Donna Brazile: How the Clinton campaign ran the DNC

[Doimper]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This woman is literally out of her mind

[DrScholl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This woman is literally out of her mind

Indeed she is.

[Horus]

She also says she considered replacing the ticket after Hillary fainted on 9/11 with Biden/Booker.

Shame she didn't follow through. That's a lovely combo.

[The Other Castro]

Jesus Donna what are you doing...

[Maxwell]

This whole escapade is actually making me think that the rigging of the Democratic primaries was far less dramatic than what has been talked about - i mean Donna Brazile is acting like a total buffoon, and her portrait of the DNC people is a portrait of just buffoonish behavior.

the best they could do at rigging a primary was to allow an eighty year old socialist to beat the established, 100% party backed candidate in several important states.

[Dr. Arch]

Jesus Donna what are you doing...

Making money

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Jesus Donna what are you doing...

Trying to sell a dumb book no one cares about.

[fluffypanther19]

The DNC and this thread are one in the same: train wrecks.

you weren't kidding, mother of god, this whole thread is toxic disaster

[tallguy23]

The deal was sketchy and unethical, no doubt.

However, I do believe Hillary won the nomination fair and square. The only real evidence of corruption we have is scheduling the debates on low viewership nights (which doesn't make sense because debates are Hillary's strong points). But when you look at the primary vote, it really wasn't that close. At all.

Brazile sounds like a nutjob who's looking to cash in on a juicy story.

[The Other Castro]

This kind of self serving publicity is so ridiculous (in addition to most of what she is saying being very misleading). For one thing, she alone would not have had the power to replace Clinton, let alone Kaine. For another, she had to do this this week? She couldn't wait another week to throw another tank of gas onto the fires of the Democratic civil war? This and the DFA stunt show just such poor and dumb timing and judgement.

[Yank2133]

Jesus Donna what are you doing...

Making money

Yup.

She isn't crazy or stupid, but just self-serving. Unfortunately, the Democratic party is full of these type of people.

If Northam loses on Tuesday, they will all come out of the woodwork mark my words.

[Chief Justice Keef]

We're going to lose the 2020 presidential election, aren't we?    

Until this civil war between the factions is resolved one way or another, whoever we nominate is going to be faced with nearly half the Democratic Party embittered toward them.  

I agree. We need to come together if we want to win next year and in 2020.

Under what?

[Hydera]

Jesus Donna what are you doing...

Making money

Yup.

She isn't crazy or stupid, but just self-serving. Unfortunately, the Democratic party is full of these type of people.

If Northam loses on Tuesday, they will all come out of the wooodwork mark my words.

Even before hearing about her giving debate questions to the Clinton team in the primary, i read her bio a year before because boredom and i felt a bad omen from reading it.

[MasterJedi]

So no one is going to acknowledge the article that just proves Donna pretty much lied about this situation?

It's just pathetic that you Hillary hacks are still denying that the primary was rigged.

Bernie still lost by many millions of votes, even without the DNC that still happens. Then again it’s not hard to see when you Bros denegrated the black and Hispanic communities for voting for him and most of you voted for Trump or Russian Patsy Stein

[Rookie Yinzer]

She also says she considered replacing the ticket after Hillary fainted on 9/11 with Biden/Booker.

So Hillary had complete control over the DNC but Brazile was going to forcibly remove her off the ticket two months before the election? This woman is bat sh-t.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This means they've got the bitched bagged. Special counsel brought on. Cue peak Trumpyillia.

[Mr. Morden]

Never mind the Berniebro crap.  What about Biden?

Why didn't Joe Biden run in 2016?  He was the Vice President, the guy who would ALWAYS be in the mix to replace a sitting President.  (And, yes, if Cheney didn't have one foot in the grave before his heart transplant, he'd have been a candidate in 2008.)  Did Joe Biden take a look at who had "purchased" the Democratic Party and read the tea leaves?

Think of other Democrats that would have been viable candidates in 2016 besides Hillary Clinton.  Besides Biden, there was Deval Patrick, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Claire McCaskill, Amy Klobuchar, Andrew Cuomo, Steve Beshear, Joe Manchin; all of these folks were capable of entering the Presidential race and mounting viable campaigns had a void arisen.  That's what tends to happen when there is an open Presidential race.  That didn't happen; the only real opposition to Hillary was from someone who wasn't even a Democrat (Sanders). 

Why the cleared decks?  It's simple; the folks that could have offered a challenge to "the owners" (most notably Biden) were vested in the Democratic Party and kept their mouths shut about "the arrangement".  In doing so, they arranged the kind of coronation of a nominee that hadn't happened since Richard Nixon in 1960.  The Clintons BOUGHT the nomination; that's the reality of this.  Donna Brazile, who is a sleazeball opportunist, nevertheless did a public service by bringing this out into the open. 

You're right that there were "gatekeepers" who kept challengers to Clinton out of the race, but if you think that was primarily the DNC's doing, then I think you're blowing way out of proportion the amount of power DWS and the DNC had.

The gatekeepers were the same gatekeepers who operate in every presidential primary race: big money donors, party elites, and political operatives, the vast majority of whom are operating as independent agents and aren't part of the party's national committee.

These are the folks who, on the Republican side, told Mitt Romney not to run again in 2016 because he wasn't going to be getting enough of their support for him to mount a credible campaign.  On the Democratic side, they sidelined Cuomo, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, and other "establishment" challengers to Clinton who might have run if she wasn't in the race, because they made it clear that there wasn't room for a non-Clinton establishment candidate in the race.  But this wasn't because of some DWS-run conspiracy.  It was individual big $ donors buying into a groupthink that Clinton was the inevitable candidate, so it was in their interest to join her and be on the winning side.  As long as everyone was buying that groupthink, there wasn't any room for a challenger.

[Beet]

^^^ Mr. Morden is 100% correct. The DNC cant make every Democratic woman Senator, including Elizabeth Warren, sign a letter in mid 2013 urging Hillary to run, an implicit endorsement. And why did the donors, elites, operatives, independently decide to back Hillary, or (in th case of Biden and other potential alternatives) get scared off? Well, they could see steady polling numbers in 2013 and 2014 that showed 60% to 70% of party voters supported Clinton as the nominee. Polling that ended up correctly predicting who Democrats wound up voting for, by the way.

 And why did 60% to 70% of Democrats want Hillary as the nominee? Well, because they could remember 2008, when Clinton got 18 million votes to Obama’s 17.5 million. They remembered how she graciously conceded to HIM despite being faced with a landslide of sexism. They remembered her full throated endorsement of HIM at the 2008 Democratic convention. They remembered her enthusiastic campaigning for HIM during the fall 2008 campaign. They remembered her accepting to seeve under HIM after the 2008 election. They remembered how she served under him with minimal drama and cultivated a good relationship with him, even though he appointed special envoys so she didn’t get a chance to have much responsibility or burnish her resume with big name deals. They felt that, no matter what you think of Hillary Clinton, love her or hate her, she had EARNED a nomination and was owed one by the party. This was from the primary electorate itself.

[bandg]

The margin in Iowa was so razor thin that any hint of bias by the DNC would have swung the result. Now we know that the DNC was completely in the tank for HRC from the very beginning. No one can deny that if the DNC had played it straight, Bernie would have won Iowa. From there, who knows what would have happened? If Bernie sweeps Iowa, NH, and Nevada, this potentially sends HRC into a death spiral that she never fully recovers from. She would have won SC and the rest of the South, but probably not by the margins that she did.

Long story short, you can't point to the final vote totals and say the DNC didn't affect the race. Bernie winning Iowa completely changes the trajectory of the race.

[136or142]

https://twitter.com/Politics1com/status/926984003059625990

Politics1.com‏
@Politics1com
Does anyone really care that Donna Brazile's book-hawking clickbait claims are easily and demonstrably false?

Kyle GriffinVerified account @kylegriffin1
FYI the DNC Chair can’t unilaterally replace a presidential nominee—Nominee must agree 1st, then whole cmte decides. http://bit.ly/2iuI2VA
6:26 PM - 4 Nov 2017

[136or142]

The margin in Iowa was so razor thin that any hint of bias by the DNC would have swung the result. Now we know that the DNC was completely in the tank for HRC from the very beginning. No one can deny that if the DNC had played it straight, Bernie would have won Iowa. From there, who knows what would have happened? If Bernie sweeps Iowa, NH, and Nevada, this potentially sends HRC into a death spiral that she never fully recovers from. She would have won SC and the rest of the South, but probably not by the margins that she did.

Long story short, you can't point to the final vote totals and say the DNC didn't affect the race. Bernie winning Iowa completely changes the trajectory of the race.

Actually we don't know any such thing.  The only evidence behind this is Donna Brazile's claims, and it seems that her book is filled with falsehoods and plain nonsense.

[Pyro]

The margin in Iowa was so razor thin that any hint of bias by the DNC would have swung the result. Now we know that the DNC was completely in the tank for HRC from the very beginning. No one can deny that if the DNC had played it straight, Bernie would have won Iowa. From there, who knows what would have happened? If Bernie sweeps Iowa, NH, and Nevada, this potentially sends HRC into a death spiral that she never fully recovers from. She would have won SC and the rest of the South, but probably not by the margins that she did.

Long story short, you can't point to the final vote totals and say the DNC didn't affect the race. Bernie winning Iowa completely changes the trajectory of the race.

Actually we don't know any such thing.  The only evidence behind this is Donna Brazile's claims, and it seems that her book is filled with falsehoods and plain nonsense.

Actually, we do. The published DNC-HFA memo is real.

[136or142]

The margin in Iowa was so razor thin that any hint of bias by the DNC would have swung the result. Now we know that the DNC was completely in the tank for HRC from the very beginning. No one can deny that if the DNC had played it straight, Bernie would have won Iowa. From there, who knows what would have happened? If Bernie sweeps Iowa, NH, and Nevada, this potentially sends HRC into a death spiral that she never fully recovers from. She would have won SC and the rest of the South, but probably not by the margins that she did.

Long story short, you can't point to the final vote totals and say the DNC didn't affect the race. Bernie winning Iowa completely changes the trajectory of the race.

Actually we don't know any such thing.  The only evidence behind this is Donna Brazile's claims, and it seems that her book is filled with falsehoods and plain nonsense.

Actually, we do. The published DNC-HFA memo is real.

the memo itself was discussing the general election, not the primaries.

This is now more than clear.  Donna Brazile is a liar. 

[Pyro]

The margin in Iowa was so razor thin that any hint of bias by the DNC would have swung the result. Now we know that the DNC was completely in the tank for HRC from the very beginning. No one can deny that if the DNC had played it straight, Bernie would have won Iowa. From there, who knows what would have happened? If Bernie sweeps Iowa, NH, and Nevada, this potentially sends HRC into a death spiral that she never fully recovers from. She would have won SC and the rest of the South, but probably not by the margins that she did.

Long story short, you can't point to the final vote totals and say the DNC didn't affect the race. Bernie winning Iowa completely changes the trajectory of the race.

Actually we don't know any such thing.  The only evidence behind this is Donna Brazile's claims, and it seems that her book is filled with falsehoods and plain nonsense.

Actually, we do. The published DNC-HFA memo is real.

the memo itself was discussing the general election, not the primaries.

That claim has been debunked as legalese nonsense, and it is contradicted by the rest of the agreement. September 2015 is specifically cited as a deadline to hire the DNC comms director, in which "one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to the HFA" would be selected.

[136or142]

The margin in Iowa was so razor thin that any hint of bias by the DNC would have swung the result. Now we know that the DNC was completely in the tank for HRC from the very beginning. No one can deny that if the DNC had played it straight, Bernie would have won Iowa. From there, who knows what would have happened? If Bernie sweeps Iowa, NH, and Nevada, this potentially sends HRC into a death spiral that she never fully recovers from. She would have won SC and the rest of the South, but probably not by the margins that she did.

Long story short, you can't point to the final vote totals and say the DNC didn't affect the race. Bernie winning Iowa completely changes the trajectory of the race.

Actually we don't know any such thing.  The only evidence behind this is Donna Brazile's claims, and it seems that her book is filled with falsehoods and plain nonsense.

Actually, we do. The published DNC-HFA memo is real.

the memo itself was discussing the general election, not the primaries.

That claim has been debunked as legalese nonsense, and it is contradicted by the rest of the agreement. September 2015 is specifically cited as a deadline to hire the DNC comms director, in which "one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to the HFA" would be selected.

The DNC Communications Director worked on the general election not the primary.  In addition, that was the terms sent by the HFA,  there is no mention as to what the final agreement was.