The DNC is a joke
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Agreed! In fact, given the chaos on the Republican side, this is the equivalent of the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot and it was totally self-inflicted. It also had the effect of supporting the belief the DNC was totally siding with HRC and her campaign. |
Anonymous
| To those who want to point out how long Sanders has been in Congress, I'd point out that he is one of the very rare few there who is still holding to standards of ethics and decency and who has not just caved in to corporate interests and big donors like the rest. |
Anonymous
It only means that die-hard Sanders supporters are willing to look past it. Not a measure of his level of support among the general public. |
Anonymous
Presidential candidates often, but not always, sign joint fundraising agreements with the Democratic party in each state to raise funds that support both the candidate and down-ballot candidates in that state. It's a major party-building mechanism and is especially important this cycle, after years of relative neglect from Obama and poor leadership from DWS. Electing Democrats at every level is tremendously important right now. Bill and Hillary Clinton have worked closely with the DNC for decades. This year HRC has already signed joint fundraising agreements with many state parties and raises funds for them through the Hillary Victory Fund. If you buy HRC merchandise or contribute to her campaign, you're also asked to contribute to that fund. This week it held a fundraiser headlined by Sting that raised $8 million, much of which will go to support down-ballot Democrats across the country. Bill Clinton is a unique force in raising money to support other Democrats. So, yes, the DNC does get something from Democratic candidates who choose to support it. We desperately need more Democrats in Congress and in state government, and Clinton has made a concerted effort to help achieve that. |
Anonymous
Yes, this contradicts the audit reports a number of news outlets reviewed yesterday. I believe the Sanders campaign has agreed to a full independent audit, which RT Rybeck, the DNC vice chair, called for. Rybeck does not endorse Clinton and is not at all allied with DWS; quite the opposite. The DNC is hiring an outside security firm to do the audit. The Sanders campaign is not dropping the lawsuit, which is puzzling given that it has its data access back. DWS did HRC no favors but HRC will be magnanimous to Bernie, I suspect. Bernie's campaign team is not serving him well. He should have been informed about this right away; he should not have heard about it from DWS more than 24 hours later, and there was probably no need to file a lawsuit. While DWS overreacted, Bernie's team did too. That might fire up Bernie's base, but it doesn't say much about his ability to handle a crisis. Bernie supporters need to realize that Clinton had nothing to do with this and she is probably very unhappy with DWS, who served neither Clinton nor Sanders well here. I think it's well known that she would replace DWS in a heartbeat, but she has no authority to do that. |
Anonymous
In 2006, he decided to caucus with Dems. If he hadn't, it would be a 50-50 split, and Republicans would have kept the Senate. |
Anonymous
Your statement is true, but that speaks to only one part of the relationship. He caucuses with the Dems in the Senate and campaigns for some Democratic candidates, but he doesn't support the DNC as a whole in the same way other Democrats do. If he had, this would have played out somewhat differently, I think. His brand has been all about independence and then he decided to run within the system. That creates a lot of tension. The DNC data are one major advantage we hold over the RNC. Obviously Bernie needs access to his data, and as I've said, I don't think DWS should have cut him off. In the end, though, Bernie did exactly what the DNC asked: he's agreed to provide sworn affidavits and submit to an independent audit. Had he done that 2 days ago, data access would never have been cut off in the first place. So why didn't his staff tell him about this problem right away? Why did he have to learn about it from DWS? Why did he file a lawsuit only to end up giving the DNC what it asked for? |
Anonymous
Because he doesn't know how to act or play by the rules, which you have to do if you want their data. |
Anonymous
I'm the PP you responded to. I don't think Bernie knew anything about the data breach and I'm sure he was genuinely pissed that his staff did something so stupid. But I think he gets some bad advice and his aides don't always serve him well. |
Anonymous
I believe this is why the DNC decided this morning to reverse it's decision. I hope all this crap exposes the bullshit within the major parties, including the Democrats. Politicians of integrity should be trumpeting the incredible corruption that the most recent spending bill permitted, that is allowing major donors to hide. Money is continuing to roll in from what Bernie calls the "plutocrats" and "oligarchs" of big $$$. The Democrats need to watch their backs. Republicans are pissed off enough with establishment politics to turn toward the likes of that asshole Trump, and second place candidates but equally assholish Cruz and Carson. Somewhat less assholish candidates are riding right on their tails. Democratic voters are also getting pissed, and THANK GOD, they're moving toward alternative candidate Bernie Sanders. You're welcome, America. Wasserman Shmidt: No one trusts you. HRC: You're dangling precipitously on the edge. Establishment candidates: Come clean, wash your hands of corporate influence and get our nation back on track. Otherwise you're a bunch of corrupt bastards. |
Anonymous
Yep. And let me add that Hillary's rabid fans on twitter are doing her zero favors. Same goes for campaign staff. Hearing Brian Fallon completely misrepresent what happened and act as though it was the worst scandal to ever hit a campaign was surprising to me. Completely amateur move, irresponsible, morally wrong, and damaging to the party. It really pissed me off. I was warming up to Hillary. This has presented a stumbling block. It won't shock me at all if we find out her staff was peaking around and if that happens, she's toast. The woman irritates the hell out of me. Even when things are going well it's like she's determined to screw up. |
Anonymous
The DNC restored data access because the Sanders campaign agreed to its conditions. Had the campaign agreed to this two days ago, data access wouldn't have been lost in the first place. By not telling Sanders of the problem, his staff put him in a difficult position. If Sanders wants to run as a Democratic candidate and use the DNC's data platform, he needs to ensure that his staff abide by the user agreement. |
Anonymous
Audits have determined that only the Sanders campaign accessed another campaign's data. Jeff Weaver acknowledged on CNN that he had no evidence of anything else. Fallon's stance is political gamesmanship, just as the Weaver/Devine stances are. I think HRC will take a different tack, and Bernie will take a much less blustering stance than his campaign manager did. This is how campaigns play these things. For the life of me I don't know why the DNC isn't under new leadership. Everyone would prefer it. |
Anonymous
Agreed to all of the above, but I'll add that Sanders lost me when he blamed this on "some young staffers." The guy who did this, Josh Uretsky, has been working on national campaigns since 2006. Do you know how long that is in campaign terms? The guy is practically a Sanders-level wizened old veteran, as campaigns skew notoriously young. Uretsky was also the national data director. Considering how powerful the VAN data is, that's a pretty senior position in the campaign. This wasn't some young kid making an innocent mistake, and for Sanders to portray it that way is disingenuous. |
Anonymous
I think that when all is said and done, you will see that this little episode warrants ZERO concern about Bernie Sanders. It is less significant than Hillary's "damn emails." It is less significant than falsified campaign signatures. It is less important than "harvesting baby parts." It is NOT IMPORTANT and is NOT AND INDICATION OF CORRUPTION. I very strongly believe this will be borne out. I think that the DNC got nervous, and rightly so. It was going to be raked over the coals, and they and HRC miscalculated their strategy to take advantage of this nothing-event to make BS look bad and weaken his campaign. It blew up in their faces. You want to worry about corruption in politics? Worry about the legal activity. Worry about Hillary's SuperPAC and its contributors. Worry about her positions on campaign finance reform (zero, squat, nothing) and corporate favors via trade policy (which BS pushed her to "reconsider"), bank and finance laws and regulations, and her kissing up to dirty energy. This is very, very serious. By contrast, this BS about BS is but a speck of Unimportant Nonsense. |