Interim DNC chair admits Hilldog rigged the primaries in new article.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

So, yeah, I'd expect most people who follow this stuff already figured this out but it's good to have it in black and white for all those doubters.

Direct admission that Wasserman-Schultz rigged the Primaries.

Well, I'm not surprised, but I will admit that it feels good to know. Hopefully, Sanders' supporters will rally behind this news and start a revolt within the Democratic Party.

Well the writhing was kind on the wall. And now we're stuck with Trump.

Thanks cunts.

Because the type of people with the strongest influence (also income) in US politics would rather have an incompetent right-wing clown with no clue in the driving seat of America than a socialist working-class advocate with a strong vision and knowledge of the system who may threaten their vast wealth hording and political sway. This was known since Bernie started running and the behaviour of most media reacting to it all.
You should've seen Brit media towards Corbyn when he first started as leader. It was crazy intense vitriol in quite fascinating ways, disturbing to consider fully, but it said more about where power and influence lied in media than what they were reporting on.

Man, I thought this whole "civil war between Hillary and Bernie Supporters" was overblown, but this is going to tear the party apart.

And the Republicans are all too eager to put fuel to the fire.

Any tl;dr to this? It sounds more like a telenovela than an article.

Also the implication Bernie had an actual shot of presidency...

This would have been nice to know a few months ago

I wonder how my hardcore Bernout friends are going to feel about this? Maybe justified that they voted for Weed Grandma.

Some of the info coming out is pretty damn shocking regardless of what one might think of Bernie. The extent of the corruption and control the Hillary campaign had over the DNC is kinda terrifying, more so when you consider that had she won this likely would have never come to light as it wouldn't be politically expedient for DNC insiders to reveal this and there would be plenty of money rolling in from Madame President. Maybe it's a holdover from the cold war that whenever Russia tries to do something the American leadership wants to do the same thing bigger and better

inu-kun:
Any tl;dr to this? It sounds more like a telenovela than an article.

Obama put the DNC into the red financially. In order to get themselves out of such, the DNC basically sold themselves to Hillary before the primaries even started. On top of that, pretty much all the money that was coming into the DNC was going directly into Hillary's campaign with very little going elsewhere, which may account for why Democrats did so poorly in the election cycle at all levels.

Wonder if there's enough time for the democrats to implode and a new party to replace it by 2020. Put Obama/Clinton/Bernie policy on the ballot with a new beside democrats and they would win the vast majority of seat and easily win the the presidency.

Derekloffin:

inu-kun:
Any tl;dr to this? It sounds more like a telenovela than an article.

Obama put the DNC into the red financially. In order to get themselves out of such, the DNC basically sold themselves to Hillary before the primaries even started. On top of that, pretty much all the money that was coming into the DNC was going directly into Hillary's campaign with very little going elsewhere, which may account for why Democrats did so poorly in the election cycle at all levels.

The way the Hillary Victory Fund was basically a money laundering scheme to skirt around campaign finance laws was known already-- the Intercept, I think (or maybe it was Sirota in the International Business Times...) reported on it during the primary. And then the Clinton campaign had the unmitigated gall to chastise Bernie in a debate for not having a similar arrangement "to help downballot Democrats".

I'm shocked.

After the Clintons worked so hard over their long careers dedicated to Public Service that they managed to earn a combined wealth reputedly in the lower nine figure range. You can't say that about many government employees. In First World countries at least.

All the more reason to clean house in next year's primaries.

So...now that an establishment insider (and known cheater who leaked debate questions in advance BTW) spilled the beans...Is the media actually going to talk about this, finally?

Honestly, I'm shocked that this admission is seeing the light of day at all. I'm shocked Donna said anything. I'm shocked Politico ran it. I'm shocked she wasn't given hush money or threatened. I'm just...Wow.

I'm really hoping this is the trebuchet that can be used to dislodge the corrupt motherfuckers at the DNC, or demolish the party and lead to the rise of an ACTUAL progressive party. Because hot damn this even even more brazen than even my politically cynical mind thought it was.

Yes, I saw this before going to bed last night.

Some parts of this were already known, such as the fact that the Clinton campaign was circumventing donation limits by funneling the money through the DNC. The big reveal here is that the DNC was heavily compromised financially; they were millions of dollars in debt (in large part, it seems, because of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's mismanagement) and the Clinton campaign fund had been keeping them on life support well before the primaries began. What that meant was that the DNC essentially depended on Hillary Clinton to pay for their day-to-day operations; it goes without saying that this would constitute apprehended bias in the primaries.

I doubt it made a practical difference, since Clinton was the presumptive nominee for years beforehand. She'd been preparing for a presidential run since 2008; she simply had the party leadership on lockdown in support of her. It's telling that the only serious contender she had in the primaries wasn't technically a Democrat. At this point, all these revelations do is confirm what everybody already suspected.

Anyway. I expect this story to come up again and again as ammunition for the "but Hillary!" crowd.

aegix drakan:
I'm really hoping this is the trebuchet that can be used to dislodge the corrupt motherfuckers at the DNC, or demolish the party and lead to the rise of an ACTUAL progressive party.

They're already mostly gone. The DNC's staff traditionally waxes and wanes in time with presidential campaigns, but after 2016 they basically dissolved the entire party leadership to rebuild it from scratch.

bastardofmelbourne:

I doubt it made a practical difference,

That's all the more reason to wonder why they did it. I do firmly believe she would have won in a fair fight for the nomination, and that Sanders would have lost even worst then she did to Trump.

I suppose that being corrupt, unethical and immoral as a career does tend to doing such things when it's not needed though.

Zontar:

bastardofmelbourne:

I doubt it made a practical difference,

That's all the more reason to wonder why they did it. I do firmly believe she would have won in a fair fight for the nomination, and that Sanders would have lost even worst then she did to Trump.

She was a professional politician. She spent her entire life building towards something like this, and she had spent years preparing for the campaign itself. I honestly believe she wanted to leave exactly nothing to chance; if the opportunity came up to 'help' the DNC with their finances, from her perspective there wouldn't be a reason not to do it. It's not technically illegal; it's just unethical and massively demoralising for the voters.

The only things she didn't predict were Trump and the goddamn Russians. No-one wants to see how the sausage is made.

...and water is wet and Trump is still a piece of shit.

I doubt anyone is surprised by this.

I refuse to hold anyone to higher standards than we hold the President.

I thought I stated clearly enough in my top post that this would be obvious to anyone paying attention yet we still get responses repeating that this is obvious. Welp.

Saelune:
I refuse to hold anyone to higher standards than we hold the President.

As far as we know he cleared his primary without rigging it so I don't get your point here. Preventing democracy from occurring in the way the DNC did in fact will ensure that horrible presidents are the only kind we get anyhow. Or are you talking about other stuff he did which are worse? Cause that's kinda wholly irrelevant and this isn't a competition.

Dreiko:
I thought I stated clearly enough in my top post that this would be obvious to anyone paying attention yet we still get responses repeating that this is obvious. Welp.

Saelune:
I refuse to hold anyone to higher standards than we hold the President.

As far as we know he cleared his primary without rigging it so I don't get your point here. Preventing democracy from occurring in the way the DNC did in fact will ensure that horrible presidents are the only kind we get anyhow. Or are you talking about other stuff he did which are worse? Cause that's kinda wholly irrelevant and this isn't a competition.

Except it literally was a competition for President of the US and Trump is now President, and he colluded with an enemy of the country to do so.

Saelune:
Except it literally was a competition for President of the US and Trump is now President, and he colluded with an enemy of the country to do so.

image

And here I thought all the conspiracy nonsense was supposed to be right wing in nature. Hell the Muller stuff is being used as "evidence" of it by wingnuts despite neither Russia nor Trump being mentioned, which isn't a surprise given the crime happened years before the election.

Zontar:

Saelune:
Except it literally was a competition for President of the US and Trump is now President, and he colluded with an enemy of the country to do so.

image

And here I thought all the conspiracy nonsense was supposed to be right wing in nature. Hell the Muller stuff is being used as "evidence" of it by wingnuts despite neither Russia nor Trump being mentioned, which isn't a surprise given the crime happened years before the election.

image
Oh so you mock me for believing in a 'conspiracy'?

Tell me more about how Pizzagate was real.

Saelune:

Dreiko:
I thought I stated clearly enough in my top post that this would be obvious to anyone paying attention yet we still get responses repeating that this is obvious. Welp.

Saelune:
I refuse to hold anyone to higher standards than we hold the President.

As far as we know he cleared his primary without rigging it so I don't get your point here. Preventing democracy from occurring in the way the DNC did in fact will ensure that horrible presidents are the only kind we get anyhow. Or are you talking about other stuff he did which are worse? Cause that's kinda wholly irrelevant and this isn't a competition.

Except it literally was a competition for President of the US and Trump is now President, and he colluded with an enemy of the country to do so.

No I'm saying it isn't a competition when regarding whether or not corruption and rigging is bad. Both are bad, simultaneously.

Also, ironically, the Russians may have saved our democracy more so than hurt it because if there wasn't any leaks nobody would have been any wiser about the cancer inside the DNC. Sometimes to save the body you must amputate an arm and this is what is happening here. This election was the surgery that was needed to excise the tumor from the DNC and return democracy back to the country. If you don't want Trump getting a second term you better get with the program and stop deflecting for the sake of our oligarchs.

Xsjadoblayde:
Because the type of people with the strongest influence (also income) in US politics would rather have an incompetent right-wing clown with no clue in the driving seat of America than a socialist working-class advocate with a strong vision and knowledge of the system who may threaten their vast wealth hording and political sway. This was known since Bernie started running and the behaviour of most media reacting to it all.
You should've seen Brit media towards Corbyn when he first started as leader. It was crazy intense vitriol in quite fascinating ways, disturbing to consider fully, but it said more about where power and influence lied in media than what they were reporting on.

Sanders is also a rare thing among congress members with over ten years of public service. He's not a millionaire. Seriously, a lifetime in office and not even a millionaire. You're either doing something incredibly right or incredibly wrong in such circumstances nowadays not to be a millionaire in a public office.

Sanders was the obvious pick.

He's not a millionaire after 4 decades in public office. So good luck trying to paint him as corrupt. He's a charismatic speaker. He has obvious grassroot support of Democrats. Obvious pick you'd think. Moreover he knows politics. He knows people in congress. He knows he has leverage over a whole bunch of peole he would inevitably have dirt on for being less scrupulous.

A presidential salary would give thim half his net worth in a year.

I can totally believe the DNC was rigged.

Also should probably note; 'Hilldog' sounds stupid as all hell. And I'm going to be honest, my opinions of a person will drop if I actually heard them drop it into a political debate.

And this is why I don't belong to a political party. The big ones pull this shit and the small ones are irrelevant. I mean, shit, Trump's already announced his reelection campaign so he can take donations, hold rallies, and have PACs pay for his adds.

Derekloffin:

inu-kun:
Any tl;dr to this? It sounds more like a telenovela than an article.

Obama put the DNC into the red financially. In order to get themselves out of such, the DNC basically sold themselves to Hillary before the primaries even started. On top of that, pretty much all the money that was coming into the DNC was going directly into Hillary's campaign with very little going elsewhere, which may account for why Democrats did so poorly in the election cycle at all levels.

Doe the article present evidence of such acts?

Yeah, we knew. In fact, didn't Donna Brazile give Hillary debate questions?

May I remind you that Sanders almost won the primaries despite the fact that the primaries were rigged? All of this makes the DNC indirectly responsible for Trump and every bad thing that comes out from his administration. The US could have had their first honest politician in decades as president. Sanders was literally the only candidate with a net positive favorability rating. He's still the most popular politician in the US. It should have been him. Instead the US is stuck with a malevolent sociopath with double digit IQ.

inu-kun:

Derekloffin:

inu-kun:
Any tl;dr to this? It sounds more like a telenovela than an article.

Obama put the DNC into the red financially. In order to get themselves out of such, the DNC basically sold themselves to Hillary before the primaries even started. On top of that, pretty much all the money that was coming into the DNC was going directly into Hillary's campaign with very little going elsewhere, which may account for why Democrats did so poorly in the election cycle at all levels.

Doe the article present evidence of such acts?

Donna Brazile was the interim DNC chair, so she was in a position to know at least. Also, it frankly looks like an admission against interest aside from the fact that it's in her interest to sell more copies of the book that article is excerpted from.

Also, other articles from much earlier describe the same funding shenanigans, but without revealing how solidly the Clinton campaign's hooks were into the DNC:
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/10/hillary-clinton-used-leadership-pac-as-slush-fund-in-2008-09/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/campaign-finance-clinton-trump-bush-rubio_us_57f2c63be4b0d0e1a9a9360c

Zontar:
Hell the Muller stuff is being used as "evidence" of it by wingnuts despite neither Russia nor Trump being mentioned, which isn't a surprise given the crime happened years before the election.

Get read.

The Manafort indictments are to pressure him to co-operate. The Papadopoulos guilty plea is the bombshell. It's a inside member of the Trump campaign admitting clearly that the Russians were reaching out to Trump with the promise of Hillary Clinton's stolen emails.

But whatever; this is off-topic.

Saelune:
I refuse to hold anyone to higher standards than we hold the President.

Shit like that is just going to enable the continued rightward slide of the democratic party until in a few elections they might run their own trump. At that point, saying "Hey at least Trumplike-democrat is better than mussolini-fanatic-christian-republican" is kind of going to sound hollow.

If your standards are just "Be not as bad as the enemy", when the enemy slides into worse and worse territory, it drags your party towards them. It's the reason why every modern nation treats healthcare-as-a-right like a "duh" position, but prominent democrats refuse it outright and shut it down whenever it has a chance to pass. Your left-leaning party has been dragged so far to the right that something as basic as "Hey, let's not let people go bankrupt and die of cancer" is pooh-pooh'd as impossible, but millions of additional money to go bomb women and children who are starving to death in yemen is signed without question.

The sooner you cut out the tumor, the more likely it will be that you can save the patient. :( It sucks, but it's the truth.

aegix drakan:

Saelune:
I refuse to hold anyone to higher standards than we hold the President.

Shit like that is just going to enable the continued rightward slide of the democratic party until in a few elections they might run their own trump. At that point, saying "Hey at least Trumplike-democrat is better than mussolini-fanatic-christian-republican" is kind of going to sound hollow.

If your standards are just "Be not as bad as the enemy", when the enemy slides into worse and worse territory, it drags your party towards them. It's the reason why every modern nation treats healthcare-as-a-right like a "duh" position, but prominent democrats refuse it outright and shut it down whenever it has a chance to pass. Your left-leaning party has been dragged so far to the right that something as basic as "Hey, let's not let people go bankrupt and die of cancer" is pooh-pooh'd as impossible, but millions of additional money to go bomb women and children who are starving to death in yemen is signed without question.

The sooner you cut out the tumor, the more likely it will be that you can save the patient. :( It sucks, but it's the truth.

"Let the worse party win until we can, because fuck the consequences."

"Fuck the poor."

"Fuck Addressing Climate Change."

"Fuck addressing gun violence."

"Fuck addressing the wealth gap."

"Fuck letting white supremacists have a green light to come out and openly terrorize communities."

"Fuck Immigrants."

"Fuck the Rule of Law."

"Fuck your right to vote."

"Fuck trying to flip the Supreme Court so they can actually address things like corruption, democratic norms, gerrymandering, and police practices."

"Fuck democracy."

To quote President Obama: Elections have consequences. When you vote in a first past the post system, you are given two real choices. To abstain or vote for a third party is to abandon any hope that your policy preferences may be achieved at all. It is giving those who wish to further erode any progress on those policies the means of doing so. All of the above was clear months before the election in 2016. Your option was Clinton or Trump. If you didn't vote for Clinton, you were de facto voting for Trump and all the consequences of his administration.

And now we have the usual accusations of "rigging," despite the small problem of the DNC being unable to rig the process, because the DNC doesn't control the voting process for delegates, only their allotment among the state parties. Never mind that the facts don't actually bear out the basics of the claim.

Politics is messy and ugly at the best of times, but the alternatives (violence, real revolutions, and civil wars) are bloody and often simply lead to the very tyrants and dictators that liberals and progressives fight against. You cannot abandon democratic norms to save democracy or cross your fingers that you'll be able to fix the damage when its all done, just as you cannot abandon the one real party that has a chance at actually fixing the system and instead vote for parties and politicians that can only give you a boost to your ego at the expense of everything else.

10 Months ago, when the Trump Administration first took power, I wrote a plea for people to be smart about democracy in the US, knowing when and where to actually fight in order to win, not engage in hollow posturing or meaningless venting. To my dismay, it appears no one has actually learned anything about getting something from a philosophical stance to a law embedded in the fabric of democratic society from this. Too often I read and hear people complain about politicians who do nothing (or worse), but then immediately turn around and support Sanders or other figures who are all talk but don't actually seem interested in getting something done, only winning the argument at the expense of actual progress. They look for some kind of superman to "save them" when the only real means of doing so is being realistic and patient with politics, and trying to understand that your political options are almost certainly a minority no matter where you are on the political spectrum. You have to persuade and compromise to make real progress (see: Obamacare) and then be ready to revisit it when you can later. Because that is how democracy works. If you're not interested in that, you aren't really interested in democracy, just another form of dictatorship.

Note: This is less directed at the person I'm responding to and more at an attitude I keep seeing over and over again by people who seem to believe that democracy means their candidate/policy preferences should win and that they don't need to compete or compromise to achieve progress. I've fought in the trenches of the US House to make progress and there is nothing I hate more than ignorance of the shit politicians have to do just to have the hope of getting a shred of progress.

Now back to another 6 months skulking the forums. Here's hoping the site's still here by then...

The Gentleman:
Note: This is less directed at the person I'm responding to and more at an attitude I keep seeing over and over again by people who seem to believe that democracy means their candidate/policy preferences should win and that they don't need to compete or compromise to achieve progress. I've fought in the trenches of the US House to make progress and there is nothing I hate more than ignorance of the shit politicians have to do just to have the hope of getting a shred of progress.

Yes, my heart bleeds for Nancy Pelosi who became a millionaire and then multi-millionaire while in office at least in part due to making stock trades based on legislative decisions.

The Gentleman:
To quote President Obama:

Let's disband the organization of progressive activists who helped get me elected?

If you keep insisting on a public option, Mr. Kucinich, I'll sponsor a primary opponent against you?

Wow, drone strikes are great. Killing people is really fun?

It's not a bribe if I get the money when I'm out of office for an ostensibly unrelated speech?

Let's not pass the Employee Free Choice Act even though I sponsored it as a Senator?

Let's lose a thousand legislative seats because we don't represent our base well enough to get them to turn out?

Cash rules everything around me (CREAM!) get the money, dollar dollar bill y'all! ?

Hey, Citigroup, can you help me choose my cabinet?

The Gentleman:
other figures who are all talk but don't actually seem interested in getting something done, only winning the argument at the expense of actual progress.

The Democrats starting with the leadership of Bill Clinton have taken us in the wrong direction. We have regressed. Winning the argument was a necessary step for progress to become possible.

bastardofmelbourne:
[
Get read.

The Manafort indictments are to pressure him to co-operate. The Papadopoulos guilty plea is the bombshell. It's a inside member of the Trump campaign admitting clearly that the Russians were reaching out to Trump with the promise of Hillary Clinton's stolen emails.

I don't see anything that implies that the conspiracy theory that the leak came from anyone other then the insider everyone who isn't a card carrying member of the inner party seems to think it is.

I'd also like to point out that the guilty plea is the worst case scenario for those who want to see this go anywhere. A guilty plea means no information about people who actually matter, which is why these type of low level nobodies are gone after to begin with. No leverage.

So now we'll never know the details regarding what the nature of their relations with Russia where, whether it be something illegal or a typical campaign's relationship with a foreign government (since the GOP/Dem nominee who doesn't have some open channels with foreign powers is the odd one out, and not exactly friendly powers given the Saudis and Chinese aren't usually off those lists).

Though given the connection to Muller, I'm still confused why anyone tries to connect the two given that investigation hasn't even brought up Russia or Trump. Though it is funny seeing people pretend that Trump's reaction on twitter is somehow different from the past two years.

The Gentleman:
To quote President Obama: Elections have consequences.

And the Trump administration is the blowback in response to those consequences. Maybe if the progressive west coast hadn't taken over the left with its bourgeoisie socialism and telling the white blue collar workers of the east "yeah, we know you literally built this country, but seriously kill yourselves and stop existing as a people, those who hate you for existing deserve dictatorial power over this country" (I know that wasn't literally stated but given how the anti-Western left has acted these past few years not only could one be forgiven for thinking this, there's a reason most whites of all socio-economic status and levels of education do, and it isn't irrational).

Trump is a symptom of a problem, a problem the establishment of the GOP and the near totality of the Democrats refuse to even acknowledge. So be it though, if Trump can't get the reforms the parts of the nation that aren't right on the coast need, someone else will, whether the bourgeoisie in LA and New York like it or not.

God help us if Trump is deposed for whatever reason though, the blow to the image of legitimacy of American democracy if that happens, well the best case scenario is Pence taking power, and I wouldn't put that in the top 3 outcomes.

Democrats and the GOP need to clear house of the insane and the corporatists. Maybe now that the refusal of the moderates to not vote for corrupt politicians who actively oppose everyone's interests has had a major consequence, the two will take a step back and reflect. Though given the response by the Democrats, I wouldn't count on that happening before 2024 at the soonest.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 61854)