Support NeoGAF

[Steel]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-berned-is-bernie-sanders-by-the-dnc-data-breach/


So yes it was significant enough, whether you think he actually used the information or not gathered by those four people is up to you.

There is a reason for this suit and certainly if it wasn't filed what are the guarantees they wouldn't have locked his campaign out of information for more than 24 hours.

There's a reason for the initial suit and why he wasn't criticized for it at the time. But it was 24 hours only and gave his campaign the optics of standing up to the DNC. The article you're quoting basically says that it would be immensely damaging... over the long-term. With the benefit of hindsight that it was only 24 hours, he's pushing the lawsuit again. That does not make him look good.

 

[maabus1999]

And by trying to do the right thing they were still denied access during that time. This is what the lawsuit is about. At every turn DWS has seemingly tried to stifle Sanders' campaign.

Except Sanders didn't hack into any Clinton servers. The DNC can sue the vendor who's firewall went down. Currently there is an independent investigation and audit of the system. What the DNC did was a breach of their contractual obligations to the Sanders campaign

Then why did Sanders fire the guy that did it.....

 

[DirtyManos]

It's not stupid at all, it's actually probably pretty strategic. If he wins the case it shows the DNC also acted incompetently and/or unethically, which then begs the question why. Do the DNC actually favour Hillary and have a bias against Bernie, and did they use this situation to indirectly display that? Or was it a simple mistake? In any case, depending on the result of the case, it could be a strategic move for Bernie with a wider goal, who no doubt is confident he'll win his case.

Yes because if there's one thing Americans respond well to, it's overt political squabbles and litigation culture.

It's such a bad idea I actually believe that Sander's campaign actually came up with it. It'd be par for the course on their decision-making skills.

 

[Matt]

I don't know where people get these strange ideas about the DNC, what it does, and how it operates.

 

[Melkezadek]

The insinuation that anyone who critiques Bernie must be apart of "HillGAF" is really frustrating to read.

It is possible to be pro Bernie and critical of this pursuit.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

I honestly have no idea who they could conceivably put up that would have the sort of appeal to sway someone who would vote Hillary but not Trump yet doesn't feel strongly enough about Hillary that they would go for <THIRD_PARTY_CANDIDATE>, but it is what it is. Perhaps it is simply a thought-experiment, but the fact that it's a very real strategy being weighed by the Republican party should say that it shouldn't be taken lightly. This party has proven that they will do A-NY-THING to get what they want--even shutting down the government.

Honestly, about the only way that strategy makes any sense would be as a way to prevent a Trump presidency.

As you mention, there's not really a third party candidate who would agree to run while funded by the GOP who would steal more Hillary votes than Trump. But if you set up, say, Mitt Romney, and got him on the ballot in Utah, the Dakotas, and Wyoming, maybe Kansas or Nebraska, you could do something like this. Basically, steal some of what would normally be considered banked GOP electoral votes out from under Trump. Then you could prevent what would otherwise be a Trump outright victory to throw the election to the House. But you would have to be really careful about picking your states, needing to make sure you're not picking anything that's less than about R+20 or so, because you would still have a spoiler effect going on in those states, and you're going to have to make sure that 40% of the electorate voting for Hillary doesn't put her in first in front of your "third party" candidate at 35% and Trump at 25%.

Basically, the strategy is nonsense. It's something you might want to do if things get late and Trump's going to burn down the party, but considering you're going to have to do the ground work to gain ballot access in all those states, by the time you'd want to do it, it would be too late to do it.

 

[maabus1999]

I almost wonder if he did this just to get some media attention; the networks have basically stopped covering him and his campaign plane is basically empty of media.

Maybe he is learning from Trump!

 

[Kthulhu]

The insinuation that anyone who critiques Bernie must be apart of "HillGAF" is really frustrating to read.

It is possible to be pro Bernie and critical of this pursuit.

Some of the posters here always show up in a thread where Bernie can be criticized and add their two cents, but never do I see them appear in a equivalent thread for Hillery to defend her or be critical of her. Those people are worthy of the label if you ask me.

 

[Steel]

I almost wonder if he did this just to get some media attention; the networks have basically stopped covering him and his campaign plane is basically empty of media.

Maybe he is learning from Trump!

I don't think any of the major channels have even run a single segment on this yet.

 

[Miles X]

Some of the posters here always show up in a thread where Bernie can be criticized and add their two cents, but never do I see them appear in a equivalent thread for Hillery to defend her or be critical of her. Those people are worthy of the label if you ask me.

Really? I've seen a lot of that. I guess we see what we chose to see ...

 

[Walpurgis]

Is that public funding? If so, it's something our current VP has been trying to do for years.

I'll use Canada as an example since that is what I have in my mind.

Public Funding

Canada&#8217;s system of party and election finance regulation provides two forms of state funding to political parties and to candidates.

First, political parties and candidates receive a reimbursement of some of their election expenses. Political parties that received either 2 per cent of the national vote or 5 per cent of the vote in the districts in which they ran candidates receive 50 per cent of the money they spent as a reimbursement. Candidates who received at least 10 per cent of the vote receive 15 per cent of the election expenses limit in their district as a reimbursement. In addition, if the candidate spent at least 30 per cent of the limit during the election, the reimbursement increases to 60 per cent of what the candidate spent during the election.

Second, Canada provides generous tax credits for donations to political parties and candidates. The first $400 of donations receives a 75 per cent tax credit; the amount between $400 and $750 receives a 50 per cent credit. Amounts over $750 receive a 33 per cent credit. An individual&#8217;s total tax credit in one year cannot exceed $650.

There was also a per-vote subsidy that provided each party with $2 per vote received in a federal election. The Conservatives got rid of it but I'm pretty sure it is coming back (now that they're gone) since it's a great idea.

Private Funding

Canada&#8217;s federal election finance laws put limits on contributions to political parties and candidates. Only individuals &#8212; not corporations or trade unions &#8212; may donate. Contributions are limited to up to $1,500 a year to each political party and up to $1,500 to all of the registered electoral district associations, contestants seeking the party&#8217;s nomination and candidates for each party. In addition, donors may give up to $1,500 to leadership contestants for a party as well as up to $1,500 to independent candidates. These limits were set in 2015, and the amounts increase by $25 each year. Political actors must disclose the names of anyone who donates more than $200.

Spending

Political parties and candidates face limits on the amounts they may spend during an election. Political parties may spend 73.5 cents for every voter in districts where they are running candidates. For their local campaigns, candidates may spend an amount based on the population of the district in which they are running, typically between $75,000 and $115,000. If the election campaign is longer than 36 days, as was the case in 2015, the limits for both parties and candidates are increased proportionately.

Groups or individuals other than political parties and candidates may spend no more than $150,000 to try to persuade voters during an election, and no more than $3,000 of that may be spent in any one district. Critically, all of these limits to spending apply only during the election period &#8212; between when the writs of election have been issued (when the election is officially called) and election day.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/party-financing/

Here is the result in the 2009 election (with the per-vote subsidy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada

It's not a perfect system since there are a few loopholes but I think that this is a huge step up from the current system used in the U.S. Clinton and Sanders should work together on something like this but better. It would change everything.

 

[noshten]

Then why did Sanders fire the guy that did it.....

Because what the people fired did wasn't particularly bright, considering it was well known that all this information and what was done with it would be easily available to the vendor. Look there is logs for these types of events and it's not something a low level staffer would know. The responsibility is totally on the person who called the shot and he was fired.

There's a reason for the initial suit and why he wasn't criticized for it at the time. But it was 24 hours only and gave his campaign the optics of standing up to the DNC. The article you're quoting basically says that it would be immensely damaging... over the long-term. With the benefit of hindsight that it was only 24 hours, he's pushing the lawsuit again. That does not make him look good.

Except his own campaign has said it would drop the suit once the audit results come out and their claims that they had previously notified the vendor about similar breaches are proved. The DNC either weren't notified or didn't care since obviously the issues with the vendor weren't resulted in such a scenario. I doubt there would have been an independent audit if there wasn't the necessary pressured applied to the DNC

 

[Suikoguy]

Some of the posters here always show up in a thread where Bernie can be criticized and add their two cents, but never do I see them appear in a equivalent thread for Hillery to defend her or be critical of her. Those people are worthy of the label if you ask me.

Her one seriously legit fuck up of Nancy Reagan and AIDS, which could not be explained by Context, she was criticized pretty hard by her supporters here.

 

[Cymbal Head]

This is stupid of the campaign, but fuck the DNC anyway. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has revealed herself to be a clown this cycle.

 

[Siyou]

I think what people fail to realize is that initially, it could have been much longer than 24 hours for this data to be inaccessible. It seems that guilty by association is exactly what everyone has felt from the start, in regards to the person in his camp accessing Hillary's campaign files, but that was one rogue in a larger campaign. Personally when I heard the news, I felt rather outraged. It makes no sense as to how something like this is even able to happen in the first place, but it did. The action in regards to the involuntarily access, this was not done with Bernie's approval by any means, plus it doesn't change who Bernie is.

In my eyes, he's the only one up there who isn't paid off. An independent posing as a democrat, to which he is still heckled for his beliefs in politics. I don't see anyone else in this campaign who makes me feel what Bernie has made me felt thus far in regards to politics.

I believe filing will lead to nowhere, but it will put them in check, and they'll need to make a move and hopefully an improvement. If he believes this is the right course of action, I say let the man do his business.

When did everyone exactly jump ship on the whole Bernie thing, and who now is the person to vote for and why? Serious question (no condescension meant. Sorry, it doesn't express well through words).

 

[Melkezadek]

Some of the posters here always show up in a thread where Bernie can be criticized and add their two cents, but never do I see them appear in a equivalent thread for Hillery to defend her or be critical of her. Those people are worthy of the label if you ask me.

And that may be true, but who cares what they're doing?

I care about Bernie's campaign. I care about his goals and the message he's sending. If I see actions counterintuitive to that goal, it's our job to be critical and get things back on track.

This "well what about them?! " attitude is just childish. We must hold our candidate to a higher standard than that. Let others worry about theirs.

 

[User 463088]

I almost wonder if he did this just to get some media attention; the networks have basically stopped covering him and his campaign plane is basically empty of media.

Maybe he is learning from Trump!

If you watch "The Circus," you'll see that his press plane is pretty much empty at this point. No one's covering his campaign because the race is considered essentially over.

Her one seriously legit fuck up of Nancy Reagan and AIDS, which could not be explained by Context, she was criticized pretty hard by her supporters here.

Agreed. That was an idiotic fuck up, and she was rightly called out on it.

 

[Arkeband]

I think what people fail to realize is that initially, it could have been much longer than 24 hours for this data to be inaccessible. It seems that guilty by association is exactly what everyone has felt from the start, in regards to the person in his camp accessing Hillary's campaign files, but that was one rogue in a larger campaign. Personally when I heard the news, I felt rather outraged. It makes no sense as to how something like this is even able to happen in the first place, but it did. The action in regards to the involuntarily access, this was not done with Bernie's approval by any means, plus it doesn't change who Bernie is.

In my eyes, he's the only one up there who isn't paid off. An independent posing as a democrat, to which he is still heckled for his beliefs in politics. I don't see anyone else in this campaign who makes me feel what Bernie has made me felt thus far in regards to politics.

I believe filing will lead to nowhere, but it will put them in check, and they'll need to make a move and hopefully an improvement. If he believes this is the right course of action, I say let the man do his business.

When did everyone exactly jump ship on the whole Bernie thing, and who now is the person to vote for and why? Serious question (no condescension meant. Sorry, it doesn't express well through words).

Hillary's really the only choice left, considering the Republicans are all psychopaths.

 

[Kthulhu]

Really? I've seen a lot of that. I guess we see what we chose to see ...

This is purely from my point of view.

I'm sure some of the people I would consider part of HillGAF have criticized her since the election started, but every time a thread like this one shows up, I look for the same couple of people who I've seen bend over backwards to justify Hillery's less then positive actions, and will also go to great lengths to criticize Bernie on the most petty of statements. And they are there almost every time.

As for my position in all this, I don't know what to think. Bernie has every right to sue the DNC. Whether that is a positive thing or not, I am unsure, but I have cast my vote for him, and will continue to support him and his causes until he drops out, or loses.

 

[legacyzero]

So as long as you handle it well after the fact the rules shouldn't apply to you?

/bernielogic

You act as if Bernie gave the order to snoop or something. Come off that stuff. Sanders didn't exploit it. A couple of campaign workers did.

And it was investigated and handled well.

 

[shem935]

This is purely from my point of view.

I'm sure some of the people I would consider part of HillGAF have criticized her since the election started, but every time a thread like this one shows up, I look for the same couple of people who I've seen bend over backwards to justify Hillery's less then positive actions, and will also go to great lengths to criticize Bernie on the most petty of statements. And they are there almost every time.

As for my position in all this, I don't know what to think. Bernie has every right to sue the DNC. Whether that is a positive thing or not, I am unsure, but I have cast my vote for him, and will continue to support him and his causes until he drops out, or loses.

Most of the criticism occurs in the Poligaf thread, especially for the Nancy Reagan gaff. I loved reading the discussion and learning a bit in the process. I would encourage you to give them a shot. Obviously they are pro Hillary but we need some people over there to keep us honest.

 

[Valhelm]

Seems to me like HillGAF is throwing the most sucker punches in this thread.

When your candidate is less ethical and further to the right, you need to rely on rhetoric rather than moral superiority.

 

[Steel]

Except his own campaign has said it would drop the suit once the audit results come out and their claims that they had previously notified the vendor about similar breaches are proved. The DNC either weren't notified or didn't care since obviously the issues with the vendor weren't resulted in such a scenario. I doubt there would have been an independent audit if there wasn't the necessary pressured applied to the DNC

As I've said multiple times in this thread the DNC looked petty when they shut down Bernie's access. I also said the initial lawsuit was justified. Them saying that they wouldn't drop the suit until the independent audit ended makes no sense. The independent audit was happening, and seeing as it's independent and not part of the DNC, keeping the threat of a lawsuit over the DNC's head until it finishes is utterly meaningless.

This is stupid of the campaign, but fuck the DNC anyway. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has revealed herself to be a clown this cycle.

She was always a clown. All party committee chairs are clowns. It's pretty much a job requirement.

 

[ElFly]

Her one seriously legit fuck up of Nancy Reagan and AIDS, which could not be explained by Context, she was criticized pretty hard by her supporters here.

At least Clinton apologized, instead of doubling down.

 

[exmachina64]

It's not stupid at all, it's actually probably pretty strategic. If he wins the case it shows the DNC also acted incompetently and/or unethically, which then begs the question why. Do the DNC actually favour Hillary and have a bias against Bernie, and did they use this situation to indirectly display that? Or was it a simple mistake? In any case, depending on the result of the case, it could be a strategic move for Bernie with a wider goal, who no doubt is confident he'll win his case.

The case could actually take until after November to resolve and might not answer those questions.

 

[Suikoguy]

At least Clinton apologized, instead of doubling down.

Well, it was helped that the emails Republicans tried to make something out of revealed her efforts for Gay rights overseas as SoS. Her full apology was also quite comprehensive. Combine those together and it's not much of a stretch at all to see it was a bizarre mistake. But still a legit mistake.

 

[boiled goose]

Its the only type of promises that Bernie deals in.

Wow. Not since the system wars years of GameSpot have i seen such Fanboyism. Not even on gaming side early gen years.

This election has been eye opening and depressing. Smh.

At least Clinton apologized, instead of doubling down.

Come on people... as if Sanders didn't apologize and deal quickly with the breach. Goddamn. It's frustrating.

The breach itself and how the dnc handled it are two separate questions. Come on people.

 

[Alrus]

Wow. Not since the system wars years of GameSpot have i seen such Fanboyism. Not even on gaming side early gen years.

This election has been eye opening and depressing. Smh.

I take it you don't go to reddit very often...

And please, as if all sides (including on this board) didn't post things equivalent to this every single primary day.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Everything you're saying is besides the point though. The way the DNC reacted is potentially wrong or illegal, hence why he's bringing the case forward. The rest is semantics. This isn't about whether he is being petty or not, it's whether the DNC followed the proper protocol or rules in how they handled the situation, and if not why not?

Two wrongs don't make a right. One was dealt with, the other is not. The implication from some posters here seems to be that because someone in Bernie's campaign fucked up, the DNC should be allowed to break rules and protocol, and Bernie (or by virtue anyone else) shouldn't have the right to challenge that. In law, there's due process. Someone commiting a crime, doesn't absolve the powers that be of having to follow that process.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding. Theft of digital data is still theft and potentially illegal. Yes, even through a glitch. What exactly did the DNC do that was potentially illegal? They may have potentially broken a contract, but only one side did something potentially illegal here and it wasn't the DNC.

 

[Steel]

The cognitive dissonance is astounding. Theft of digital data is still theft and potentially illegal. Yes, even through a glitch. What exactly did the DNC do that was potentially illegal? They may have potentially broken a contract, but only one side did something potentially illegal here and it wasn't the DNC.

Breaking a contract is illegal.

 

[cheezcake]

Reading through this thread is depressing. Candidate-of-choice = messiah, other candidate = antichrist. It would really benefit a lot of the diehard Clinton and Bernie supporters to think less binary, maybe try and understand where the opposition is coming from instead of just using selective reading and interpretation to reinforce that echo chamber.

 

[User 463088]

Wow. Not since the system wars years of GameSpot have i seen such Fanboyism. Not even on gaming side early gen years.

This election has been eye opening and depressing. Smh.


Come on people... as if Sanders didn't apologize and deal quickly with the breach. Goddamn. It's frustrating.

The breach itself and how the dnc handled it are two separate questions. Come on people.

He apologized on the debate stage, after he was prompted and added a "other campaigns might have done it too" qualifier.

 

[Odrion]

God damn it Bernie, not like this.

Fuck this world. Fuck it all. Fuck it.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Breaking a contract is illegal.

Generally when people call something illegal they mean criminal. I guess I read it as that. Bernies people potentially broke a criminal law, the DNC potentially broke a civil law. Which is worse in your mind?

 

[King Tubby]

Reading through this thread is depressing. Candidate-of-choice = messiah, other candidate = antichrist. It would really benefit a lot of the diehard Clinton and Bernie supporters to think less binary, maybe try and understand where the opposition is coming from instead of just using selective reading and interpretation to reinforce that echo chamber.

It's honestly exhausting to try to discuss politics like this.

 

[Damaniel]

Come on people... as if Sanders didn't apologize and deal quickly with the breach. Goddamn. It's frustrating.

By suing the people his campaign stole from. Sounds exactly like doubling down to me.

 

[Steel]

Generally when people call something illegal they mean criminal. I guess I read it as that. Bernies people potentially broke a criminal law, the DNC potentially broke a civil law. Which is worse in your mind?

I'm not disagreeing with that much. Just want facts to be straight.

 

[MIMIC]

Does this help him win voters when he is way below in the competition or not?

Suing for $75000 when the presidency of the united states is in risk is basically the definition of pettiness.

I hope he wins the lawsuit cause it will be a consolation price when he loses the nomination.

You have to sue for at least $75,000.01 when you're suing in a federal court under diversity jurisdiction (meaning that the parties in the suit are from different states).

Suing for the $75,000 is a requirement for the case to be heard. This isn't a "give me money!" thing. This is a "you must sue for $75,000 or your case will be thrown out and your lawyer will be sued for malpractice" type of thing.

Good to see that everyone here is a Civil Procedures expert.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

When your candidate is less ethical and further to the right, you need to rely on rhetoric rather than moral superiority.

Moral superiority? Oh look at you being morally superior to everyone!

 

[ElFly]

You have to sue for at least $75,000.01 when you're suing in a federal court under diversity jurisdiction (meaning that the parties in the suit are from different states).

Suing for the $75,000 is a requirement for the case to be heard. This isn't a "give me money!" thing. This is a "you must sue for $75,000 or your case will be thrown out and your lawyer will be sued for malpractice" type of thing.

Good to see that everyone here is a Civil Procedures expert.

Good point, but arguing that Sanders would have sued for _less_ money if it was possible does not exactly disprove the pettiness accusations tho.

 

[the_batman]

This is bullshit and you know it.

didn't he say he wants to have free university education for everyone and to end poverty?

 

[Tesseract]

Good point, but arguing that Sanders would have sued for _less_ money if it was possible does not exactly disprove the pettiness accusations tho.

actually it does

 

[ant1532]

Yikes, bernie is defending himself and now he is a piece of shit and fuck him?

Where did this come from?

From this point on, i don't think i want to participate in any political discussions, y'all are irrational when it comes to this shit.

hilary is perfect. this is poligaf. hilary is perfect.


bernie defending his position using the legal system. he is slime.


hilary is the perfect and strong leader we need.

 

[Arkeband]

didn't he say he wants to have free university education for everyone and to end poverty?

Hillary proposed free tuition at public colleges as well. I'm sure you knew that, though, which begs the question: what's your problem with free tuition at public colleges?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-proposes-debt-free-tuition-at-public-colleges-1439179200

 

[BennyBlanco]

Can't wait til his inevitable concession.

 

[Valhelm]

Hillary proposed free tuition at public colleges as well. I'm sure you knew that, though, which begs the question: what's your problem with free tuition at public colleges?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-proposes-debt-free-tuition-at-public-colleges-1439179200

Poor people obviously don't deserve to have nice things

 

[Dead Man]

So, at best it's an incredibly inept campaign decision. At worst, it's a prelude to either taking his campaign and going home, and doing nothing to help support Hillary or even worse, President Trump or Cruz via Independent run.

There is virtually no upside to the decision, and it's frankly baffling from every perspective unless you literally worship at the alter of Sanders and not his platform.

Yes, he is the devil and will surely fail to endorse the candidate closest to his position. You need to take a deep breath and calm down.

 

[AntoneM]

Yes, he is the devil and will surely fail to endorse the candidate closest to his position. You need to take a deep breath and calm down.

Because it's common to endorse some one who is supported by an organization you are suing?

 

[Team Alucard]

Hillary proposed free tuition at public colleges as well. I'm sure you knew that, though, which begs the question: what's your problem with free tuition at public colleges?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-proposes-debt-free-tuition-at-public-colleges-1439179200

Hillary's stated policy positions are irrelevant when nobody believes a single word she says.

 

[Alrus]

Hillary's stated policy positions are irrelevant when nobody believes a single word she says.

The majority of the democratic voters seems to believe her so far.