Support NeoGAF

[Future PhaZe]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 8m8 minutes ago
There is no longer a Bernie Sanders "political revolution." He is turning out to be a weak and somewhat pathetic figure,wants it all to end!

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 5m5 minutes ago
Sorry folks, but Bernie Sanders is exhausted, just can't go on any longer. He is trying to dismiss the new e-mails and DNC disrespect. SAD!

gotta give him credit, he knows how to stir up the bernie stans

 

[Kusagari]

Which definitely proves numbers couldn't have been better.

What evidence do the detractors have that the numbers would have been significantly better on different nights?

The only evidence we do have is ratings that were superior to previous primary debates, which shows that the dates and times couldn't have been much of a hindrance. Let alone the "sabotage" that was claimed by some Bernie or Busters from the beginning.

 

[Matt]

The victory fund was paying salaries and overhead expenses for the Hillary for America.

For people working on the joint fundraising committee. If the Bernie campaign had been involved, it would have had its expenses paid as well.

Lets see there are two candidates with different opinions on campaign financing - the DNC decision pretty much shows which of the two they favored.

The DNC made a fundraising decision that it felt was in the Democratic Party's best interest. By your logic, not making that change would have been a wrongful endorsement of Bernie's position!

Back in 2008, the Democrats held about 25 primary debates while the Republicans held 21. Doesn't matter how many networks want to host the debates, ratings aren't everything coverage after a debate are things that often get overlooked. It's especially detrimental to the candidate that's less known to have the fewest possible debates.

Back in 2008, there were a lot more people running for the democratic nod. More people means less time each one gets to talk. It also means a more exciting race that more people want to engage with by watching debates.

Of the four Democratic debates so far, three were on weekends, including the Dec. 19 debate a week before Christmas and the same night as the New York Jets vs. Dallas Cowboys NFL game. The Jan. 17 debate was the day before the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day holiday.

Again, debate times are negotiated with networks. Networks weren't very interested in prime time dem debates. And there is nothing inherently wrong with weekend debates.

Part of the DNC's job is ensuring you have the strongest candidate by limiting the number of debates and the strength of the candidates - they allowed themselves to have artificial security about the strength of the Clinton candidacy. In any other election year this could have cost them the election.

I...don't understand what you're saying here. Clinton was the odds on favorite going into the primary...and that ended up being correct.

Well I know that's your opinion on the matter but don't get angry at people having a different one

It's not a matter of anger, there is nothing in these emails that prove any action was done. If anything, it's the opposite, because the one questionable email you can point to was never acted on.

 

[HK-47]

All the liberal infighting is really depressing to read. There is some discourse on the conservative side of things and NeverTrump, but it's not as heated as the Sanders/Clinton folks.

I supported Sanders throughout the primaries. I would've liked to see him and his policies make it through, but with SCOTUS still sitting at 8 (the people seem to have forgotten about Garland entirely) I'd rather see a liberal justice hit the court than care so much about who is president (not to downplay it much).

As someone deeply invested in criminal law, a liberal tilted SCOTUS sounds like a dream, lol. The Warren Court did so much good, and given all the criminal law issues we're going through today (police reform!), a similar mindset would be great. Oh well, guess we may never see it happen in our life time.

Maybe Ivanka will get appointed and do some good, hah.

I dont think far left voters put much importance on SCOTUS or Congress. Hell most mainstream democrats only seem to show up for the Presidency.

 

[Matt]

I don't understand how those two being different things is a response to my point.

Because the DNC was defending the actions of a fundraising committee it was a part of. It was defending itself, not the Clinton campaign.

 

[Chichikov]

gotta give him credit, he knows how to stir up the bernie stans

Nah he's an idiot.
I don't want to give him advice, but this is exactly what he shouldn't be doing, for the vast majority of Bernie supporters, if it will do anything, it will only push them closer to voting for Clinton.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I really don't get what progressives are fighting/holding out about. Considering what's at stake, it should be very easy to come together.

You have the ultimate boogeyman in Trump, and then you have the ultimate motivation in Supreme Court appointments.

Hilary can't take us that far backwards, but Trump can (even if you don't care about minorities, there are other things). It just seems very simple, especially considering how well democratic politicians are working together.

 

[Y2Kev]

All the liberal infighting is really depressing to read. There is some discourse on the conservative side of things and NeverTrump, but it's not as heated as the Sanders/Clinton folks.

I supported Sanders throughout the primaries. I would've liked to see him and his policies make it through, but with SCOTUS still sitting at 8 (the people seem to have forgotten about Garland entirely) I'd rather see a liberal justice hit the court than care so much about who is president (not to downplay it much).

As someone deeply invested in criminal law, a liberal tilted SCOTUS sounds like a dream, lol. The Warren Court did so much good, and given all the criminal law issues we're going through today (police reform!), a similar mindset would be great. Oh well, guess we may never see it happen in our life time.

Maybe Ivanka will get appointed and do some good, hah.

It can be upsetting, but it helps to realize it's not a particularly large group of people fighting. Most Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents understand that this stuff will be resolved through compromise. Bernie, by the way, is on MTP this morning saying all the right things.

gotta give him credit, he knows how to stir up the bernie stans

He knows how to stir up NeverHillary people. The vast majority of Bernie supporters, including Bernie (of course), are going to vote for Hillary. If someone was NeverHillary, there's really no point in Hilary trying to get them to vote for her. It's sort of tautological that they won't.

 

[Zukkoyaki]

Nah he's an idiot.
I don't want to give him advice, but this is exactly what he shouldn't be doing, for the vast majority of Bernie supporters, if it will do anything, it will only push them closer to voting for Clinton.

Agreed. Insulting their golden boy and calling him weak isn't the best idea.

 

[HK-47]

People seem to have convinced themselves that Bernie was actually a stronger candidate than Hillary, mostly based on his generic Democrat favorables againt Trump in the primary. They dont wanna admit that Clinton was put in place by the voters not the DNC. And they will spit on the choice of those voters by claiming they were brainwashed or manipulated by a vast conspiracy between the media and the DNC which kept them from supporting the real best candidate, which just so happens to align with their opinion. Convenient.

 

[Corto]

gotta give him credit, he knows how to stir up the bernie stans

He's just shooting in every direction now. Bernie Sanders already came forward saying the the leaks didn't have any effect on the arrangement he made with the Clinton campaign for his endorsement. He already stated that he will work relentlessly to achieve Trump's defeat and get Clinton in the Oval Office. And in the meanwhile he achieve some reform of the democrat primary elections system and some of his ideas included in Clinton campaign.

 

[sprsk]

This is what I'm talking about. Do you really feel comfortable telling people that a vote for Jill Stein is tantamount to a vote for racism? Do you really think that's the kind or rhetoric that will bring them into your coalition, now or in the future? Especially when 3rd party voters almost never make a material difference in the outcome of a presidential election?

If the state of politics right now has you choosing moral high ground because you have convinced yourself that the only viable candidate who isn't a racist/fascist somehow stole the election from the other guy (because you can't fathom the fact she actually won on her merits as a candidate), then I'm afraid you're a lost cause anyway. Why should it be our responsibility to bring you back to reality?

How do you see the shit Trump says, the shit he campaigns on, and then look to your minority brothers and sisters and say "Sorry, I need to make sure I maintain the moral high-ground?" Do you think voting for a left wing candidate with no chance of any sort of success somehow absolves you of the responsibility you have to protect people less fortunate than you?

When Trump says he's going to restore order the day he becomes president, what the fuck do you think that means? Right now we're fighting tooth and nail for progress, and he can undo all of it, and keep it undone for years to come. I don't give a shit what you might think about Hillary or what you think she may have done, but this election isn't about you. The sooner people come around to that the better.

Hold your fucking nose and do what's right for the country.

(And if it wasn't clear I wasn't necessarily talking about you Cymbal Head, I'm talking about the hypothetical "you" that you were talking about)

 

[BotoxAgent]

People seem to have convinced themselves that Bernie was actually a stronger candidate than Hillary, mostly based on his generic Democrat favorables againt Trump in the primary. They dont wanna admit that Clinton was put in place by the voters not the DNC. And they will spit on the choice of those voters by claiming they were brainwashed or manipulated by a vast conspiracy between the media and the DNC which kept them from supporting the real best candidate, which just so happens to align with their opinion. Convenient.

Even Bernie has moved on. If these people are still trying to play lame gotcha politics with the DNC simply because they didn't get what they want and feel were somehow screwed....I think they are beyond help. They have become useful idiots for Trump at this point.

 

[Armaros]

Keep telling yourself that.

Keep telling yourself you aren't helping Trump.

 

[HylianTom]

Even Bernie has moved on. If these people are still trying to play lame gotcha politics with the DNC simply because they didn't get what they want and feel were somehow screwed....I think they are beyond help. They have become useful idiots for Trump at this point.

Pretttty much.

I don't get folks who have effusively praised him through this whole process, proclaiming their strident belief in him, their trust in his judgment, etc.. and then this adherence to him magically stops when he comes along and point-blank says in clear, blunt terms: "We need to stop this horrible man. Elect this woman. This is easily our best course of action."

It's entertaining to see folks either twist in the wind when trying to explain this heel turn on a man they purported to love, or to see them just tap-dance to avoid it.

 

[teruterubozu]

It's entertaining to see folks either twist in the wind when trying to explain this heel turn on a man they purported to love, or to see them just tap-dance to avoid it.

And that's pretty much all it is at this point, entertainment. But then again this entire election has been highly vaudevillian.

 

[noshten]

For people working on the joint fundraising committee. If the Bernie campaign had been involved, it would have had its expenses paid as well.

The joint fundraiser was mostly beneficial to Clinton during the primaries hence the article.

The DNC made a fundraising decision that it felt was in the Democratic Party's best interest. By your logic, not making that change would have been a wrongful endorsement of Bernie's position!

Yes, if they had decided to go through this election while limiting outside interest's money it would have been an endorsement of Bernie's position.

Back in 2008, there were a lot more people running for the democratic nod. More people means less time each one gets to talk. It also means a more exciting race that more people want to engage with by watching debates.

This race was historically the closest race after 2008. The Democrats have not hosted so few debates in a presidential cycle since 1976.

Again, debate times are negotiated with networks. Networks weren't very interested in prime time dem debates. And there is nothing inherently wrong with weekend debates.

They could have easily dealt with PBS if no other networks were interested.

I...don't understand what you're saying here. Clinton was the odds on favorite going into the primary...and that ended up being correct.

She had one opponent who was a 74 year old Jewish socialist and scrapped through. Now imagine the same situation with Warren and Biden in the race, It's virtually impossible to say who would have won and whether they would have been a better candidate than Clinton. Everything in terms of the media narrative about Clinton being anointed would not have occurred and in the end there would have been more interest in the democratic race. Personally I would have preferred a few more candidates to really determine the strongest one to maximize gains democrats would make from running against a Trump or a Cruz.

It's not a matter of anger, there is nothing in these emails that prove any action was done. If anything, it's the opposite, because the one questionable email you can point to was never acted on.

The email pretty much is showing that top DNC staffers were indistinguishable from the Clinton campaign in terms of the narratives they wanted to drive for each of the candidates.

 

[water_wendi]

I guess this means he's going to endorse Jill Stein? Or will he demand that the super delegates switch to him?

Did you misquote something? What you quoted says the emails is not changing his support for Hillary.

 

[Matt]

The joint fundraiser was mostly beneficial to Clinton during the primaries hence the article.

No, the joint fundraiser was equally beneficial to the DNC and the Clinton campaign. That is the point of a joint fundraiser. The article includes states parties complaining that money wasn't going to them, but the DNC. Which is good, because the DNC would allocate it better nationwide.

Yes, if they had decided to go through this election while limiting outside interest's money it would have been an endorsement of Bernie's position.

So...basically the DNC would have been in the wrong no matter what it did?

This race was historically the closest race after 2008. The Democrats have not hosted so few debates in a presidential cycle since 1976.

No one expected that before the race began.

They could have easily dealt with PBS if no other networks were interested.

Debate costs have to be paid, PBS isn't going to do that for a number of more debates.

She had one opponent who was a 74 year old Jewish socialist and scrapped through. Now imagine the same situation with Warren and Biden in the race, It's virtually impossible to say who would have won and whether they would have been a better candidate than Clinton. Everything in terms of the media narrative about Clinton being anointed would not have occurred and in the end there would have been more interest in the democratic race. Personally I would have preferred a few more candidates to really determine the strongest one to maximize gains democrats would make from running against a Trump or a Cruz.

What you personally want isn't relevant to the DNC. No one wanted to run against Hilary. They thought they would lose. They probably would have.

The email pretty much is showing that top DNC staffers were indistinguishable from the Clinton campaign in terms of the narratives they wanted to drive for each of the candidates.

But they didn't drive any narratives. People work at the DNC, people have opinions. What would be a problem is if they acted on those opinions. Which you have no evidence they did.

 

[Big Baybee]

This is what I'm talking about. Do you really feel comfortable telling people that a vote for Jill Stein is tantamount to a vote for racism? Do you really think that's the kind or rhetoric that will bring them into your coalition, now or in the future? Especially when 3rd party voters almost never make a material difference in the outcome of a presidential election?

It shows me you have no serious intent on making an impact or helping to change the lives of minorities across the country. Is what it is.

 

[TyrantII]

This rests on the assumption that a vote that isn't for Clinton is a vote for Trump, which is nice partisan rhetoric but isn't actually true.

It true. Sorry reality doesn't match up with your perception of what it should be.

Untill there's an amendment to install run off voting, the first past the post system means a third party vote is a vote for the opposition. You're splitting votes between similar candidates, allowing the ideological polar opposite to win.

It sucks. It's 100% reality, and history bares the facts wonderfully in America and elsewhere.

 

[burntchomsky]

I've lost a lot of respect for the Democratic Party. I don't know who I'm voting for come November


Why does everyone assume I'm voting for Trump? We have other candidates outside the two party system and I didnt explicitly rule anyone out.

I'm voting third party, as well, for the first time this election.

 

[brainchild]

But they didn't drive any narratives. People work at the DNC, people have opinions. What would be a problem is if they acted on those opinions. Which you have no evidence they did.

We also have no evidence that they didn't. We don't know what they did or didn't feed to the press, so stop acting like you do.

What we do have is evidence for motive, and considering the narratives that have been spun against Bernie during the primaries, even if we can't prove that the DNC was responsible for feeding those narratives, it is quite plausible that they were directly involved.

To be clear, I'm not claiming that the DNC acted on these musings, but your (and others') casual dismissal of their tacit involvement of this is just as unfounded as saying that they definitively conspired against Bernie.

 

[Corto]

This rests on the assumption that a vote that isn't for Clinton is a vote for Trump, which is nice partisan rhetoric but isn't actually true.

Again, the few people voting for a 3rd party are infinitesimally unlikely to affect the outcome of the race. The few people voting for Jill Stein are probably no less sympathetic toward racial injustice than the people voting for Hillary. Democrats telling them that voting for their convictions makes them insensitive is not likely to increase their estimation of the Democratic party.

I guess this whole line of discussion is a little off topic, so I'm going to let it rest.

In a zero sum kind of election where the winner takes it all a vote on a third party is a wasted vote. If you're a militant supporter of that third party candidate that's ok, if you're not that vote is only helping a complete opposite candidate to your political views. That's discounting of course where you vote. This will be more palpable on a swing state.

 

[Matt]

We also have no evidence that they didn't. We don't know what they did or didn't feed to the press, so stop acting like you do.

What we do have is evidence for motive, and considering the narratives that have been spun against Bernie during the primaries, even if we can't prove that the DNC was responsible for feeding those narratives, it is quite plausible that they were directly involved.

To be clear, I'm not claiming that the DNC acted on these musings, but your (and others') casual dismissal of their tacit involvement of this is just as unfounded as saying that they definitively conspired against Bernie.

...Seriously? How would we have evidence that they didn't meddle in the primary? They aren't supposed to, they haven't in the past, and there is no sign they did.

 

[noshten]

No, the joint fundraiser was equally beneficial to the DNC and the Clinton campaign. That is the point of a joint fundraiser. The article includes states parties complaining that money wasn't going to them, but the DNC. Which is good, because the DNC would allocate it better nationwide.

During the primary it was an arm of the Clinton campaign managed by Elizabeth Jones, the Clinton Campaign’s chief operating officer.

So...basically the DNC would have been in the wrong no matter what it did?

The DNC had three choices the one you mentioned is neutral since it's simply continuing a policy set by Obama. If they had come out and had even stricter measures to limit outside interests it would have been an endorsement for Sander's position, since the majority of the funds he raised weren't from special interest groups.

No one expected that before the race began.

Awfully convenient

Debate costs have to be paid, PBS isn't going to do that for a number of more debates.

Didn't realize you had such insight towards PBS's finances and what they could and could not afford. And I'm sure you've done the research to check how many potential viewers could have watch a Dem debate in the summer on a Tuesday or a Thursday.

What you personally want isn't relevant to the DNC. No one wanted to run against Hilary. They thought they would lose. They probably would have.

Why didn't anyone want to run against Hillary?

But they didn't drive any narratives. People work at the DNC, people have opinions. What would be a problem is if they acted on those opinions. Which you have no evidence they did.

Why would you need to formulate a story if you haven't got an agenda?

Spoiler

Mark Paustenbach is DNC national press secretary

From:markpaustenbach@gmail.com
To: mirandal@dnc.org
Date: 2016-05-21 22:23
Subject: Bernie narrative

Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess. Specifically, DWS had to call Bernie directly in order to get the campaign to do things because they'd either ignored or forgotten to something critical.

She had to call Bernie after the data breach to make his staff to respond to our concerns. Even then they didn't get back to us, which is why we had to shut off their access in order to get them to finally let us know exactly how they snooped around HFA's data. Same was true with the standing committee appointments. They never got back to us with their names (HFA and even O'Malley got there's in six weeks earlier) for the committees. So, again, the chair had to call Bernie personally for his staff to finally get us critical information. So, they gave us an awful list just a few days before we had to make the announcements.

It's not a DNC conspiracy, it's because they never had their act together.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056

 

[brainchild]

...Seriously? How would we have evidence that they didn't meddle in the primary? They aren't supposed to, they haven't in the past, and there is no sign they did.

If you admit that you have no evidence, then saying, "they didn't drive the narrative" is an unfounded assertion.

At best, you could have said, "we don't know for sure that it was the DNC that fed these narratives", as that's just stating the facts.

At least for the ones suggesting the DNC played a hand in this, there's evidence for the motive to do so (the leaked emails). Your claims are based on a lack of any kind of evidence, in other words, absolutely nothing.

 

[Dangansona]

What is a reliable democratic voter?

Someone who smiles and nods.

The other side does it too!

 

[Matt]

During the primary it was an arm of the Clinton campaign managed by Elizabeth Jones, the Clinton Campaign’s chief operating officer.

Which is how joint fundraising committees work. Bernie could have had one too, and his staff would have run it.

The DNC had three choices the one you mentioned is neutral since it's simply continuing a policy set by Obama. If they had come out and had even stricter measures to limit outside interests it would have been an endorsement for Sander's position, since the majority of the funds he raised weren't from special interest groups.

The point is it wasn't an endorsement of any position. It was a decision the DNC made for the good of the DNC, not to endorse or reject any candidates' position.

Awfully convenient

And also accurate.

Didn't realize you had such insight towards PBS's finances and what they could and could not afford. And I'm sure you've done the research to check how many potential viewers could have watch a Dem debate in the summer on a Tuesday or a Thursday.

Actually both of these things were part of my job in politics.

Why didn't anyone want to run against Hillary?

For a lot of reasons. She is a very strong candidate, well funded, good at fundraising, built in name recognition, great resume, good on her feet, qualified for the job, the list goes on and on. Also, in politics there is absolutely an idea of turns, and it was generally regarded as her turn.

Very few people want to run and lose.

Why would you need to formulate a story if you haven't got an agenda?

Spoiler

Mark Paustenbach is DNC national press secretary

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056

They are talking about responding to the exact kind of allegations that you are throwing at them. Defending yourself isn't an agenda.

 

[Matt]

If you admit that you have no evidence, then saying, "they didn't drive the narrative" is an unfounded assertion.

At best, you could have said, "we don't know for sure that it was the DNC that fed these narratives", as that's just stating the facts.

At least for the ones suggesting the DNC played a hand in this, there's evidence for the motive to do so (the leaked emails). Your claims are based on a lack of any kind of evidence, in other words, absolutely nothing.

I also have no evidence that invisible aliens aren't standing behind me right now. That's doesn't make the statement "invisible aliens aren't standing behind me right now" open to serious debate.

 

[gutter_trash]

Jeff Weaver just spoke on MSNBC,

there wont be any revolt

but DWS did get slammed, and it is clear that the DNC must sacrifice DWS and he slammed the comments in the emails aimed at undermining Sanders

that said, Weaver is already beyound the primairies, said nice things about his Former Governor now Senator Tim Kaine

Weaver's job now is more fuccused on Super Delgate Reform than anything else

If Weaver can move on and vote Hillary, so can you

 

[Y2Kev]

I'm fine with booting DWS. She's terrible. But "my faith in the DNC being shaken!!" doesn't mean I don't think Hillary will be a great president! #DEMSINDISARRAY

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Jeff Weaver just spoke on MSNBC,

there wont be any revolt

but DWS did get slammed, and it is clear that the DNC must sacrifice DWS and he slammed the comments in the emails aimed at undermining Sanders

that said, Weaver is already beyound the primairies, said nic things about his Former Governor now Senator Tim Kaine

Weaver's job now is more fuccused on Super Delgate Reform than anything else

If Weaver can move on and vote Hillary, so can you

Seems like he's all in on the unity train but who knows if some will listen to him or Sanders.

 

[leroidys]

Is this actually news? I'm sure this was decided before the leaks. Bernie people already hate her, and most Dems are at best lukewarm on her. Is this just trying to retroactively attribute this to the email leak to make a news story? I can't imagine that they've seriously considered giving her a major speaking role at in time in the past 6 months.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Seems like he's all in on the unity train but who knows if some will listen to him or Sanders.

I'm sure there were some 2008 Clinton supporters that did not get behind Obama too, though.

 

[Mix Master]

Bernie was just on george stephanopoulos and said that he's behind hillary but he wants DWS gone.

 

[Dierce]

What is so hard to understand? Just step back for a minute. These 'revealing' emails happened after it was certain Sanders wasn't going to win so his persistence in bashing the DNC and the 'establishment' was seen as counterproductive and possibly damaging to the Democratic party. This is what Sanders said about the Democratic Party in 2015: "My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.” How would that not be insulting to a life long democrat, especially one that works within the party? Just imagine that you work for a company and there is this new guy who wants to be your boss and keeps insinuating that everyone that works for the company is a thief, what would you have done? Of course there will be some people working at the DNC who disliked Sanders just for the fact that he criticizes the DNC and the Democratic party as a whole. The same party he bowed repeatedly he would never join and would only be using for media coverage: "No, I am an independent who is going to be working with the —"(Sanders, April 2015) “We concluded – and I think it was absolutely the right decision – that, A, in terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” (Sanders, March 2016) I'm far more surprised at how much patience the Democratic Party had towards him and his belief that he would somehow get the nomination by winning over superdelegates that he originally considered undemocratic.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I do not condone the actions of these few individuals at the DNC. Just pointing out that it is very easy to feel threatened.

 

[MIMIC]

But they didn't drive any narratives. People work at the DNC, people have opinions. What would be a problem is if they acted on those opinions. Which you have no evidence they did.

I'm sorry but this strawman needs to die. The accusation isn't "they did x, y, and z to Sanders." The accusation is that "the DNC discussed, plotted and schemed on different ways to undercut the Sanders campaign."

THAT'S a problem, whether they acted on it or not.

 

[Matt]

I'm sorry but this strawman needs to die. The accusation isn't "they did x, y, and z to Sanders." The accusation is that "the DNC discussed, plotted and schemed on different ways to undercut the Sanders campaign."

THAT'S a problem, whether they acted on it or not.

And as evidence of that...you have one email between two people. Not much of a plot.

I'm not defending that email, and if those two employees get in trouble for it that's one thing. But this idea of a grand DNC conspiracy orchestrated against Bernie needs to die, because it's not based in reality.

 

[NimbusD]

All the liberal infighting is really depressing to read. There is some discourse on the conservative side of things and NeverTrump, but it's not as heated as the Sanders/Clinton folks.

I supported Sanders throughout the primaries. I would've liked to see him and his policies make it through, but with SCOTUS still sitting at 8 (the people seem to have forgotten about Garland entirely) I'd rather see a liberal justice hit the court than care so much about who is president (not to downplay it much).

As someone deeply invested in criminal law, a liberal tilted SCOTUS sounds like a dream, lol. The Warren Court did so much good, and given all the criminal law issues we're going through today (police reform!), a similar mindset would be great. Oh well, guess we may never see it happen in our life time.

Maybe Ivanka will get appointed and do some good, hah.

Yeah it sucks, but infighting is hard not to do when you literally have the chairs of the party with clear biases during a primary election. Whether it shows up explicitly or through small actions, it helps stoke the flames. If anyone should be trying to prevent that , you'd think it'd be them.

 

[Armaros]

Yeah it sucks, but infighting is hard not to do when you literally have the chairs of the party with clear biases during a primary election. Whether it shows up explicitly or through small actions, it helps stoke the flames. If anyone should be trying to prevent that , you'd think it'd be them.

You mean April and may emails after Bernie spent months attacking the DNC and calling them corrupt?

I guess the DNC should be unfeeling robots at cant have opinions of a candidate that attacks them.

 

[maxiell]

Actually expected a lot worse from these e-mails. They are pretty tame.

Throughout, I've only been surprised that the party and Hillary didn't go after Bernie harder. I guess they never felt threatened enough to do so.

 

[Vire]

Fuck Debbie Wasserman, she was awful when she was a member of the House of Representatives for Florida and recently she vehemently opposed medical marijuana for Florida patients.

She's an idiot.

 

[Blader]

All the liberal infighting is really depressing to read. There is some discourse on the conservative side of things and NeverTrump, but it's not as heated as the Sanders/Clinton folks.

Liberal infighting is a minority of Democrats sniping at each other in online forums. Conservative infighting is hundreds of delegates plotting revolts against Donald Trump or speakers refusing to endorse him.

Liberal infighting is annoying, but nowhere near the spectacle that conservative infighting is.

I'm sorry but this strawman needs to die. The accusation isn't "they did x, y, and z to Sanders." The accusation is that "the DNC discussed, plotted and schemed on different ways to undercut the Sanders campaign."

THAT'S a problem, whether they acted on it or not.

Huh? A bunch of people in this thread and the other one have specifically accused the DNC of actively working against Bernie's campaign. How do you parse the difference between "actively working against" and "doing x, y, and z"?

The DNC CFO emailing another staffer about outing Bernie as an atheist to undermine him in southern state contests is shitty behavior. But that's not an organization-wide and chair-approved agenda to take down Bernie either. If it were, that would be an instance of the DNC plotting to undercut Bernie's campaign. But that wasn't what happened.

 

[Corto]

Yeah it sucks, but infighting is hard not to do when you literally have the chairs of the party with clear biases during a primary election. Whether it shows up explicitly or through small actions, it helps stoke the flames. If anyone should be trying to prevent that , you'd think it'd be them.

They have clear biases but they expressed them in an email exchange on what they felt was a secure channel that was never to be shared with the public. Of course people will have biases. That's a given. But we have to find if that bias was materialized into unfair treatment according to those biases if we want to use those emails as proof of something unsavory. If not that's only representative of those individuals negligence in using DNC emails to express their personal preferences. Maybe they should have used a personal mail server. Wink wink

 

[Y2Kev]

Fuck Debbie Wasserman, she was awful when she was a member of the House of Representatives for Florida and recently she vehemently opposed medical marijuana for Florida patients.

She's an idiot.

yeah well she's about to be fired so perk up

 

[Geg]

Liberal infighting is a minority of Democrats sniping at each other in online forums. Conservative infighting is hundreds of delegates plotting revolts against Donald Trump or speakers refusing to endorse him.

Liberal infighting is annoying, but nowhere near the spectacle that conservative infighting is.

What about all those claims of various protests at the DNC, were those coming from delegates or just attendees?

 

[Vire]

yeah well she's about to be fired so perk up

Only after she was publicly exposed for being incredibly corrupt throughout the DNC primaries. Hillary would have gladly had her speak at the convention had this never come out.

 

[Draper]

Actually expected a lot worse from these e-mails. They are pretty tame.

Throughout, I've only been surprised that the party and Hillary didn't go after Bernie harder. I guess they never felt threatened enough to do so.

These leaks are suppose to continue up until the convention, no? Me thinks Debs/DNC know a bit more about what's in store, and maybe is being asked to step down, otherwise the floodgates open a bit further.

But who knows.

 

[Corto]

Actually expected a lot worse from these e-mails. They are pretty tame.

Throughout, I've only been surprised that the party and Hillary didn't go after Bernie harder. I guess they never felt threatened enough to do so.

That's really my opinion too. When smear campaigns and whole teams of political strategists exist to create negative info on political opponents these emails are not scathing enough and nothing akin to a smoking gun to prove a concerted campaign to bring Saunders down.