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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It suddenly starts to look very very sketchy for the Clinton campaign.

Turns out the guy running NGP/VAN used to work for Clinton.

Any one else kind of sick of the apparent incestuous nature of politics?

Anonymous wrote:It suddenly starts to look very very sketchy for the Clinton campaign.

Turns out the guy running NGP/VAN used to work for Clinton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders and Clinton sorted out their issues around the data access in the debate last night. If the DNC is still carrying on about this then that's a problem.

The DNC's CEO posted the update before the debate, because all parties agreed to an independent audit. But today Bernie was on one of the morning shows blaming the DNC's vendor and saying he thinks the Clinton campaign accessed his data, even though there's no evidence of that. So clearly he supports the investigation.

I don't think one can say "there's no evidence of it" - the only thing presented were specific Sanders campaign transactions. No Clinton campaign transactions of any kind were shown, and I'm highly skeptical that not a single Clinton staffer (or for that matter, no O'Malley staffer) touched the system that day.

There actually is no evidence of it. You can wait for the full independent audit, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders and Clinton sorted out their issues around the data access in the debate last night. If the DNC is still carrying on about this then that's a problem.

The DNC's CEO posted the update before the debate, because all parties agreed to an independent audit. But today Bernie was on one of the morning shows blaming the DNC's vendor and saying he thinks the Clinton campaign accessed his data, even though there's no evidence of that. So clearly he supports the investigation.

I don't think one can say "there's no evidence of it" - the only thing presented were specific Sanders campaign transactions. No Clinton campaign transactions of any kind were shown, and I'm highly skeptical that not a single Clinton staffer (or for that matter, no O'Malley staffer) touched the system that day.

There actually is no evidence of it. You can wait for the full independent audit, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders and Clinton sorted out their issues around the data access in the debate last night. If the DNC is still carrying on about this then that's a problem.

The DNC's CEO posted the update before the debate, because all parties agreed to an independent audit. But today Bernie was on one of the morning shows blaming the DNC's vendor and saying he thinks the Clinton campaign accessed his data, even though there's no evidence of that. So clearly he supports the investigation.

I don't think one can say "there's no evidence of it" - the only thing presented were specific Sanders campaign transactions. No Clinton campaign transactions of any kind were shown, and I'm highly skeptical that not a single Clinton staffer (or for that matter, no O'Malley staffer) touched the system that day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders and Clinton sorted out their issues around the data access in the debate last night. If the DNC is still carrying on about this then that's a problem.

The DNC's CEO posted the update before the debate, because all parties agreed to an independent audit. But today Bernie was on one of the morning shows blaming the DNC's vendor and saying he thinks the Clinton campaign accessed his data, even though there's no evidence of that. So clearly he supports the investigation.

Anonymous wrote:Sanders and Clinton sorted out their issues around the data access in the debate last night. If the DNC is still carrying on about this then that's a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Based on the very short timeline of events and based on the statements made there is no evidence that any detailed individual-level data was downloaded, and quite likely the kind of detailed data involving millions of records could not possibly have been downloaded in the short times indicated in the released audit info. Also, what was stated is that only one-page summary reports were accessed, which would be consisted with the audit timeline.

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.