• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

DNC suspends Sanders campaign access to database after staff breached Hillary's data

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maledict

Member
I'm actually not so sure of this following the DNC debacle. I mean, who else do you pick? There's no "senator from swing state" who actually fits the bill, and making sure your whole party is coming with you is pretty important. At best, Sherrod Brown, I guess, being from Ohio, but Ohio isn't really such a swing state these days anyway.

Um, whilst it's not *the* most swing state, Ohio is stil in many ways the key to the whole thing. There's almost no realistic path to the White House for the Republican Party that doesn't go through Iowa - and this time around the Republicans won't have a nominee with the header of 'let Detroit go bankrupt', and they won't have Obama pummelling him for 3 months uncontested about the auto industry bailout and vulture capitalism.

If a VP pick locks up Ohio then the democrats would be stupid not to take it - it basically wins them the election.
 

Maledict

Member
I think this year is almost exceptional in terms of the rancour between the two sides, though. Clinton and Obama came from the same mould and the fight between the two was understood by the same terms; Obama was just better at it. By contrast, Sanders' supporters and much of Clinton's are simply worlds apart at the moment; I'm not convinced whoever can become the nominee can breach that divide easily. This doesn't necessarily mean Sanders himself has to be the choice if/when Clinton wins, but I think she'll be making a very bad decision indeed if it isn't someone who can appeal to that base. If she picks Gillibrand or Castro, I think she's asking for trouble.

EDIT: Actually, that's an unfair reflection on Castro; he's probably not as divisive as Gillibrand is, I just think he lacks charisma.

Oh gods no. As annoying as these squabbles have been, this is *nothing* compared to 2008. That was the longest, most bloody primary battle in recent American political history. Unlike the current fights, there was honest worry that Clintons 18 million or so votes wouldn't back Obama, and it took a lot of work to shift them over.

The 2008 campaign was unique in so many ways, and one of those was the sheer length, bloody mindedness and viciousness between the camps. It's what made Race of a Lifetime such a good read! ;-)
 

Foffy

Banned
You could replace a couple of words there with muslims/terrorists/immigrants and that post would be a direct breitbart copy. Trump is saving us from the evil brown people and Sanders is saving us from evil rich people.

That said, the rich in many instances are a larger problem. Fairly regressive, more prove to believe in free will bullshit, tend to evocate views that disempower people to unionize, etc.

But not all of our problems are from the Kochs. What role do they have to play in infrastructure or a health care system that can simply be called cancerous?

Our problems are basically rooted in division. I vs you, not I and you. Gotta deal with a very American way of thinking.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Oh gods no. As annoying as these squabbles have been, this is *nothing* compared to 2008. That was the longest, most bloody primary battle in recent American political history. Unlike the current fights, there was honest worry that Clintons 18 million or so votes wouldn't back Obama, and it took a lot of work to shift them over.

The 2008 campaign was unique in so many ways, and one of those was the sheer length, bloody mindedness and viciousness between the camps. It's what made Race of a Lifetime such a good read! ;-)

It was a long battle, but you didn't have e.g. one campaign suing the DNC, is my point.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, people forget the Hillary is 44 shit, the Michigan shit, etc.

We've literally just had one campaign open a lawsuit against the Democratic National Convention. Clinton-Obama was long and arduous but it was mostly within the established grounds of contention, shadier aspects like Clinton feeding the birther conspiracy aside.
 
We've literally just had one campaign open a lawsuit against the Democratic National Convention. Clinton-Obama was long and arduous but it was mostly within the established grounds of contention, shadier aspects like Clinton feeding the birther conspiracy aside.

Except for it is a stupid lawsuit launched by a campaign that is actually at fault and is down 25 points in the polls.

6 months from now no one will even remember it.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
I don't know that I agree with that, Crab. I think the cleavage in the party caused by the Hillary / Obama battle was far more significant. For one, the scale was different. Hillary had much, much more popular support and the race dragged on far longer. The gradual loosening of her hold over the superdelegate community was highly acrimonious and there has been quite a lot written about how the Clintonistas take betrayal. Bill said some absolutely nasty things about Hillary; the debates were far nastier (Hillary even drudged up Tony Rezko at one point). PUMAs/Democrats for McCain/Hillaryis44 was just as visible as the various subreddits are now, just far less centralized.

Clinton is favorable to 85%+ of Democrats. I truly see no evidence to suggest the vast majority of people backing Sanders won't eventually vote for her, even leaving aside the really dedicated fans in Bernie's crowd (on the internet).

We've literally just had one campaign open a lawsuit against the Democratic National Convention. Clinton-Obama was long and arduous but it was mostly within the established grounds of contention, shadier aspects like Clinton feeding the birther conspiracy aside.

Well, the Clinton 08 campaign did have a public airing of grievances with the DNC over Michigan and Florida delegates, but really, so what? No one is going to even remember this one day lawsuit in November 2016.

I think it's kind of handwaving away how difficult 2008 was and how SIGNIFICANT it was that Hillary was there at the convention to pledge NY's delegates by saying the terms of the debate were largely the same. The candidates are consistent on enough policy that only the real cult of personality is going to get caught up in this.

I am not worried.
 
We've literally just had one campaign open a lawsuit against the Democratic National Convention. Clinton-Obama was long and arduous but it was mostly within the established grounds of contention, shadier aspects like Clinton feeding the birther conspiracy aside.

They opened a lawsuit over contractual squabbling, not really anything of substance. Bernie has a small following of extreme devotees, but the actual amount of hostility against the party mainstream is low, compared to the vitriol exchanges by the Obama and Hillary supporters.
 

Maledict

Member
It was a long battle, but you didn't have e.g. one campaign suing the DNC, is my point.

Um, you don't recall the hilary campaigns legal tussles with the DNC over Michigan and Florida? That was a huge argument at the time that completely divided the party, and really threatened the whole democratic process.

And even that is now completely forgotten - the idea this is somehow worse just doesn't match up, sorry. If Bernie feeds it and then goes independant I'll buy into that, but I expect him to line up behind Clinton as expected when this is all over (or her him if needs be).
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I don't know that I agree with that, Crab. I think the cleavage in the party caused by the Hillary / Obama battle was far more significant. For one, the scale was different. Hillary had much, much more popular support and the race dragged on far longer. The gradual loosening of her hold over the superdelegate community was highly acrimonious and there has been quite a lot written about how the Clintonistas take betrayal. Bill said some absolutely nasty things about Hillary; the debates were far nastier (Hillary even drudged up Tony Rezko at one point). PUMAs/Democrats for McCain/Hillaryis44 was just as visible as the various subreddits are now, just far less centralized.

Clinton is favorable to 85%+ of Democrats. I truly see no evidence to suggest the vast majority of people backing Sanders won't eventually vote for her, even leaving aside the really dedicated fans in Bernie's crowd (on the internet).

I don't know, maybe this is just intuition then, but Obama and Clinton were essentially the same candidate. You look at their voting records from when they were in the Senate, and they were close to identical, you look at their positioning within their own party, close to identical. There wasn't really anything keeping Clinton people migrating to Obama aside from acrimony because both offered fundamentally the same solutions and policies. This isn't the same of Sanders-Clinton. Sanders represents a totally different wing of the party to Clinton; they absolutely had different positions, and getting Sanders people to successfully move over to Clinton is going to be harder than just kiss and make up; Clinton has to do active persuasion and compromise on the policy front.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
We've literally just had one campaign open a lawsuit against the Democratic National Convention. Clinton-Obama was long and arduous but it was mostly within the established grounds of contention, shadier aspects like Clinton feeding the birther conspiracy aside.

A lawsuit that settled after one day. 2008 had likeable enough, Obamas campaign calling Bill racist, claims of disenfranchisement in MI and Florida that had to be settled at a contentious committee hearing (there was also a lawsuit about it if that holds some kind of special value for you), PUMAs, etc. Sanders simply isn't competitive enough for this year to rise anywhere near the level of contentiousness that 2008 did.
 
Yeah, the 2008 fracture was a lot more substantial and really could have had a nasty effect in the general elections then had Obama not brilliantly handled the post-nomination battle. Not to mention Clinton's efforts to unite the party.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
The lawsuit hasn't been settled as far as I'm aware, the Sanders campaign is still pursuing it.

EDIT: Okay, we'll have to wait and see, I'm just pretty confident Clinton will carry less of Sanders' support with her than Obama did of Clinton's.
 

Foffy

Banned
The lawsuit hasn't been settled as far as I'm aware, the Sanders campaign is still pursuing it.

And what is to be gained from it? As I said before, it would make sense if he sued because they milked his punishment, pushing and pushing access further and further back, but he got it back already.

What damages can he present? He lost access for hours, not weeks.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
And what is to be gained from it? As I said before, it would make sense if he sued because they milked his punishment, pushing and pushing access further and further back, but he got it back already.

What damages can he present? He lost access for hours, not weeks.

As far as I'm aware, they're pursuing it now firstly for $1.2mil in damages and secondly to get access to internal DNC communications because they think DWS was openly trying to stack the deck.
 
The lawsuit hasn't been settled as far as I'm aware, the Sanders campaign is still pursuing it.

EDIT: Okay, we'll have to wait and see, I'm just pretty confident Clinton will carry less of Sanders' support with her than Obama did of Clinton's.

Do you mind me asking how old you are? I understand many of Bernie's supporters are young, and depending on how old you are, you were probably too young to pay attention 8 years ago. 2008 nomination fight was really brutal. It had all the wall-to-wall coverage that the Republican nomination is now getting. Think Trump but with Clinton and Obama instead. It's why every one in the media is saying how quiet the Democratic nomination is right now.
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
You can't actually try to turn my words against me here, since my whole point was that Obama couldn't get his moderate policies past the point, and so Bernie has zero chance - statistically, it would be as close to 0% as possible - of passing even more progressive legislation. So a Bernie Sanders presidency would be one where all his policies would be neutered into moderate proposals before it passed in the House/Senate anyway. In other words, the whole point behind getting a Sanders elected - truly socialist/progressive ideals in a President - would be effectively a non-starter. Not a single socialist/progressive piece of legislation is getting passed under a Sanders OR a Hillary presidency.

So you're voting for Supreme Court Justices primarily. And since Bernie has a far smaller chance of getting elected, objectively (odds makers, polls, statistics plus America's historic disdain of socialism, which is inarguable - all in Hillary's favor), I choose to play the odds. That's what a pragmatic vote looks like. I prefer Bernie's policies, but won't waste a vote for ideology when I know he's not getting progressive legislation passed.

American history is one of opportunism. You have to choose the right time to make these changes. Right now is simply not the right time, due to Republican obstructionism. What Bernie supporters should do is vote who they feel, they switch to the inevitable Hillary candidacy, and then push for their candidates to encourage their constituents to actually participate in the US Census and gerrymander the fuck out of the districts in revenge for Republican gerrymandering. THEN once that's fixed, we can get a Democratic Socialist candidate who actually has a shot at passing legislation.

Until that point, it's simply symbolic - and a symbol is not worth shit when you're having to tell women they can no longer get an abortion because they lost that right due to the Republican president nominating conservative justices and destroying the balance of the court for generations. You guys are willing to take that risk - as someone who prefers Bernie's policies but actually understands how our system works, I am not. Because real lives are on the line. And Bernie's progressive policies ain't getting passed, so he's not going to be changing lives with progressive legislation. He's going to do it with Supreme Court Justices.

So since it comes down to that, I'm picking the candidate with the indisputable best odds to win. Because in the end, due to Congress, both Hillary and Bernie will only be able to pass the most moderate of proposals. In other words, there is no chance the country is getting more progressive with a Bernie proposal. No legislation is getting written into law which will push us closer to Democratic Socialism.

It is not time. Because I understand how American politics actually works, I will bide my time and vote for such a candidate when they have a shot at actually affecting that change. Bernie has a zero percent chance of affecting that change, and Hillary has a better shot at winning. And that is how a person, in a completely sensible and pragmatic fashion, chooses Hillary over Bernie while still preferring Bernie's policies.



Read my posts in full before you cast nonsense accusations about my beliefs. I clearly state multiple times that neither Hillary or Bernie are going to be able to pass legislation that is particularly progressive. In effect, then, we're voting for Supreme Court Justices and who has a better shot at winning and nominating those justices.

If we want real progressive change, we need to fix the gerrymandering system which a president has no power over. We need to participate in the census, get Democrats to redistrict after 2020 census, and then get Democrats to actually participate in the mid-terms to get progressive leadership in the House and Senate (and a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate if possible sans Blue Dogs Democrats fucking things up, which makes this even a taller order).

You guys seem to get very annoyed when people relate the cold hard facts regarding how our political system works. Yes, it's frustrating. The only way to fix it is to actually go to the source of the issue, not risk losing a major election to make a point that won't even actually be able to do shit progressive-wise as President.

Bernie cannot fix it, and taking a bigger risk on a Democrat becoming president is not, in the view of many Hillary supporters, worth it. It's not worth it to me, and I wildly prefer Bernie's policies by leaps and bounds. If you can't win me, you ain't winning shit.

And if you can't get a Democratic House and Senate by the time Bernie is elected (or at least 2 years into his term during the mid-terms), you ain't doing it. You ain't getting shit for progressive legislation passed, and neither is Hillary. And the only way to do that before 2020 is to win 56% of the vote. During a mid-terms. As a Democrat. This is not going to happen sans Merlin literally coming into reality and casting a magical spell to do it.

That's pragmatism in action. It's annoying, but it's better than living in a fairy tale world.

Once again, no Bernie supporter has yet to state even a single path to getting their legislation passed. I keep mentioning this because that is the important part. You guys must present a case that there is a meaningful path to doing that before 2020. Not a single Bernie supporter has, ever. That means something. Because ideology without a plan to enact said ideology is about as valuable as dog shit.



None of Bernie's ideas are getting into action if he were to get elected. That's a fact, not a guess. There is no actual way to get around the Republican majority in the House or the problems with the Senate fillibuster with the current climate. It would require a catastrophic meltdown of the Republicans probably related to such fuck up of monumental order to get 56% or more of the vote necessary to even get a simple majority. And they still wouldn't have a Super-majority to get passed the filibuster in the house. So we need to fix the gerrymandering, and to do that we need to make out well during the 2020 census. That's how we do it. It's the cold hard facts.

Risking a much less likely to be elected Bernie simply to make a point when none of his progressive ideas are ever going to be enacted is simply foolhardy, and there is simply no way I'm risking it when Supreme Court Justices are on the line. They are getting set for example to eliminate Affirmative Action. This wouldn't happen if the court wasn't split the way it was. Now imagine a Republican gets elected because we have people who wanted to be slick and have a "conversation" with the country about a Democratic Socialist which the country wants nothing to do with? You can keep making arguments they don't, but that's why the "socialist" attack was so successful on Obama. It's not going to be better for someone who fully admits they are. It's a fact America (read: a good solid majority) hates socialists. And Bernie has neither the charisma nor discipline in his campaign to actually be the one to make that change happen by sheer force of will. So It's not fair, but that's what it is.

Explain how we fix that to make Bernie's odds better, then explain how we get his legislation passed.

I am choosing the path most likely to get a Democrat into office so we can nominate liberal justices. It's as simple as that. Because I know as someone who understands how our political works that this is the best I can reasonably hope for. Bernie or Hillary are both going to have to settle for legislation far more moderate than I would ever endorse. There's no way around it til we fix the Republican gerrymandering.



The socialist attacks were incredibly successful against Obama. They participated in killing many of his key legislative initiatives. The difference is Obama never said he was a socialist on record, and his policies were super moderate so the evidence never supported it. Bernie admits it on video, admits it over and over, doesn't shy away from it and his policies are actually super progressive at times.

So, yes, we have evidence the attacks are effective. And we have polls that show it matters. And we have most odds makers and polls that say Hillary has a much better chance at being elected.



Of course. As I said multiple times, Hillary and Bernie both have a shit chance at passing any progressive legislation. They'll both settle for moderate policies they can get through the House, and they will both settle for Supreme Court nominations being one of their key legacies (without knowing what type of foreign policy shit is going to occur the next 4 years).

So again I'm simply choosing pragmatism. I know the evidence supports Hillary having a much better shot, I know she has the entire Democratic establishment behind her and thus the money and I know neither are getting progressive legislation passed. So I choose the one most likely to be elected.

This isn't fear, it's a simple understanding of our system. There's nothing malicious about it, since I like Bernie more than Hillary. A lot more.

No lies detected.
 

Riddick

Member
None of this is reality. "The corporations" aren't pillaging the country, we're not headed straight for a cliff. You've bought into the same kind of fear-mongering rhetoric that Trump and Carson supporters have, just from a different source. Yes, there is rampant income inequality; Yes, there are problems with our political system, but in no way is it this good vs. evil picture you've bought into where Bernie is our only salvation from the evil billionaires.

Politics isn't a bunch of mustache twirling men throwing money at politicians.

You could replace a couple of words there with muslims/terrorists/immigrants and that post would be a direct breitbart copy. Trump is saving us from the evil brown people and Sanders is saving us from evil rich people.

Are the obnoxious Trump comparisons a new Clinton campaign talking point or something, I've been hearing this crap a lot. Is the neoliberal Clinton supposed to be the "moderate" here, that's why the Trump comparisons, because Sanders is "far"-left like Trump is far-right?

Fyi social democracy isn't far anything, it's a combination of capitalism and socialism, the economic far-right here is the ideology Clinton supports, the ideology of corporate interests and bought politicians.

For the record the country has been going down a cliff for a while now, they have fully legitimized political bribery through huge campaign "donations", there have been multiple studies confirming that the US is an oligarchy, there is vast inequality, the pillaging of productivity gains, pensions and so on has been going on for a while too, the criminals that cost the middle class in the US hundreds of billions of dollars were never prosecuted because the political system is fully controlled by them, a new patriot act was just signed yesterday and so on. But yeah, we're alarmists, keep telling yourselves that.
 
As far as I'm aware, they're pursuing it now firstly for $1.2mil in damages and secondly to get access to internal DNC communications because they think DWS was openly trying to stack the deck.

Which only shows how poorly managed his campaign is.

Once again, down 25 in the polls, the DNC doesn't need to "stack" anything, and they only even lost access to the data for a few hours.

Strikes me as a thief suing a home owner because he cut his hand on glass on the way in.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Do you mind me asking how old you are? I understand many of Bernie's supporters are young, and depending on how old you are, you were probably too young to pay attention then. 2008 nomination fight was really brutal. It had all the coverage that the Republican nomination is now getting. It's why every one in the media is saying how quiet the Democratic nomination is right now.

I'm 24, I was 17/18 for 2007-8 depending on which section of the primaries. My argument isn't that 2016 is more closely contested, that's nonsense. What I'm saying is that I think Sanders supporters have been driven away more actively from the Clinton campaign than Clinton supporters were from the Obama campaign; or to put it another way, that Clinton will retain less of Sanders' base than Obama retained from Clinton's base. We'll just have to wait and see come November 2016 at this rate; feel free to quote me then.
 

TheCrow

Member
Four Questions Bernie Sanders Needs to Answer

This saga - and having our campaign’s hard work violated by the Sanders’ campaign - has been disturbing to our campaign and the volunteers who worked hard to build a strong organization. But it has also been a distraction from the issues that the American people care about. We think those issues should be the focus of the debate tonight: issues like raising wages, access to healthcare, and keeping America safe. However, given news that Senator Sanders and his team apparently want to make this topic the centerpiece of their debate strategy, here are some questions that should be on the table...

In conclusion...

To most voters, this will all seem pretty arcane. They care about raising wages for their family. They care about security for their family. They care about who’s going to keep them safe. They certainly don’t spend much time thinking about campaign data theft.

With that said, if Senator Sanders intends to make his campaign’s theft of our data a rallying point, he should have to answer these questions. His campaign took advantage of a security flaw to access and retain proprietary Clinton campaign information. We don’t know if they still have it. Those are all facts. No amount of misdirection changes those facts.


We look forward to tonight’s debate.
Interesting
 
I'm 24, I was 17/18 for 2007-8 depending on which section of the primaries. My argument isn't that 2016 is more closely contested, that's nonsense. What I'm saying is that I think Sanders supporters have been driven away more actively from the Clinton campaign than Clinton supporters were from the Obama campaign; or to put it another way, that Clinton will retain less of Sanders' base than Obama retained from Clinton's base. We'll just have to wait and see come November 2016 at this rate; feel free to quote me then.

But that closeness was the reason why I am saying that the fracture was deeper back then compared to today.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
But that closeness was the reason why I am saying that the fracture was deeper back then compared to today.

No. That made it acrimonious, yes, but Obama and Clinton were never far apart policy-wise. All that had to happen afterwards was a public reconciliation. Sanders and Clinton are politically very different. Sanders could publicly endorse Clinton and I do not think that would be enough for large portions of his base, because they would want Clinton to run on policies and positions she fundamentally will not.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
No. That made it acrimonious, yes, but Obama and Clinton were never far apart policy-wise. All that had to happen afterwards was a public reconciliation. Sanders and Clinton are politically very different. Sanders could publicly endorse Clinton and I do not think that would be enough for large portions of his base, because they would want Clinton to run on policies and positions she fundamentally will not.

They aren't that far apart. They both favor the same general things on a lot of issues, it's just a matter of degrees and what each one thinks they can actually get done.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
They aren't that far apart. They both favor the same general things on a lot of issues, it's just a matter of degrees and what each one thinks they can actually get done.

You may think that. Sanders voters do not, which is why they have chosen Sanders.
 

Dude Abides

Banned
But that closeness was the reason why I am saying that the fracture was deeper back then compared to today.

Exactly. There were actual stakes in 2008, so pepole were a lot more invested. This time around the only people who are all worked up over Sanders are loudmouth on the Internet.
 

Phased

Member
The lawsuit hasn't been settled as far as I'm aware, the Sanders campaign is still pursuing it.

EDIT: Okay, we'll have to wait and see, I'm just pretty confident Clinton will carry less of Sanders' support with her than Obama did of Clinton's.

It seems like that now, and each candidates supporters always say they won't vote for the other, but when it comes down to it and the threat of a Republican winning the election becomes a possibility (no matter how small) people will usually vote for their preferred party even if it isn't their preferred candidate.

There will be a small amount of bitter people who will actually follow through, but Hillary is better than literally anyone the Reps send forward, and everyone will realize that before they vote. If (realistically when) Sanders doesn't win the nomination he'll throw his support behind Clinton if he has any integrity at all which should satisfy most of his fervent supporters.
 

Zornack

Member
Are the obnoxious Trump comparisons a new Clinton campaign talking point or something, I've been hearing this crap a lot. Is the neoliberal Clinton supposed to be the "moderate" here, that's why the Trump comparisons, because Sanders is "far"-left like Trump is far-right?

Fyi social democracy isn't far anything, it's a combination of capitalism and socialism, the economic far-right here is the ideology Clinton supports, the ideology of corporate interests and bought politicians.

For the record the country has been going down a cliff for a while now, they have fully legitimized political bribery through huge campaign "donations", there have been multiple studies confirming that the US is an oligarchy, there is vast inequality, the pillaging of productivity gains, pensions and so on has been going on for a while too, the criminals that costed the middle class in the US hundreds of billions of dollars were never prosecuted because the political system is fully control by them, a new patriot act was just signed yesterday and so on. But yeah, we're alarmists, keep telling yourselves that.

Just calling a spade a spade.

Neither of us even accused Bernie of being some crazy far left candidate, just that you're buying into a campaign's rhetoric of "oh no, fear this thing, that's why you should elect me!" - which is more or less what Bernie's campaign has devolved into.
 

pigeon

Banned
You may think that. Sanders voters do not, which is why they have chosen Sanders.

I'm surprised to see you generalize to this degree about Sanders voters when you're notable for complaining when other people generalize about them!
 

Foffy

Banned
You may think that. Sanders voters do not, which is why they have chosen Sanders.

They choose Sanders because where they differ - healthcare and college are the two big ones - are worlds apart. One wants a European answer that the developed world has, and the other is patchwork that fixes problems, but not the entire cyst of problems. Both of these have major bugbears about them, for different reasons.

They will tackle similar things, but not in the same way. I think that's where most people will differ. Then again, I am speaking why I lean Sanders over Hillary; her solutions are not good enough, and she's given no intentions on what she proposes being stepping stones to anything further. See, if you mixed the two - have Sanders' views as the endgame and Hillary's views as the stopgaps to that - that would be ideal.

Instead, you have one candidate who may want too much in this climate, and the other offering too little to be considered acceptable on its own terms.
 

Red Mage

Member
I wonder if they will bring this up at the Democratic Debate tonight, either by Hilary Clinton or the moderator. I'm sure they will, Hilary can try and show Bernie has scandals or is dishonest and untrustworthy as well and in addition to this database debacle is the fact that he has been pushing this conspiracy theory that the DNC has it out for him and is helping secure the nomination for Clinton, which may be true, but he has as much chance of winning the general election as Carson, Cruz or Trump.

Sounds like it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/clintons-offense-will-be-personal-216962
 
You may think that. Sanders voters do not, which is why they have chosen Sanders.

Well that blows apart your point then. If these people were never going to for Clinton in the first place it hasn't been a matter of her pushing them away as happened in 2008. These Sanders supporters wouldn't have voted for her anyway because of preconceived notions they have or apathy.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
You may think that. Sanders voters do not, which is why they have chosen Sanders.

The chasm between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters in 2008 seemed insurmountable at the time, despite you remembering them as basically the same candidate. It was a terrible, bitter, mean primary that's nothing compared to this.

And the Hillary fans got over for it and voted for Obama. Sure, there are some who may not vote for Hillary. And there are some of Hillary's supporters that wouldn't support Bernie in the general. Just like there are supporters of Jeb who wouldn't support Cruz in the general and vice versa. I don't think the degrees to which there are Sanders fans wouldn't vote for Hillary is as extreme as you're speculating.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I'm surprised to see you generalize to this degree about Sanders voters when you're notable for complaining when other people generalize about them!

No, I think this is a fair generalization - if they thought Sanders and Clinton were basically the same, there wouldn't be many voting Sanders to begin with. I mean, there's probably a small cadre of people who think Sanders is basically the same as Clinton but more electable, but I'm not sure how large their numbers realistically are going to be.
 

CDX

Member
Was this from the Hillary Clinton campaign posted already?


Four Questions Bernie Sanders Needs to Answer


We’re glad that the Sanders campaign and DNC reached an agreement last night and that the Sanders campaign has agreed to an independent audit of the data breach.

This saga - and having our campaign’s hard work violated by the Sanders’ campaign - has been disturbing to our campaign and the volunteers who worked hard to build a strong organization. But it has also been a distraction from the issues that the American people care about. We think those issues should be the focus of the debate tonight: issues like raising wages, access to healthcare, and keeping America safe. However, given news that Senator Sanders and his team apparently want to make this topic the centerpiece of their debate strategy, here are some questions that should be on the table.


1: Why'd your campaign say you didn't store anything?

2: Why'd your campaign claim it was an accident?

3: Why did the Sanders campaign claim that only one staffer was involved in accessing Clinton campaign data?

4. Why did your campaign claim that the "one staffer" was junior level?

...

In conclusion...

To most voters, this will all seem pretty arcane. They care about raising wages for their family. They care about security for their family. They care about who’s going to keep them safe. They certainly don’t spend much time thinking about campaign data theft.

With that said, if Senator Sanders intends to make his campaign’s theft of our data a rallying point, he should have to answer these questions. His campaign took advantage of a security flaw to access and retain proprietary Clinton campaign information. We don’t know if they still have it. Those are all facts. No amount of misdirection changes those facts.

We look forward to tonight’s debate.


Read the Full artcle here:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...our-questions-bernie-sanders-needs-to-answer/
 
You start out by saying that until this happened you were indifferent and would vote for whoever in the primaries, but then this happened and you soured on Bernie.
Followed by a long crazy rant about all sorts of other accusations. It reads almost like you've disliked Bernie for a lot longer than before seeing this news, and you're just writing some semantic spin.

I was neutral on the candidates themselves but still had opinions on how they were running their campaigns and what type of supporters they were attracting. Admittedly I've been kinda annoyed by the "Berners" for a few months like I was with the PUMAS back in 2008 but that still didn't make me feel one way or another about supporting whoever the nominee is going to be. There are things both Bernie and Hillary have done in the past that I dislike but I was willing to let it go and not let it cloud my judgment this cycle. That changed yesterday though. Yesterday proved that Bernie's campaign/supporters want to "bern" everything in their path without any regard of the damage they can cause. Bernie not showing up to that press conference and signing off on suing the DNC solidified for me that its not just his supporters using him as a vessel to express their "grievances" about the party and the possibility that its just his campaign causing problems, its the man himself. He himself should have taken responsibility for the error of his campaign and not try to shift the blame to the DNC. You don't fund raise off of being a thief caught, you apologize, Maybe I'm being irrational but this whole situation doesn't sit well with me.
 
The chasm between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters in 2008 seemed insurmountable at the time, despite you remembering them as basically the same candidate. It was a terrible, bitter, mean primary that's nothing compared to this.

And the Hillary fans got over for it and voted for Obama. Sure, there are some who may not vote for Hillary. And there are some of Hillary's supporters that wouldn't support Bernie in the general. Just like there are supporters of Jeb who wouldn't support Cruz in the general and vice versa. I don't think the degrees to which there are Sanders fans wouldn't vote for Hillary is as extreme as you're speculating.

No offense intended to Crab, but he doesn't live in the US. You could certainly have gotten somewhat of an understanding of the climate in 2008 by reading the news/accounts, but the tension was palpable and I don't think that it can be entirely appreciated without experiencing daily for months. It was evident in my college classes at the time, at family gatherings, between friends, etc...This year feels nothing like that.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
No offense intended to Crab, but he doesn't live in the US. You could certainly have gotten somewhat of an understanding of the climate in 2008 by reading the news/accounts, but the tension was palpable and I don't think that it can be entirely appreciated without experiencing daily for months. It was evident in my college classes at the time, at family gatherings, between friends, etc...This year feels nothing like that.

It was awful. When I was head of the LGBT club, I almost wanted to suspend it until the primary was over because of how tense it was getting (also, Prop 8 was on the horizon).

Though nothing like the fist fight between the few McCain supporters and Obama supporters in the library on election night!

This would also matter if they get viewers.

On a Saturday.

The weekend before Christmas.

Thanks, DWS.

DWS stands for Democrats Win Seats tho.
 

Foffy

Banned
It was awful. When I was head of the LGBT club, I almost wanted to suspend it until the primary was over because of how tense it was getting (also, Prop 8 was on the horizon).

Though nothing like the fist fight between the few McCain supporters and Obama supporters in the library on election night!



DWS stands for Democrats Win Seats tho.

DWS also stands for "Dayum, Who Saw the debate?" Also stands for "D'oh, Was Sleeping."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom