"Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC"

I didn't say they didn't need a different strategy. I posted long ago that the Dems top priority was to move left and reach out to disaffected voters and I've been railing about the idiocy of appealing to Trump voters for a year now.

But I don't think the strategy in 2016 was much of a failing one. Obviously. 3 million votes, remember? The election was a statistical freak, and to treat it as a normal election is a mistake.

ml1 said:

and I should probably add that the Democratic Party is doomed if even engaged and informed Democrats don't think the party needs a change in strategy.



"Donald Trump says I said “DNC RIGGED the system…” First of all, I don’t speak in CAPS! "

https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/926481086544273408 

"Today’s lesson: Being quoted by Donald Trump means being MIS-quoted by Donald Trump. Stop trolling me. "

https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/926477310458515457

"Donna, stop the denials. OWN IT & FIX IT NOW! IT'S ON FIRE NOW! HERE IT IS!

https://twitter.com/mushroomfeet/status/926486751195095041






tom said:

https://medium.com/@sashastone/ten-reasons-bernie-sanders-would-not-and-could-not-have-beaten-trump-b596674c1c93

Don't miss the part about the 2-foot-thick folder of oppo research the GOP had ready. He would have been eviscerated by attack ads. 

Sorry but this is a weak argument.  If Jesus Christ himself escorted Ronald Reagan down from the heavens to run against Trump, they would have had simiular oppo research against him. 


I'm from a county in western Pa. where the major industry is coal mining and I'm also very familiar with Johnstown. There is no way the people there would have voted for a Jewish socialist.

eta - The county is in the Marcellus shale and that alone would have been enough for them to vote for Trump over Sanders.  

They would have voted for Biden.



ml1 said:

and I should probably add that the Democratic Party is doomed if even engaged and informed Democrats don't think the party needs a change in strategy.

There is a school of thought that says you can keep doing the same thing over and over again and eventually get different results.  I think the major proponents are in charge of the Democratic Party


My major question - why? Why on earth hand DJT something that isn't a lie for him to perseverate on?

If I give you $20 million to spend, I'd like some oversight.

Yes, maybe it was underhanded. But, as someone said earlier in this thread, this is DNC inside baseball stuff. Why air dirty laundry and chum the waters of the right?

Who here doubted for a second that dems would nominate the most qualified candidate in history?

Bernie isn't a democrat. And he probably created a significant number of Never Hillary voters/non-voters.

We need to get beyond the Clintons in order to regain some semblance of unity.

And what's with Elizabeth Warren calling the primaries rigged (even if they were)?


yeah, Warren stepped out on that one. Not a good - or even truthful - move.



"Turns out the memo Donna spoke about applied only to the general election. If so then this memo is standard operating procedure for 15 years"

https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/926569099622338561

Memo Reveals Details of Hillary Clinton-DNC Deal  -

"WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee struck a deal with Hillary Clinton in 2015 that gave her campaign input on some party hiring and spending decisions, but required they be related only to preparations for the general election, according to a memo obtained by NBC News. It also left the door open for other candidates to make similar arrangements."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/memo-reveals-details-hillary-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411



cramer said:

"Turns out the memo Donna spoke about applied only to the general election. If so then this memo is standard operating procedure for 15 years" https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/926569099622338561

Memo Reveals Details of Hillary Clinton-DNC Deal  - "WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee struck a deal with Hillary Clinton in 2015 that gave her campaign input on some party hiring and spending decisions, but required they be related only to preparations for the general election, according to a memo obtained by NBC News. It also left the door open for other candidates to make similar arrangements." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/memo-reveals-details-hillary-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411

Giving a candidate control over the DNC in the general election is bad enough. But the agreement gave Hillary wide-ranging control of the DNC during the primary, despite the disclaimer:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/DNCMemo%20(002).pdf 

HFA’s obligations under this agreement, and the release of the Base Amounts each month are conditioned on the following:
1.With respect to the hiring of a DNC Communications Director, the DNC agrees that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to HFA.  
2.With respect to the hiring of future DNC senior staff in the communications, technology, and research departments, in the case of vacancy, the DNC will maintain the authority to make the final decision as between candidates acceptable to HFA.  
3.Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate.  
This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. 
The DNC will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature.

She's making herself look worse and worse.


Times Sunday magazine has cover story which offers an analysis on what went wrong for Dems.


I think the biggest danger for the Democrats in 2020 is what happened to the Republicans in 2016. A huge number of people enter clouding the early going allowing the loudest to prevail. 


Lots of misinformation out there - 

  • Viral Falsehood #1: The Clinton/DNC agreement cited by Brazile only applied to the General Election, not the primary.
  • Viral Falsehood #2: Sanders signed the same agreement with the DNC that Clinton did.
  • Viral Falsehood #3: Brazile stupidly thought she could unilaterally remove Clinton as the nominee.
  • Viral Falsehood #4: Viral Falsehood #4: Evidence has emerged proving that the content of WikiLeaks documents and emails was doctored. 


Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That are False

https://theintercept.com/2017/11/05/four-viral-claims-spread-by-journalists-on-twitter-in-the-last-week-alone-that-are-false/


Former DNC chair Donna Brazile: Democratic primaries not 'rigged'

But Brazile told Stephanopoulos she "found no evidence" the primary was "rigged."

"I said I would get to the bottom of everything, and that's what I did," Brazile said. "I called Senator Sanders to say, you know, I wanted to make sure there was no rigging of the process ... I found no evidence, none whatsoever." 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dnc-chair-donna-brazile-democratic-primaries-rigged/story?id=50942644


I don't mind this being brought to light, provided its true and things were not taken out of context.

But how many times does this have to whined over?

Here's where the Republicans have it over the Democrats. They grossly insulted each other during their primaries, especially Trump. But when the time came, when it was clear that Trump had the nomination votes, they started to come together and stick together. They didn't agonize, pout or refused Trump their votes because he wasn't nice. Because then they focused on getting their agenda.

Unlike the Democrats with the pouting, the whining over Bernie and with many refusing to vote or voting third party. And see what its got you.

Now you may think that Trump will be a one term president. Its possible. But if the Democrats repeat their antics, maybe not.

One thing for sure. Trump's election will effect the Federal courts for a generation. Our world leadership loss will last longer than Trump. Who would want to make an agreement realizing a future president may dishonor it?

I wonder what effect this agonizing, just before the election, will have on the VA governors race.

So, Democrats, like Nan, continue acting like this. Continue your whining. Pout and refuse to vote or vote third party.

And then enjoy your deserved dystopian future.


hmm, that means Brazile disproved the viral falsehood of primary rigging pushed by low-lifes like Greenwald.

I think this one trumps (ugh) the other ones.


cramer said:


Former DNC chair Donna Brazile: Democratic primaries not 'rigged'




But Brazile told Stephanopoulos she "found no evidence" the primary was "rigged."

"I said I would get to the bottom of everything, and that's what I did," Brazile said. "I called Senator Sanders to say, you know, I wanted to make sure there was no rigging of the process ... I found no evidence, none whatsoever." 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dnc-chair-donna-brazile-democratic-primaries-rigged/story?id=50942644



At least this means that Brazile will probably never again be involved with Dem politics in any significant way. That's a good thing.



drummerboy said:

hmm, that means Brazile disproved the viral falsehood of primary rigging pushed by low-lifes like Greenwald.

I think this one trumps (ugh) the other ones.



cramer said:


Former DNC chair Donna Brazile: Democratic primaries not 'rigged'




But Brazile told Stephanopoulos she "found no evidence" the primary was "rigged."

"I said I would get to the bottom of everything, and that's what I did," Brazile said. "I called Senator Sanders to say, you know, I wanted to make sure there was no rigging of the process ... I found no evidence, none whatsoever." 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dnc-chair-donna-brazile-democratic-primaries-rigged/story?id=50942644

Elizabeth Warren jumped on the bandwagon: 

"Asked by ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" Sunday if she agrees with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that the Democratic nomination process was "rigged" in favor of Hillary Clinton, Brazile replied, "I don't think she meant the word 'rigged.'"

Warren was asked by CNN last week if she agrees with the notion that the Democratic National Committee was "rigged" in favor of Hillary Clinton. The Democratic senator replied, "yes."

eta: Of course, so did Trump.



Yeah, Warren dropped a hole bunch of notches in my book with that comment. I hope she comes out to "correct" it.


If you read the memo, the primary was clearly rigged.  Donna Brazille's comments don't change that.  They gave one person control over the DNC in 2015 in SECRET.  Everything, including hiring and strategy went through that person.  We did not have a free and fair election.  There was no Democracy.  

Imagine if it came out that Trump had signed a secret agreement with the RNC a year before the primary to have total control?  People would be in the streets.  


I didn’t spot in Greenwald’s piece, or in the links he provided, any examples of journalists spreading falsehoods. Did I miss them? There was a news article that contained information that Greenwald said was later “walked back” (Viral Falsehood #1). There were examples of “Democrats in the media” — a term that Greenwald may be conflating with “journalists” — who ran with their spins (Viral Falsehood #3). There was the claim that  “countless journalists” misrepresented the AP report about Guccifer but only a tweet by a London academic to support it (Viral Falsehood #4). There was a case where journalists actually refuted a viral falsehood (#2).

Maybe Greenwald’s definition of a journalist is looser than mine. From that piece, however, I couldn’t really tell, because the evidence was so oblique.



nan said:

If you read the memo, the primary was clearly rigged.  Donna Brazille's comments don't change that.  They gave one person control over the DNC in 2015 in SECRET.  Everything, including hiring and strategy went through that person.  We did not have a free and fair election.  There was no Democracy.  

Imagine if it came out that Trump had signed a secret agreement with the RNC a year before the primary to have total control?  People would be in the streets.  

No. Republicans wouldn't be in the street. They would focus on the hope that Trump will get their agendas implemented. And they would vote for him again.


hahaha "people would be in the streets" regarding a controversy with the RNC

That's hilarious.



and not for nothing nan, but every time you and one of your fringy lefty compatriots say the word "rigged" you help Trump.

Every effing time.

So, maybe you should stop.


also, someone really needs to explain how you "rig" an election, other than directly manipulating voting machines or by preventing people from voting (a Republican favorite).

Is there some other way?



drummerboy said:

Is there some other way?

That’s my question whenever someone calls for an explanation of how you “rig” an election, after suggesting that the word “rigged” stop being used.


Greenwald is referring specifically to what he sees on Twitter. From posting on Facebook, I would say that these falsehoods are widely influential, based on what I'm reading.  He is just printing some facts related to the misreprentation, so no proof of journalist vs. non-jouralist is needed. 

DaveSchmidt said:

I didn’t spot in Greenwald’s piece, or in the links he provided, any examples of journalists spreading falsehoods. Did I miss them? There was a news article that contained information that Greenwald said was later “walked back” (Viral Falsehood #1). There were examples of “Democrats in the media” — a term that Greenwald may be conflating with “journalists” — who ran with their spins (Viral Falsehood #3). There was the claim that  “countless journalists” misrepresented the AP report about Guccifer but only a tweet by a London academic to support it (Viral Falsehood #4). There was a case where journalists actually refuted a viral falsehood (#2).

Maybe Greenwald’s definition of a journalist is looser than mine. From that piece, however, I couldn’t really tell, because the evidence was so oblique.



Democrats would be in the street.  And all over MOL too.

BG9 said:



nan said:

If you read the memo, the primary was clearly rigged.  Donna Brazille's comments don't change that.  They gave one person control over the DNC in 2015 in SECRET.  Everything, including hiring and strategy went through that person.  We did not have a free and fair election.  There was no Democracy.  

Imagine if it came out that Trump had signed a secret agreement with the RNC a year before the primary to have total control?  People would be in the streets.  

No. Republicans wouldn't be in the street. They would focus on the hope that Trump will get their agendas implemented. And they would vote for him again.



And everytime you support the DNC's losing strategy you support Trump and future Trumps.

drummerboy said:

and not for nothing nan, but every time you and one of your fringy lefty compatriots say the word "rigged" you help Trump.

Every effing time.

So, maybe you should stop.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.