Inside Hillary Clinton’s secret takeover of the DNC

[myDeaconmyhand]

It's completely disengenious of you to make the argument that the DNC was completely financially dependent upon Hillary for a year before the convention, but that her financial leverage had no influence on the primary.

The previous chair, and the current vice chair of the DNC have publically admitted that Hillary had an unfair advantage, and they have called for reform.

 

[ChrisL68]

Well hopefully the party won't be in a situation where a dem is running against somebody who has no interest in being a dem. Not really sure how Sanders planned to govern if he won.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Well hopefully the party won't be in a situation where a dem is running against somebody who has no interest in being a dem. Not really sure how Sanders planned to govern if he won.

How exactly are you defining "dem"?
Bernie caucases with Dems and votes with them like 95% of the time, he ran as a Dem for president, he gives money to the DNC, and he fundraises for Dems.

 

[ONW]

"In a letter to DNC members, Chairman Tom Perez noted that the party reached joint fundraising agreements with both Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. "The joint fundraising agreements were the same for each campaign except for the treasurer, and our understanding was that the DNC offered all of the presidential campaigns the opportunity to set up a [joint fundraising agreement] and work with the DNC to coordinate on how those funds were used to best prepare for the general election."

That may be true — but two Democratic officials tell NPR that Brazile and Perez are referring to two different things. In addition to that joint fundraising agreement the DNC reached with both campaigns, the party and the Clinton campaign struck that separate memorandum of understanding giving the campaign staffing and policy oversight."

http://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/56197...-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015

So both campaigns had joint fundraising agreements, but Clinton had a separate agreement to make staffing and policy decisions during the primary and general election or just the general election (assuming she won)?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Bernie Sanders: Don't vote for a third-party presidential candidate in this election
http://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-dont-vote-third-party-gary-johnson-jill-stein-2016-9


"What I did not want to do is run as a third party candidate, take votes away from the Democratic candidate and help elect some right-wing Republican. I did not want responsibility for that. So what I said at the beginning of the campaign is that I was not going to run as an independent. And I say it now, that if I do not win this process I will not run as an independent."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-on-why-he-wont-run-as-in-independent/

"he voted with the party more often than the average Democrat (95 percent of the time opposed to 80 percent)"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/23/bernie-sanders-democrat/

 

[ChrisL68]

How exactly are you defining "dem"?
Bernie caucases with Dems and votes with them like 95% of the time, he ran as a Dem for president, he gives money to the DNC, and he fundraises for Dems.

Sanders signed a JFA agreement with the DNC, but barely utilized it. He used his own apparatus.

Usually, parties that participate with an organization have more influence over it than those that don't. I know this is a shocking revelation.

If the DNC is this all powerful organization that they are made out to be, and I am running as a Dem, then I would think that I would like to get involved as my best course of action in a campaign.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Robby Mook just interviewed on CNN by Anderson Cooper, asked directly about the allegations, says "it's water under the bridge" "Donna has worked with the DNC for 30 years, I look forward to working with her again" "I don't want to talk about the past"

So basically, ChrisL has put 1000% more effort in this thread rebutting Donna Brazile's allegations than Robby fucking Mook, Hillary's campaign chair. Keep carrying that Hillary water, 'cause apparently no one else is going to.

 

[ChrisL68]

I am watching the interview right now. Your representation is LOL.

He basically was being diplomatic saying it was water under the bridge when Anderson was pushing him to criticize her for the debate question. To suggest that he didn't defend their role with the DNC in that interview is laughable.

Anderson is a good interviewer.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

He didn't. Feel free to, ya know, quote him, like I did.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

You, again, fail to acknowledge the significance of no one denying the allegations, even when pressed to do so on live tv.

 

[ChrisL68]

Out of context like you did? I listened to the interview once. He spent the first several minutes laying out why their actions were reason

I guess you just ignored the first several minutes of the interview. It is here if you want to watch it again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9GiRi9S1vE

Gonna watch Deuce now. My wife is giving me the stink eye for arguing politics on the internet.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Brenden Fischer, FEC Program Reform Director for the Campaign Legal Center is tweeting about the memo:

 

[ChrisL68]

I am curious as to what mass emails and communications would have actually occurred regarding a particular candidate during the contested primary season out of the DNC other than discussing the debates. If the intent was control over the primary, then why specifically exclude the debates, which would be the greatest? Was DB actually able to find an example here? Apparently not.

If you have to read between the lines, then why was that stipulation even necessary?

 

[Newenglanddeac]

It's funny how actual collusion draws no outrage.

Oh for fuck's sake.

This is fucked up and ethically wrong (maybe even legally) but its a far cry from colluding with a foreign adversary.

 

[Deacs89]

still same partisan hacks defending their own hypocrisy. Russia Russia Russia.

 

[Newenglanddeac]

So this agreement was signed on August 28, 2016 well after Clinton wrapped up the nomination. What's the argument/evidence for saying it impacted the the primary process? Honest question...not trying to be a dick.

 

[ChrisL68]

There was a memo signed 8/26/15 which provides the HRC campaign some direction over staffing and strategy although it specifies in the memo that it is only related to the general election. It is in the nbc news link above. You can read it yourself.

 

[Shooshmoo]

Played again. Bros keep getting duped.

 

[cville deac]

Good post.

Plus the sea is changing under our feet, and I think cville underestimates the degree to which it is. We were a different country in the 1970s, one of not absurd income inequality, one where we weren't encumbering the youth with massive levels of student debt, one where the private/public imbalance wasn't nearly as stark as it is now, and one where we were conducting an ideological war with a rival that discouraged any type of in-the-same-universe thought.

Bernie's and Jeremy Corbyn's successes from such low starting points/low expectations are just the beginning IMO. At least I goddamn hope so

Yes, there is a changing sea under our feet, and it's called a backlash. The majority of white America is retrenching in response to things like gay rights, transgender bathrooms, political correctness, BLM, Hillary's emails.... That said, I also recognize that the more populist left wing of the Dem party is currently gaining strength - I think at least partly as a response to the insanity that is Trump, something the right is completely immune to - the right can't see that the emperor has no clothes. I foresee a yuge fight in 2020 for the souls of both parties (yes, I believe Trump will be primaried). And yes, if the left wins and nominates a Bernie, Warren or Brown, that nominee will not be able to defeat a wounded Trump. Sorry, but that is still true. Maybe not in 30 years, but currently true.

 

[MHBDemon]

Yes, there is a changing sea under our feet, and it's called a backlash. The majority of white America is retrenching in response to things like gay rights, transgender bathrooms, political correctness, BLM, Hillary's emails.... That said, I also recognize that the more populist left wing of the Dem party is currently gaining strength - I think at least partly as a response to the insanity that is Trump, something the right is completely immune to - the right can't see that the emperor has no clothes. I foresee a yuge fight in 2020 for the souls of both parties (yes, I believe Trump will be primaried). And yes, if the left wins and nominates a Bernie, Warren or Brown, that nominee will not be able to defeat a wounded Trump. Sorry, but that is still true. Maybe not in 30 years, but currently true.

What is the support for this claim? It just seems weird to say directly after saying the left wing is gaining strength, and the centrist candidate just lost.