And this is the response of Sanders supporters to the attempt by the DNC to cripple his campaign:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/19/amid-dust-up-with-dnc-sanders-raises-1-million-in-a-single-day-campaign-source-says/

These are the voters who Hillary needs to convince if she expect them to support her if she is the nominee.

16:30, your last sentence doesn't reflect CW. Most pundits and journalists have said if Clinton did this it would be the end of her campaign.

Re: the Atkins piece I posted, which most journalists are saying is the best explainer on this - I got something wrong. He is not aligned with any campaign but he said today he's an "open Sanders supporter."

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 am the PP to whom you responded but I assure you that there are several posters who have expressed sentiments similar to mine.

Yes, the Sanders campaign screwed up but it would be outright bizarre to think that Sanders personally had anything to do with it. Sanders is an ethical man - unlike Hillary who personifies everything that is wrong with the political process in the US.

Hillary is relevant to this discussion because the DNC has been catering to her campaign and there is not even a semblance of impartiality.

If Hillary's campaign had done something like Sanders campaign did it would have been brushed aside as having been the work of some underling and the DNC would have left it at that ....... and most people know this to be true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're ignoring the fact that the Sanders campaign accessed and tried to save another campaign's data. You realize that, right?

Why wouldn't the DNC want to share campaign data? Wouldn't that promote the strongest best candidate winning? Why would you want the best data to win rather than the best candidate?

Please read this to understand. It's by an expert who's unaligned with any campaign:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-...ation_of_what_bernie059035.php

If you have actually volunteered or worked for a campaign, you've probably canvassed and collected data for your candidate. That is proprietary data that belongs only to your candidate. It's used for micro targeting, GOTV, etc. It represents months of staff and volunteer work and a lot of money.

But it's still DNC data, granted embellished by a campaign, but none the less data based off of DNC data. For which the end goal is to determine the best candidate, isn't it? Or are you saying the DNC's goal is not to choose the best candidate, but to choose the candidate with the most money and thus the best data?

I think you don't really understand how it works. It's probably enough to say that pundits agree this would have been a fatal error if Clinton's campaign had done it.

Sanders' spokesman said today that the campaign is really mad this became a "gigantic press issue."

I'm not concerned with why this is an error. Given the rules it was clearly a violation. My question is why isn't campaign data shared? It would be like two divisions within a company not sharing data.

Have you ever worked a campaign? Even as a volunteer? If you had, I think this would be a lot easier for you to understand. Basically, some of the data is shared. Names, addresses, sex, probably even HHI, other folks living at that address, and voter registration status. Other data is gathered by the campaigns - whether the person likes or dislikes a certain candidate, what their big issues are (environment, reproductive rights, LGBT stuff, etc.). That represents literally hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours doing door knocking and talking to citizens.

It is the essence of a campaign, and it's absurd to think that the campaigns would share it.

Absurd to the campaigns yes, but not so absurd for the DNC. Why wouldn't the DNC want all their candidates to have equal access to what potential Democratic voters like/dislike along with what their big issues are? Why should that data be a secret? It would be like having a trial where data isn't shared. To me that data should be shared. How the candidates prioritize that data is what's important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're ignoring the fact that the Sanders campaign accessed and tried to save another campaign's data. You realize that, right?

Why wouldn't the DNC want to share campaign data? Wouldn't that promote the strongest best candidate winning? Why would you want the best data to win rather than the best candidate?

Please read this to understand. It's by an expert who's unaligned with any campaign:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-...ation_of_what_bernie059035.php

If you have actually volunteered or worked for a campaign, you've probably canvassed and collected data for your candidate. That is proprietary data that belongs only to your candidate. It's used for micro targeting, GOTV, etc. It represents months of staff and volunteer work and a lot of money.

But it's still DNC data, granted embellished by a campaign, but none the less data based off of DNC data. For which the end goal is to determine the best candidate, isn't it? Or are you saying the DNC's goal is not to choose the best candidate, but to choose the candidate with the most money and thus the best data?

I think you don't really understand how it works. It's probably enough to say that pundits agree this would have been a fatal error if Clinton's campaign had done it.

Sanders' spokesman said today that the campaign is really mad this became a "gigantic press issue."

I'm not concerned with why this is an error. Given the rules it was clearly a violation. My question is why isn't campaign data shared? It would be like two divisions within a company not sharing data.

Have you ever worked a campaign? Even as a volunteer? If you had, I think this would be a lot easier for you to understand. Basically, some of the data is shared. Names, addresses, sex, probably even HHI, other folks living at that address, and voter registration status. Other data is gathered by the campaigns - whether the person likes or dislikes a certain candidate, what their big issues are (environment, reproductive rights, LGBT stuff, etc.). That represents literally hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours doing door knocking and talking to citizens.

It is the essence of a campaign, and it's absurd to think that the campaigns would share it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're ignoring the fact that the Sanders campaign accessed and tried to save another campaign's data. You realize that, right?

Why wouldn't the DNC want to share campaign data? Wouldn't that promote the strongest best candidate winning? Why would you want the best data to win rather than the best candidate?

Please read this to understand. It's by an expert who's unaligned with any campaign:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-...ation_of_what_bernie059035.php

If you have actually volunteered or worked for a campaign, you've probably canvassed and collected data for your candidate. That is proprietary data that belongs only to your candidate. It's used for micro targeting, GOTV, etc. It represents months of staff and volunteer work and a lot of money.

But it's still DNC data, granted embellished by a campaign, but none the less data based off of DNC data. For which the end goal is to determine the best candidate, isn't it? Or are you saying the DNC's goal is not to choose the best candidate, but to choose the candidate with the most money and thus the best data?

I think you don't really understand how it works. It's probably enough to say that pundits agree this would have been a fatal error if Clinton's campaign had done it.

Sanders' spokesman said today that the campaign is really mad this became a "gigantic press issue."

I'm not concerned with why this is an error. Given the rules it was clearly a violation. My question is why isn't campaign data shared? It would be like two divisions within a company not sharing data.

Please read the explainer; it's much clearer than anything I can say. I appreciate you acknowledging that it was a violation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're ignoring the fact that the Sanders campaign accessed and tried to save another campaign's data. You realize that, right?

Why wouldn't the DNC want to share campaign data? Wouldn't that promote the strongest best candidate winning? Why would you want the best data to win rather than the best candidate?

Please read this to understand. It's by an expert who's unaligned with any campaign:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-...ation_of_what_bernie059035.php

If you have actually volunteered or worked for a campaign, you've probably canvassed and collected data for your candidate. That is proprietary data that belongs only to your candidate. It's used for micro targeting, GOTV, etc. It represents months of staff and volunteer work and a lot of money.

But it's still DNC data, granted embellished by a campaign, but none the less data based off of DNC data. For which the end goal is to determine the best candidate, isn't it? Or are you saying the DNC's goal is not to choose the best candidate, but to choose the candidate with the most money and thus the best data?

I think you don't really understand how it works. It's probably enough to say that pundits agree this would have been a fatal error if Clinton's campaign had done it.

Sanders' spokesman said today that the campaign is really mad this became a "gigantic press issue."

I'm not concerned with why this is an error. Given the rules it was clearly a violation. My question is why isn't campaign data shared? It would be like two divisions within a company not sharing data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're ignoring the fact that the Sanders campaign accessed and tried to save another campaign's data. You realize that, right?

Why wouldn't the DNC want to share campaign data? Wouldn't that promote the strongest best candidate winning? Why would you want the best data to win rather than the best candidate?

Please read this to understand. It's by an expert who's unaligned with any campaign:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-...ation_of_what_bernie059035.php

If you have actually volunteered or worked for a campaign, you've probably canvassed and collected data for your candidate. That is proprietary data that belongs only to your candidate. It's used for micro targeting, GOTV, etc. It represents months of staff and volunteer work and a lot of money.

But it's still DNC data, granted embellished by a campaign, but none the less data based off of DNC data. For which the end goal is to determine the best candidate, isn't it? Or are you saying the DNC's goal is not to choose the best candidate, but to choose the candidate with the most money and thus the best data?

I think you don't really understand how it works. It's probably enough to say that pundits agree this would have been a fatal error if Clinton's campaign had done it.

Sanders' spokesman said today that the campaign is really mad this became a "gigantic press issue."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're ignoring the fact that the Sanders campaign accessed and tried to save another campaign's data. You realize that, right?

Why wouldn't the DNC want to share campaign data? Wouldn't that promote the strongest best candidate winning? Why would you want the best data to win rather than the best candidate?

Please read this to understand. It's by an expert who's unaligned with any campaign:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-...ation_of_what_bernie059035.php

If you have actually volunteered or worked for a campaign, you've probably canvassed and collected data for your candidate. That is proprietary data that belongs only to your candidate. It's used for micro targeting, GOTV, etc. It represents months of staff and volunteer work and a lot of money.

But it's still DNC data, granted embellished by a campaign, but none the less data based off of DNC data. For which the end goal is to determine the best candidate, isn't it? Or are you saying the DNC's goal is not to choose the best candidate, but to choose the candidate with the most money and thus the best data?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're ignoring the fact that the Sanders campaign accessed and tried to save another campaign's data. You realize that, right?

Why wouldn't the DNC want to share campaign data? Wouldn't that promote the strongest best candidate winning? Why would you want the best data to win rather than the best candidate?

Please read this to understand. It's by an expert who's unaligned with any campaign:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-...ation_of_what_bernie059035.php

If you have actually volunteered or worked for a campaign, you've probably canvassed and collected data for your candidate. That is proprietary data that belongs only to your candidate. It's used for micro targeting, GOTV, etc. It represents months of staff and volunteer work and a lot of money.

Anonymous wrote:You're ignoring the fact that the Sanders campaign accessed and tried to save another campaign's data. You realize that, right?

Why wouldn't the DNC want to share campaign data? Wouldn't that promote the strongest best candidate winning? Why would you want the best data to win rather than the best candidate?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, a facile summary and you know it. Some voters understand that what happened is one of many things that have and continue to happen. They understand it is not indicative of the character, values, policies, or principles if their preferred candidate. They understand that much of the other stuff relevant to how campaigns are run in this country is more important and leaves Sanders smelling like a rose. There are much bigger a d more relevant corrupt fish to fry. This here is all noise.

You may nit agree, of course. But to fail to understand the pov of a large potential constituent base would be a grievous error.

You're ignoring the fact that the Sanders campaign accessed and tried to save another campaign's data. You realize that, right?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, a facile summary and you know it. Some voters understand that what happened is one of many things that have and continue to happen. They understand it is not indicative of the character, values, policies, or principles if their preferred candidate. They understand that much of the other stuff relevant to how campaigns are run in this country is more important and leaves Sanders smelling like a rose. There are much bigger a d more relevant corrupt fish to fry. This here is all noise.

You may nit agree, of course. But to fail to understand the pov of a large potential constituent base would be a grievous error.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. You have almost half the nation identify as independent yet two parties have a stranglehold on the political process. Imagine two corporations having that much power.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So Nader wasn't allowed to debate? I don't remember 2000 or 2004 that well -- but I remember Ross Perot very well from 1992 and 1996.