Anonymous wrote:This is the most air time the media has given Bernie yet. I think it will end up in his favor.

Which is why he filed a lawsuit.

If you are actually interested in the facts, and why the data matter, please read David Atkins' explainer. He's an expert who is not affiliated with any campaign and he's someone who actually understands how the data system works:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_12/an_explanation_of_what_bernie059035.php

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one knows how much money is coming into HRC's or any of the GOP candidates' campaigns. That is the nature of SuperPACs and other shadow campaign operations. HRC is not above the pale. She's in it to win it by hook or by crook. Some find that appealing. Some find that forgivable.

I find it to be fundamentally un-American. Our nation was founded to be by, for and of the PEOPLE, not by, for and of the CORPORATIONS.

This ^^. It's also a shame that the major parties have a lock on who will become president. The Democratic and Republican parties are 10 times more powerful than any SuperPAC or corporation. No for the PEOPLE candidates have a reasonable chance unless they are backed by the deep pockets of the DNC or GOP.

I'm fairly confident Sanders would have preferred to run as an independent. But he and everyone else knows that is not a financially feasible option and a waste of time.

When Nader last ran and started getting a following the DNC and RNC banded together to make it much harder for an independent than for a Republican or Democrat to run, raising the bar and requiring far more signatures and other things than were ever required before. They also locked independents out of debates. They were so threatened by the mere presence of Nader that they wouldn't even let him sit in the audience or come near the venue - even though he had gotten a ticket to attend. This is also why you never see anyone running as "Tea Party" in national or state politics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one knows how much money is coming into HRC's or any of the GOP candidates' campaigns. That is the nature of SuperPACs and other shadow campaign operations. HRC is not above the pale. She's in it to win it by hook or by crook. Some find that appealing. Some find that forgivable.

I find it to be fundamentally un-American. Our nation was founded to be by, for and of the PEOPLE, not by, for and of the CORPORATIONS.

This ^^. It's also a shame that the major parties have a lock on who will become president. The Democratic and Republican parties are 10 times more powerful than any SuperPAC or corporation. No for the PEOPLE candidates have a reasonable chance unless they are backed by the deep pockets of the DNC or GOP.

I'm fairly confident Sanders would have preferred to run as an independent. But he and everyone else knows that is not a financially feasible option and a waste of time.

This is the most air time the media has given Bernie yet. I think it will end up in his favor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HRC and the DNC realized that if they may a big deal out of this, two things would happen:

1) An investigation would reveal very unpleasant things about the two of them. They want to keep that under wraps.

2) They don't want to lose BS supporters. They believe they can win the nomination, but to polarize democratic-leaning independent progressives would jeopardize their chances. They want unity and they want to maintain their lead. They do not want to initiate a rift.

Someone woke up and smelled the stinky coffee they're brewing.

I agree with you about #1.
As for #2 - I think it is too late. Many BS supporters have been lost by HRC.

HRC has lost Sanders supporters because Sanders' national data director, a longtime campaign veteran, improperly accessed and saved data belonging to the Clinton campaign? Okie dokie.

Anonymous wrote:HRC and the DNC realized that if they may a big deal out of this, two things would happen:

1) An investigation would reveal very unpleasant things about the two of them. They want to keep that under wraps.

2) They don't want to lose BS supporters. They believe they can win the nomination, but to polarize democratic-leaning independent progressives would jeopardize their chances. They want unity and they want to maintain their lead. They do not want to initiate a rift.

Someone woke up and smelled the stinky coffee they're brewing.

I agree with you about #1.
As for #2 - I think it is too late. Many BS supporters have been lost by HRC.

HRC and the DNC realized that if they may a big deal out of this, two things would happen:

1) An investigation would reveal very unpleasant things about the two of them. They want to keep that under wraps.

2) They don't want to lose BS supporters. They believe they can win the nomination, but to polarize democratic-leaning independent progressives would jeopardize their chances. They want unity and they want to maintain their lead. They do not want to initiate a rift.

Someone woke up and smelled the stinky coffee they're brewing.

Anonymous wrote:No one knows how much money is coming into HRC's or any of the GOP candidates' campaigns. That is the nature of SuperPACs and other shadow campaign operations. HRC is not above the pale. She's in it to win it by hook or by crook. Some find that appealing. Some find that forgivable.

I find it to be fundamentally un-American. Our nation was founded to be by, for and of the PEOPLE, not by, for and of the CORPORATIONS.

No one knows how much money is coming into HRC's or any of the GOP candidates' campaigns. That is the nature of SuperPACs and other shadow campaign operations. HRC is not above the pale. She's in it to win it by hook or by crook. Some find that appealing. Some find that forgivable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Bernie doesn't have a superPAC himself but he is accepting help from at least two superPACs. Liberal activists have praised Clinton's campaign finance reform plans, Steyer supports her climate and clean energy plans and Elizabeth Warren just declared her support for Hillary's Wall Street reform plans. You should be pleased by all of this, not dismissive, if you really care about these causes.

The real problem is that Hillary says whatever will help her politically at any point in time. I really have no idea what she genuinely believes. Also keep in mind that of all the Republican and Democratic candidates, Wall Street likes Hillary the best - so that should tell you something about her convictions.

It is not without reason that a substantial majority of Americans don't trust Hillary.

To paraphrase what was once said about Nixon: "Would you buy a used car from her?" I would not but I'd have no hesitation buying one from Sanders.

Yes, we know this. You say it over and over. It's interesting that you choose to do it in a thread that is largely about reactions to the Sanders campaign inappropriately accessing Clinton campaign data. You have the Rovian thing down pat.

I think there are several folks articulating several sentiments, and I am one.

I will say this: When it comes to elections, I am not interested so much in the minutiae of campaigns. I am interested in a candidate's vision, ethics, policy positions, and my belief that they are a person of integrity--meaning the candidate (a) does not articulate positions or value that are anathema to mine and (b) will not turn on a dime in order to curry favor. HRC is a second-place choice to BS, for me, for these two reasons.

IMO, this particular DNC/Sanders data access issue is a micro-blip. I do not believe this speaks at all to BS's campaign ethics or the general operation of his campaign. Therefore, it is a non-issue to me. The DNC reaction to it is, to my mind, extremely suspicious. And their step-back is also, to my mind, confirmation that this partisan love-fest they have going is suspicious, and they don't want to draw negative attention to themselves. It does look like "Big Guys" trying to step on "Little Guy" and then realizing, "Ooh, we look like jerks--better back off."

Did someone do something that looks bad? Yes. Do I think it is indicative of the campaign BS is running or wants to run? No. Do we want to dig out all of the crappy campaign activity that is happening within various Democratic campaigns... HAHAHAAAA: apparently some people don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Bernie doesn't have a superPAC himself but he is accepting help from at least two superPACs. Liberal activists have praised Clinton's campaign finance reform plans, Steyer supports her climate and clean energy plans and Elizabeth Warren just declared her support for Hillary's Wall Street reform plans. You should be pleased by all of this, not dismissive, if you really care about these causes.

I do care about these causes very, very much. HRC still falls far, far short.

I'll let Andy Borowitz do the talking for me:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/hillary-expected-to-adopt-all-of-sanderss-positions-by-noon

Agree! Clinton still has a long ways to go. And the majority of her support is still coming from Wall Street and SuperPACs - so I'm very skeptical of the prospects of any meaningful reform.

Please link to a source for the bolded statement. I do not think the majority of her current support comes from Wall Street. It certainly does not come from superPACs, since superPACs cannot donate to campaigns. Her campaign has far outraised her superPACs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Bernie doesn't have a superPAC himself but he is accepting help from at least two superPACs. Liberal activists have praised Clinton's campaign finance reform plans, Steyer supports her climate and clean energy plans and Elizabeth Warren just declared her support for Hillary's Wall Street reform plans. You should be pleased by all of this, not dismissive, if you really care about these causes.

I do care about these causes very, very much. HRC still falls far, far short.

I'll let Andy Borowitz do the talking for me:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/hillary-expected-to-adopt-all-of-sanderss-positions-by-noon

Agree! Clinton still has a long ways to go. And the majority of her support is still coming from Wall Street and SuperPACs - so I'm very skeptical of the prospects of any meaningful reform.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Bernie doesn't have a superPAC himself but he is accepting help from at least two superPACs. Liberal activists have praised Clinton's campaign finance reform plans, Steyer supports her climate and clean energy plans and Elizabeth Warren just declared her support for Hillary's Wall Street reform plans. You should be pleased by all of this, not dismissive, if you really care about these causes.

The real problem is that Hillary says whatever will help her politically at any point in time. I really have no idea what she genuinely believes. Also keep in mind that of all the Republican and Democratic candidates, Wall Street likes Hillary the best - so that should tell you something about her convictions.

It is not without reason that a substantial majority of Americans don't trust Hillary.

To paraphrase what was once said about Nixon: "Would you buy a used car from her?" I would not but I'd have no hesitation buying one from Sanders.

Yes, we know this. You say it over and over. It's interesting that you choose to do it in a thread that is largely about reactions to the Sanders campaign inappropriately accessing Clinton campaign data. You have the Rovian thing down pat.

Anonymous wrote: Bernie doesn't have a superPAC himself but he is accepting help from at least two superPACs. Liberal activists have praised Clinton's campaign finance reform plans, Steyer supports her climate and clean energy plans and Elizabeth Warren just declared her support for Hillary's Wall Street reform plans. You should be pleased by all of this, not dismissive, if you really care about these causes.

The real problem is that Hillary says whatever will help her politically at any point in time. I really have no idea what she genuinely believes. Also keep in mind that of all the Republican and Democratic candidates, Wall Street likes Hillary the best - so that should tell you something about her convictions.

It is not without reason that a substantial majority of Americans don't trust Hillary.

To paraphrase what was once said about Nixon: "Would you buy a used car from her?" I would not but I'd have no hesitation buying one from Sanders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally I hope Sanders says screw you to the DNC and runs as an independent.

Several Republican elected officials took to Twitter yesterday to say the same thing.

Yes it would probably be a good thing for the Republicans. But it would also be a strong lesson learned by the DNC.

What would be really cool is if both Sanders and Trump ended up running as independents. Now that would be interesting.

When his campaign had early conversations about this, Bernie instantly said he would run as a Democrat, according to those in the know. He has said over and over again that he won't run as an independent. Everyone remembers Ralph Nader and 2000.

Of course I'd love for Trump to run as an independent. This campaign cycle is endlessly fascinating. Did you know Ted Cruz erotic fan fiction is a thing?

Tonight O'Malley will rail against the DNC yet again and try to suck up to Bernie supporters. Bernie and Hillary will be grownups. Bernie won't go all fire and brimstone, no matter what his top aides say. He'll probably throw a few bones about it to his base, but he won't make that the centerpiece. Hillary will say that if her friend and colleague Bernie tells her the data have been properly disposed of, she believes him and wants to move on to talking about the issues Americans care about.

At least that's what I think will happen.