Election – R&R – Reachout and Rebuild

Voting in the Pandemic Era: Safety First.

David Posnett — Tue, 12 May 2020 01:36:06 +0000

Safety First (in the Southampton Press)

As the officers of the Southampton Town Democratic Committee, we wanted to share some thoughts about the controversial decision to cancel the New York State Presidential Primary. We understand that there are Democrats who wished the primary to go forward so that their chosen delegates would have more of a say in the development of the Party Platform. However, there are many circumstances that argue in favor of the decision to cancel the primary.

New York State is constitutionally prohibited from automatically mailing absentee ballots directly to voters. That translates into an onerous process requiring many hands to send out applications, check the applications when returned for validity and then mail out the actual ballots. So, this is a two-step process. Approximately 600,000 applications will be mailed in Suffolk County alone and then, depending on how many completed applications are received back at the Board of Elections, hundreds of thousands of ballots will have to be processed and mailed.

Once ballots are returned, they would be clocked-in, sorted and finally opened after election day, June 23^rd. Furthermore, since Suffolk County does not have scanners to do this work, hundreds of thousands of ballots in Suffolk County will have to be read and tabulated by hand at a time when the Board of Elections does not have a full complement of employees and social distancing rules are in effect.

We do not want any voters to feel disenfranchised, but the reality is that there is no contest for the Democratic candidate for President. This is not the same as canceling the Presidential election on November 3^rd. While the party platform is a worthy aspirational statement of our ideals, it has no teeth unless we elect more Democrats to every branch of government who will then have the power to implement those values. Similarly, the United States Constitution is just a piece of paper, unless there is the political will in this country to enforce it. We have already seen tremendous erosion of the rule of law in the past four years. Instead, let us focus on getting our candidates elected.

This is not politics as usual. This is politics in the midst of a life-threatening pandemic. It makes ultimate sense for us to put safety, health and the well-being of our voters and election workers first.

Gordon Herr, Chair, Southampton Town Democratic Committee

Robin Long, 1st Vice-Chair

Andrea Klausner, 2nd Vice-Chair

The Main Reason why I am Voting for Perry

David Posnett — Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:46:51 +0000

Reprinted from the Southampton Press from this week

By Michael Koegler

I have been following the race in NY01 from the very beginning of the primary season. The first time I met Perry Gershon was at the Democratic candidate’s forum held at the StonyBrook College campus in Southampton on January 6^th. At that time there were six candidates vying to unseat incumbent Republican Lee Zeldin in this year’s general election. All of the candidates made their pitches regarding healthcare, gun control and issues related to international relations such as moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. I had not made up my mind as to whom I would support and went to the event with an open mind. I listened to all of the candidates articulate their positions on many of these important issues and decided that Perry Gershon was the best one of the group to challenge Lee Zeldin in the general election.

Fast-forward nine months and here we are six weeks away from one of the most important elections in the history of the United States. That is a bold statement so let me try to explain why I feel that way.

There used to be a time not too long ago when I was a Republican. I switched my affiliation after the 2008 financial crisis because I felt that the Republican Party had lost its way as a result of the Tea Party and the ultra-partisan politics that they ushered in. No one represents the ultra-partisan Tea Party politics in this country more than Lee Zeldin.

During his term in office, Lee Zeldin has showered praise on Donald Trump and demonized all of those that have been critical of him and his administration. He has enabled Trump’s criticism of the press, FBI, justice department, intelligence community and anyone else that happens to be the target of a Trump tweet storm. He is not willing to provide a check to Trump’s power and been nothing less than a Trump sycophant, parroting his hateful and petty rhetoric without regard for the damage it causes our Democracy. Zeldin has also perpetuated many of Trump’s conspiracy theories, including his claims that there was no election interference by the Russian government and that the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt.

It is one thing to play partisan politics, but another thing altogether when you fail in your responsibility to defend our Democracy and the constitution. Zeldin’s unwillingness to keep a check on Donald Trump is the single biggest reason to vote for Perry Gershon in November. To be clear, I do not believe that Trump should be impeached, but we desperately need a check on his power. Lee Zeldin is not willing to do that, but Perry Gershon is. It is time for change.

Secretly Harvesting Facebook Data Helped Decide the 2016 Election

David Posnett — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 21:38:20 +0000

On March 17th, The Guardian and The New York Times published a groundbreaking article about whistleblower Christopher Wylie and his role in harvesting Facebook data used by Cambridge Analytica, the data analytics firm contracted by the Trump campaign. Wylie asserts they accessed the personal information of 50 million Facebook users without their permission, gathering information via an app called “Thisisyourdigitallife,” which sold itself as a research app used by psychologists to predict personality. Approximately 270,000 people downloaded the app, collecting detailed information on not only them, but also their online friends who never gave consent. Personal information harvested included name, education, work history, birthdays, likes, locations, photos, relationship status, religious affiliations and political membership. Even more disturbing, The Guardian claims Facebook was made aware of the data breach in 2015, yet they did nothing to ensure the stolen data was destroyed.

The Attorney General of Massachusetts has already launched an investigation into Cambridge Analytica, and Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) have sent a joint letter to Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, demanding chief executives of Facebook, Twitter, and Google testify before Congress about how their companies share personal user data. “While Facebook has pledged to enforce its policies to protect people’s information, questions remain as to whether those policies are sufficient and whether Congress should take action to protect people’s private information,” wrote Klobuchar and Kennedy.

Congress and State Attorneys General must act swiftly to investigate the practices of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook to ensure the online privacy of users is safeguarded and not shared without informed consent.

Smirnoff mocks Trump’s Russia scandals in new ad

David Posnett — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 15:54:30 +0000

AUTHOR

Emma Liem @emma_liem

PUBLISHED ON FOOD DIVE

June 13, 2017

Dive Brief:

Vodka maker Smirnoff released an outdoor ad campaign that mocks the Trump administration’s alleged collusion with the Russian government, according to Adweek. The ad, which sparked a wave of social media buzz, features an image of the iconic Smirnoff bottle with the text: “Made in America. But we’d be happy to talk about our ties to Russia under oath.”
The ad alludes to President Trump’s recent claims that he will testify to Congress under oath about a special prosecutor’s probe into accusations that Russia influenced the 2016 election in his favor.
Smirnoff vodka dates back to an 1860s Moscow distillery, but is now part of British-based global beverage maker Diageo. Today’s Smirnoff vodka is distilled at a Diageo facility in Plainfield, Illinois.

Dive Insight:

In the aftermath of a divisive election and in the midst of a controversial, scandal-ridden presidency, brands may be tempted to distance themselves from the political sphere for fear of alienating valuable consumers. Ignoring consumers’ feelings toward today’s politics could be a risky move, however, as this could cause people to view some brands as out of touch.

Russell Zack, senior vice president of products and solutions at HelloWorld, told Food Dive that in today’s marketplace, brands can’t afford to be completely apolitical.

“Brands who have a global audience really do need to make a statement about where they stand politically, and you’re seeing those big global brands like Anheuser-Busch and Coca-Cola make those statements — most of which are about inclusion,” Zack said. “There’s also so much consumer choice out there, so brands need to be very clear about their position in the world.”

Smirnoff’s ad campaign deftly makes light of an issue that is plaguing both sides of the political spectrum, though it will likely be interpreted as anti-Trump by some consumers. It’s important for brands to have a deep understanding of the behavior of their consumer base before launching a political marketing blitz. Companies want to avoid having to backpedal after launching an ad that toes the line as Smirnoff’s does. Businesses that decide to try such a campaign should have a response and game plan ready in case of backlash.

“Anything can be misrepresented, anything can be possibly misconstrued, and if brands are making these statements, they need to be prepared for any type of response — good or bad — that consumers will have in response to those comments,” Zack said.

It will be interesting to see how consumers react to the ad in the coming days, and if Smirnoff will experience any sales hits as a result. So far, social media users have been commending the poster as a “good burn”, driving the ad to Reddit’s front page during the weekend.

When Anheuser-Busch aired its “Born The Hard Way” Super Bowl commercial, which depicts the immigration of co-founder Adolphus Busch from Germany to the U.S. in the 1800s, the ad garnered both praise and criticism. Some consumers called for a boycott of Budweiser products, claiming the commercial was made in response to President Trump’s immigration ban. Smirnoff’s ad doesn’t seem to have inspired the same vitriol, but only time will tell if the politically charged campaign will help or hurt the company’s sales and brand image.