy (why don't our guys get grilled like that?) and scorn (how can they run a country like that?), shows that is it possible for polticians to think on their feet (some more than others - get a bloody grip, Gordon! You'll make John Major look like a titan of international statesmanship at this rate.)

I can understand why politicians in America are reluctant to embrace this idea, though. For starters, it doesn't fit easily into the US political system. That's before we consider that it would make most of them look like the chancers and/or dimwits that they are. (Oddly, I think Hillary Clinton would take to it like a duck to water. I'm pretty sure that she'd personally prefer it if she did get to debate and argue and cajole, but that her handlers know that would make her look too hectoring on television and that the polls say she needs to come across as more conciliatory and caring to snare those all-important voters)

Thinking more on this line, maybe the penalty for all politicians would be to ban opinion polling, both private polls for the parties themselves and the ones that get published in the media. I'd like to see how a campaign would run if this were tried, even as a one-off. Politicians would have to come across as they really are, rather than more like what this poll is telling them we'd like them to be, which changes six times a day for the whole 18 month campaign due to sampling errors, what we watched on TV last night, whether we got stuck in traffic today, how bad our indigestion is from the dodgy taco we ate earlier, etc.

Will this have any effect on Hillary's campaign?

It will help to convince people who weren't going to vote for her anyway that they are right to think that way. It will be ignored by people who've already made up their minds that she's their gal. And I don't see this issue being the deciding factor for any waverers because, as has been mentioned, this is not unique to Clinton. Or to the Democrats. Or to America. Or to the modern era.

As far as candidates planting questions at rallies and town hall meetings, I think it is idiotic, but I am sure more than just Billary is doing it. In regards to the CNN/YouTube debate debacle, I think it crosses the line. Right now we are in the process of choosing who is going to represent each side. The questions posed were not of great deciding factor for most conservatives. The reason campaign staff from the other side of the isle would want to put out "tough" questions such as gays in the military and abortion questions is to try to make the other side look bad. It makes no sense for someone that is the least bit conservative to ask these questions in todays situation with illegal immigration and the war on terror, lower taxes and smaller government being issues that are more important to conservative voters, IMO. These are the questions that one would expect at a GOP debate during the primary season. Now, if this was general election season, and there were two candidates up there, one from each side of the isle, these questions would make more sense. But to ask questions about liberal platform issues to conservative candidates for a conservative nomination only stinks of foul play from both the campaigns the plants came from and from the moderating organization that didn't do their homework.

In reading your post, I wonder why there shouldn't be pre-selected "spoilers." People who are registered members of the other parties who chime in from time to time to ask tough questions. Perhaps we could call it the "peanut gallery" and get folks who look like the two old guys in The Muppets, Statler & Waldorf. I think it would contrast well with how democrats and republicans try to appease the base. Heck, I'm waiting for when the candidates waterboard Ron Paul to prove how tough they are on Hitler appeasers.

Do you think this is a problem? Why?

I chose yes, but its sweet when they get caught doing it. If Hillary wants to do it again, so long as she is caught more power to her.

Do you think this is unethical? How?

Its dishonest and cowardly in my opinion.

Do you think there should be some penalty for doing this? What?

No, their penalty comes when people realize how much of a fake they are for planting questions. I don't think its illegal, but people should keep their eyes peeled to be ready to catch them when question planting is used. That draws negative attention to their campaign publicly and thats plenty enough penalty IMO.

Will this have any effect on Hillary's campaign?

Perhaps somewhat, its that and a combination of other things shes said and done that may hurt her in the long term, but question planting alone probably only contributes to a small dent in her campaign.

I think it's a big problem when you're debating somebody to have a fan weigh in favorably for your view when it's a legitimate debate. I think it makes the whole process look like a circus.

I mean, why not preface the question with "Oh, I just looooove your shoes"? It'd be more honest to openly slobber over a candidate than to pretend to be someone who was won over by ONE question at a debate. And insulting. To think that someone could be won over by a total stranger's endorsement and ONE question. That's dumb.

Ever notice the people asking questions are never angry? Where do all the angry people go for these debates? (hahaha, the bar, maybe) Where are the hard hitting questions? Hey, if you want to be a leader, you have to be willing to have your feet held to the fire, not hide under some banner of leadership where you're "safe" from The People. That's rubbish all over, and most certainly NOT unique to Hillary.

I do think it's unethical.

People are cynical of politics as it is. Nobody in either camp feels that We The People are represented. Planting people to ask you softball questions just solidifies that perception, because even when we DO get a special chance to speak to someone and ask a question, or criticize or point out a problem, we can be sure the plants are there so that our perfect little candidates don't get poor ratings for stumbling over OUR questions.

The campaign trail should be full of people who ARE speaking their grievances, not pot-luck, meet and greet socials. The campaign trail should be the hardest test a person can endure, not this fluffy "members only" garbage.

There is. It's called voter apathy.

Probably not. I mean, what's the charge here? Speaking to somebody who likes you?

I always get a kick out of the "I was a lifelong Republican until...." "I was a lifelong Democrat until..." prefaces to questions. Maybe I'm the only guy that doesn't buy that, but I think it's some Party Fan trying to recruit the fence sitters.

All sorts of dirty campaigning will be around as long as the suppliers of the dirty campaigning keep getting elected.

Edited to add: Kudos to the mods for the Ron Paul quip. I lol'd. (And he still got 25% of the vote!)

You're right that this isn't unique to Clinton (as this video shows, partcularly the part beginning at 1:28, where Obama is bagged bigtime), but what actual evidence, as opposed to just assumptions, do you have that the Republicans have been doing the same thing?

The only reason I say plants are a problems is because the "Only" plants they had
where Demarcate or Republican ones. It seems that Media is only interested in
debating the ideologies of those two parties.


It is absolutely unethical ! To try and pass off a rigged debate as a fair debate
shows that the media and or politicians are deceitful liars!
They should say and have a panel of opposition with a questionnaire.
i.e. there are many topics that the Reps & Dems equally don't want
to talk about.

Penalty? Sure but what?

This does show how Hillary is underhanded, and should be a warning sign to
anyone that would vote for her. She will cheat to have her way. Not a good
trait in a Prez!

I'm not so certain that it demonstrates how Hillary is underhanded. How is it any different when Ron Paul supporters spread the word about a given poll and inflate the numbers of his support, giving a false picture as to what it really is? This kind of thing happens all the time. If you like politician "A" and call in to a talk radio show to ask him a question, are you not a "plant" of some sort?

Uuhhh, no. If you are a supporter that is given a specific question to ask by the candidate, then yes, but if you are a supporter and call into a talk show to ask a question that is important to you, you are a responsible voter.

On the Ron Paul topic, is $6 million in one day giving a false picture of his supporters? $18+ million in the fourth quarter false picture of supporters? I can't disprove your conspiracy theory of spamming polls, but I would be interested in how $6 million coming in just one day is done through spamming. I suppose some campaign scandal could be found, but campaign scandals are kind of overused by the Clinton (both) campaigns , don't you think? I doubt Paul is going to go that route, but I could be wrong.

Fundraising isn't the issue here, that doesn't prove widespread support. It shows that a person has a deeply committed base. Howard Dean had similar success back in the day. What is the issue is "plants" and related dishonest activity. I'm merely arguing that it isn't just Hillary, and that anyone who thinks their candidate doesn't do anything like this, is seriously kidding themselves.

Yes, you can't disprove the Paulinista spamming effort, it's widely documented.

Paulinistas get Paul's name off of poll after spamming efforts.

Paulinistas force CNN to take down poll after results skewed. Ditto ABC.

Paulinistas bring down SF straw poll.

Totheright.org-Ron Paul supporters are cheaters.

The methods of Paulpot supporters.

Now like I said, I don't believer it makes Ron Paul or Hillary evil. Every candidate has rabid supporters, and possesses those few souls who would do anything to get their guy over the hump. I hope Paul does well, ditto Hillary. I mention Paul as NoMoreRepsDems appears to believe the problem has to do with the party duopoly, and that third party candidates are immune from this kind of thing.

You claim the polls don't show the actual picture of his support, I simply countered pointing out that you can't spam dollars, and with the surge in his fundraising shows a surge of support.


Just one quote from your source, obviously biased against Paul, making this source irrelevant in my opinion.



Your own source points out that:

I read this as an argument against your position, maybe I misread the first line of the quote.


I tried watching this, but all I heard was several people talking at the same time, please let me know what I am supposed to be watching for, and I will go back and watch the entire video.


This qoute make this source very credible:



I am going to need help with this claim because at the Ames straw poll, you only get one vote....

Do you think this is a problem? Why?

Definitely. I think this is part of the infotainment revolution we are in. The show is the thing. Image is everyything. OCntrol the script. These things are a scam as are most campaign stops. They are like reality tv shows. Look at how controlled Bush events are.

Do you think this is unethical? How?

I don't think it is right. I think that candidates should be held accountable for deceiving the public. I think candidates and politicians should give unfiltered access to the public. Not enough of the public finds this important enough to show up in the polls to change politicians ways.

Do you think there should be some penalty for doing this? What?

Public opinion should respond to these things.

Will this have any effect on Hillary's campaign?


But it doesn't and we get the candidates and politicians we deserve.

There is a big difference between a biased person telling you "Their Side" of the story
from the News Media presenting (or involved with) an "Unbiased" debate that is rigged.

It would be great if the News media would cover R.Paul enough to point out any pumped
up poll numbers! As far as R.P. goes I find it amazing that a candidate (Repub) can get
so much fan fair, Grass root support, and non-corporate donations and yet he's not
in the news(Much) or in the debates?!?!

If the Corporate media and Two party system doesn't want him he must be doing
something that will be good for the people!

People can donate more than once, it isn't indicative of widespread support. Paul has roughly 4,500 donors. Are we to seriously believe that these people aren't hit up again or that they aren't interested enough to donate again? People out of the blue just donated that money in one day? Perhaps a few did, but a large part of that money, came from the 4,500 some odd people who are rabid supporters. The number of donors is indicative of polling numbers, the amount of money donated is not. This rings true when you consider that the number of people who donated to Romney is roughly 27,000. Once again, Howard Dean had some great online fundraising success, it didn't translate into anything big when he ran. Ditto with Paul, who has been averaging 6 to 7% in the polls consistently. Spamming is fairly obvious as a candidate who has single digit polling, ends up winning your online poll. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how your results are so skewed. Perhaps it's Mike staying up late at night, hitting the "Paul" button repeatedly on some poor soul's website.



Is there any evidence that they haven't? What explains why a 6% polling candidate whips out a convincing lead over his double-digit peers?




Paul is running as a republican, though a large contingent of his supporters are libertarian party members. That is a clear and obvious explanation for the meetup numbers, especially when you consider that the libertarian party is doing more circles in the water than the Bismarck ever did.

Google can't be spammed? Google can't be manipulated? Wonder how that guy got the White House website to show up when you typed in miserable failure. Manipulation of google ranking can be done, it's known as google bombing.



There was a straw poll held in San Francisco, and the "Johnny come lately" Paulinistas flooded into the caucus to inflate the numbers, so the leadership cancelled the event. This is proof on tape of spamming and of trying to inflate the numbers, and giving a false pretense of support. If you listen close enough, you discover that they weren't regular party members who know how a straw poll occurs. They didn't buy tickets to the event and some of them made offers on the spot to buy tickets in order to participate. Maybe I should run to Des Moines and try a similar tactic for who I support.

nebraska29, your data is old. The link for the 4500 is from late October. It looks like most of the other data is old, too. You are using numbers which are not current. You will need legitimate data to bolster your argument.

Paul and Obama had the highest total number of contributors in mid December of all candidates. Paul's average contribution was $102 on the day he raised 6 million plus. That is quite a few contributors in one day which blows away the silly number of 4500 you have put forth.

Hillary and Paul are not the same when talking about ethics. The tag of 'they all do it' is weak and using Ron Paul to prove this is true is unproven. You will not be able to prove it as it is not true. It is time to expect more from our elected officials.

Has anyone ever seen a politician stumped at one of these debates, unable to decide what to say? I haven't. I can't even imagine that happening. All of these things are prescripted. The candidates know exactly who they are going to call on, and they have a very good idea as to what will be asked (unless the opposition plants their own double-agent plant who agrees to the question and then asks a different one..now wouldn't that be interesting to see?)

Do you think this is a problem? Why?

Only if you are expecting honesty from any politician. I gave up that starry eyed fantasy in '92 when Bill Clinton came to the University of Florida. I attended a similar function, but it was less formal.Tthe students just gathered around after he gave a speech in front of the cameras. By all outside appearances it was unscripted, no one was invited, a large group of students just showed up. I wanted to ask some pointed questions, but was never called on, unlike many other students at the rally. I asked them for the secret to being called on and found out that each of the students already had a question they were supposed to ask. That was my first and only experience with this type of thing, but I don't doubt for a moment that every single one of the candidates did /does /and will continue to do the same thing.

The average American voter doesn't want to see his/her presidential candidate sputtering and unsure of what to say. That would subtract more election browny points than any prescripted questions. And it would be inevitable because real human beings don't always have a ready answer to any and every question a person could shoot at them. I don't even think this is a sign of the times. I'm convinced this type of activity is as old as democracy itself.

Here is a more recent number:

Source.

Once again, the amount of money given is not indicative of support. If that were the case, he would be pulling double-digit numbers, but he isn't. He sustains that money through repeat donors and support from the libertarian party members. It is an impressive total that he has raised, but it has to be taken within context-major republican donors are waiting on the sidelines to see what sifts out.



Once again, that money has not translated into increased polling numbers. If you have evidence as to how the realpolitics polls are wrong, please let me know. I have a conspiracy theory about zogby myself.



It's hardly weak, I have posted youtube footage of them doing it, and right wing bloggers have noted that their own polls have been spiked. The claim that google can't be manipulated is the laughable assertion if I've ever heard one. That contention was easily refuted and there are more than a few links out there by techno-geeks as to how their own polls were ruined by Paulpots.

Sorry, but Paul's supporters have been caught red-handed.



Now how do you explain that? coincidence right?

CNBC also noted how their poll was cooked by Paul supporters.



75%, yep....no manipulation there.

I remember getting quite steamed about the idea of George Bush's rallies being attended only by those people who were willing to sign some kind of loyalty document, but it wouldn't surprise me if the same thing were true for Senator Clinton's rallies and for the others.

It always appears as a fluke when some questioner gets through all of the gatekeepers and buffers and asks a question that makes the politician uncomfortable or doesn't fit the "presentation" that the candidate's handlers have so carefully scripted. So much of the so-called news from the campaign trail isn't news at all these days. It's delightful when it does happen.

The old-timey term for people planted in audiences to help a promoter is "shill," http://www.yourdictionary.com/shill. I believe that all the candidates have them and that some of them are just better at it and don't get caught.

You have to keep in mind that the polls you are seeing today are not of every party. The republican polls are taken from a sample of registered republicans that intend to vote in their primary/caucus. If the pollsters were to cast a wider net, and check to see of the general public, the picture would be much different. As I have pointed out before, there will be people changing their party affiliation at the caucuses in order to vote for Paul. So far, the polls do not show how many Libertarians or democrats intend on voting for Paul, only republicans. The numbers that you came up with are from third quarter and does nothing to show how many new donors he gathered up in the fourth quarter. It will be interesting to see how large the numbers really get. I think you will be surprised to see that he gets more than the 6% he is currently getting after the caucuses are over. One more day and we will see if Iowa paints an interesting picture showing more support for Paul than most think. One more day and it can't come fast enough. This past year has been hell!

Just another wonderful example of Hillary planting support. Hillary Clinton recently enjoyed another “spontaneous” moment at one of her campaign stops in Iowa. At a rally in Donnellson, Clinton was asked if she was a Christian. After taking a moment to drone on about the important role faith has played in her life, Clinton was told that her former Sunday school teacher was in the audience. This was a complete coincidence, no doubt, despite the fact that her former teacher came all the way from Chicago just for this campaign event in Iowa and just happened to have a photo from Clinton’s 1959 confirmation class with her. So it’s settled: Hillary is a good Christian and does not put plants in the crowd. After all, why would this specific question be asked and coincidentally her Sunday School teacher of all people would have decided this particular day to meet Clinton unannounced at this particular event? It must be that crazy vast right-wing conspiracy! I particularly like this quote "Clinton aides said they were unaware the Sunday-school teacher was in the crowd." If that is the case, who pointed out the Sunday School teacher? If no one knew that she was there, why did someone point out that she was there? Is this all a coincidence? With all of these coincidences happening to the Clinton camp, someone needs to buy a lottery ticket, I mean, what can possibly be the odds of all these coincidences taking place to this one person?
Link



Sorry, after the first caucus, it appears that he did reach the double digit mark. What is more important here is that this was not a poll, but a caucus. In Iowa, republicans caucus just as they vote. Secret ballot, vote for who you support for president. My precinct had Paul at 16%. Paul came in 3 percentage points behind Thompson and McCain. Not bad for someone that doesn't get any support, I would say.

I was quite surprised by that.



Yep, still no support. As a matter of fact, what transpired in Iowa proved my point. Romney outspent Huckabee by a 20 to 1 margin, and still lost. Money didn't equate into support that translated into victory. Hillary dumped a ton of money and resources into Iowa, and lost. Money didn't earn her a victory either. Ron Paul raised a ton of money, and still came in third. Money didn't equate into an Iowa victory either. Forbes learned that lesson as well during his run. Just like the Beatles said-"Money can't buy me love." It also can't buy elections, or prove that you have juice.

Paul also didn't spend very much money in Iowa, but still came within three precentage points of Thompson and McCain. Just because Paul raised a ton of money, doesn't mean he spent it. There were very few ads for Paul compared to the ads for Romney and even Huckabee. I would say that there were about the same number of ads that I saw from Paul as there were from Giuliani. So, raising and spending are two different arguments. Which one would you like to use?

1.) Not really. Living in a Dubya-style democracy is about having the freedom to go about doing these things and these rights have and should always be extended to politicians no matter what kind of politics they choose to engage in.

2.) Planting questions is so low on the Corruption Meter that it's easy to write of for posterity. War crimes, illegal domestic spying programs and corporate cronyism? Those are larger issues that sort of eclipse softball questions in the whole unethical sense any day.

3.) On what grounds? The question may just as easily been asked by a staffer at the lunch table and the candidate have included it in a speech or two to make the point just as easily. There are few if any people I know that would honesty find grounds for punishment.

4.) It hasn't had a pronounced adverse outcome yet. However, things that once seemed trivial have a habit of becoming paramount in national elections.