Donna Brazile: How the Clinton campaign ran the DNC

[BudgieForce]

How is "Undemocratic" to ask people to engage & talk over an election?

Hillary supporters have jobs. They didn't have 12 hours out of the day to sit around defending their vote and being shouted down by Bernie supporters.

That’s exactly what Republicans love to say. Nice.

The jobs argument doesn really work. But caucuses favor younger, healthier people who can afford to hang out in a hot auditorium for multiple hours. If a caucus has to happen, many states that Sanders won by convincing amounts should look into easier to obtain absentee ballots.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Anyone who doesn't see that the DNC was trying to help Clinton is insane and/or willfully ignorant (this thread seems to be populated with many people of both varieties). That being said, the timing of this admission is unhelpful, as coming so late after the election, it only serves to re-ignite an old debate.

They had their thumb on the scale at the periphery in a sketchy way, but that’s a far cry from “rigging” the primary.  What drives me up the wall about this is that the whackivists keep undermining those of us who are serious about trying to reform the DNC and take the levers of power within from the party away from the corporatist establishment.  A great example is the fact that Stein got as many votes as she did, it gives the Clinton/DWS/etc crowd an excuse to deflect from the real reasons Hillary lost.  There would’ve been real momentum for reform if the Sanders crowd had been willing to work with Perez after he won the DNC chairmanship race and we could’ve gotten meaningful concessions.  Instead, the second most progressive DNC chairman in recent history has been forced to pander to the corporatist establishment b/c his more ideologically natural base within the party won’t work with him just b/c he supported Hillary in 2016.  Then you have DFA which - God knows why - genuinely seems to be trying to do what little they can to make Northam lose to a race-baiting, corporatist Republican hack and former Enron lobbyist.  

[JA]

The Democrats would be in better shape right now if they had been honest about the fact that they were going to ram through Hillary's nomination, and that was that.  Folks might have understood that somewhat.  People understand the logic of "We're doing this, and no one here wants to be responsible for blowing this!".  Instead, the whole thing was done with Hillary Clinton phoniness. 

The Clintons actually BOUGHT the Democratic Party apparatus, in a real sense.  That's crappy at a number of levels, but the slimy part was that it was secretive, in an attempt to make Hillary look like a candidate with real popular appeal.  Given the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party post 2012, is it unreasonable to wonder if those early polls that made Hillary such a prohibitive favorite with sky-high approval ratings weren't bogus?  At one time, I thought Hillary was the most prohibitive favorite in the history of Presidential politics, based on poll numbers, but when you look at the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party, you have to wonder.  How tough is it, really, when you "own" your political party to whip up bogus polls?

I can't believe Donald Trump hasn't known this all along, either.  I suspect the only folks in the dark (outside of the general public) were (A) Bernie and (B) the other GOP contenders. 

Bernie was apparently told all this by Brazille before the primary was over, according to her story. And he STILL endorsed Clinton, campaigned for her constantly, and apparently never once felt the urge to leak this story himself.

But according to the Clintonites he's still an awful, scheming, ((selfish)), crazy person who did everything in his power to ruin Hillary's chances. 

In a multiparty democracy Sanders voters and Clinton voters wouldn’t be in the same party; that’s pretty obvious. As far as I’m concerned everything associated with the Clintons needs to be purged and burned. Everything about them screams unethical behavior, yet her loyalists will always find some way to excuse their actions and blame everyone else. Bernie didn’t hurt Hillary’s camping one bit; Hillary hurt Hillary’s campaign. Hell, she even did worse to Obama in ‘08 than Bernie did to her (even more of her supporters switched to McCainnthan Bernie’s switched to Trump). Hillary lost the election to a scandal plagued reality TV star and it’s 100% due to her being so unlikable and untrustworthy. She was even able to be seriously challenged in a primary unethically tilted heavily in her favor by a 70 some year old crank Socialist from Vermont.

Hillary was and is and always will be an absolute and total failure. The Clintons together have brought the party to its lowest level since the 1920s (with the help of their allies). And yet they still cling bitterly to power in a failing political organization bereft of new ideas, incapable of generating enthusiasm, and unwilling to represent the working class which FDR molded the party into representing (which also led it to its political high point).

[emailking]

But according to the Clintonites he's still an awful, scheming, ((selfish)), crazy person who did everything in his power to ruin Hillary's chances. 

Well, not all of us think that. I wanted her to win, but he had every right to run and to stay in it till the end.  He even helped moved her to the left a little which I appreciated. He endorsed Clinton and encouraged people to vote for her. I don't think he caused her to lose. My posting history from the time reflects these sentiments too.

[BudgieForce]

The Democrats would be in better shape right now if they had been honest about the fact that they were going to ram through Hillary's nomination, and that was that.  Folks might have understood that somewhat.  People understand the logic of "We're doing this, and no one here wants to be responsible for blowing this!".  Instead, the whole thing was done with Hillary Clinton phoniness.  

The Clintons actually BOUGHT the Democratic Party apparatus, in a real sense.  That's crappy at a number of levels, but the slimy part was that it was secretive, in an attempt to make Hillary look like a candidate with real popular appeal.  Given the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party post 2012, is it unreasonable to wonder if those early polls that made Hillary such a prohibitive favorite with sky-high approval ratings weren't bogus?  At one time, I thought Hillary was the most prohibitive favorite in the history of Presidential politics, based on poll numbers, but when you look at the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party, you have to wonder.  How tough is it, really, when you "own" your political party to whip up bogus polls?

I can't believe Donald Trump hasn't known this all along, either.  I suspect the only folks in the dark (outside of the general public) were (A) Bernie and (B) the other GOP contenders.  

Bernie was apparently told all this by Brazille before the primary was over, according to her story. And he STILL endorsed Clinton, campaigned for her constantly, and apparently never once felt the urge to leak this story himself.

But according to the Clintonites he's still an awful, scheming, ((selfish)), crazy person who did everything in his power to ruin Hillary's chances.  

Hillary was and is and always will be an absolute and total failure.

Its comments like this that make alot of us liberals struggle to unify with the radical left. Just move on, we'll vote for a Berniecrat in 2020 if they win the nomination, so putting down Hillary wont do anything but further an unnecessary divide.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The Democrats would be in better shape right now if they had been honest about the fact that they were going to ram through Hillary's nomination, and that was that.  Folks might have understood that somewhat.  People understand the logic of "We're doing this, and no one here wants to be responsible for blowing this!".  Instead, the whole thing was done with Hillary Clinton phoniness. 

The Clintons actually BOUGHT the Democratic Party apparatus, in a real sense.  That's crappy at a number of levels, but the slimy part was that it was secretive, in an attempt to make Hillary look like a candidate with real popular appeal.  Given the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party post 2012, is it unreasonable to wonder if those early polls that made Hillary such a prohibitive favorite with sky-high approval ratings weren't bogus?  At one time, I thought Hillary was the most prohibitive favorite in the history of Presidential politics, based on poll numbers, but when you look at the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party, you have to wonder.  How tough is it, really, when you "own" your political party to whip up bogus polls?

I can't believe Donald Trump hasn't known this all along, either.  I suspect the only folks in the dark (outside of the general public) were (A) Bernie and (B) the other GOP contenders. 

Bernie was apparently told all this by Brazille before the primary was over, according to her story. And he STILL endorsed Clinton, campaigned for her constantly, and apparently never once felt the urge to leak this story himself.

But according to the Clintonites he's still an awful, scheming, ((selfish)), crazy person who did everything in his power to ruin Hillary's chances. 

In a multiparty democracy Sanders voters and Clinton voters wouldn’t be in the same party; that’s pretty obvious. As far as I’m concerned everything associated with the Clintons needs to be purged and burned. Everything about them screams unethical behavior, yet her loyalists will always find some way to excuse their actions and blame everyone else. Bernie didn’t hurt Hillary’s camping one bit; Hillary hurt Hillary’s campaign. Hell, she even did worse to Obama in ‘08 than Bernie did to her (even more of her supporters switched to McCainnthan Bernie’s switched to Trump). Hillary lost the election to a scandal plagued reality TV star and it’s 100% due to her being so unlikable and untrustworthy. She was even able to be seriously challenged in a primary unethically tilted heavily in her favor by a 70 some year old crank Socialist from Vermont.

Hillary was and is and always will be an absolute and total failure. The Clintons together have brought the party to its lowest level since the 1920s (with the help of their allies). And yet they still cling bitterly to power in a failing political organization bereft of new ideas, incapable of generating enthusiasm, and unwilling to represent the working class which FDR molded the party into representing (which also led it to its political high point).

Even if they wouldn’t be in the same party (which I’m not convinced of given that many 2016 Sanders voters likely backed Hillary in 2008, it’s not a neat little ideological split by any means), we have a two party system and that’s not gonna change.  Political success is like interpreting the law: you often have to make compromises and find the least bad of various imperfect solutions to the problem at hand.  For better or worse, that’s just the way it works.  Sanders voters (like me and [I assume] you) and Clinton voters have far more in common ideologically and WRT political interests than we do with even the most “moderate” of faux-moderate Republicans.  However, this also means that if we actively worked to gradually take control of the levers of power and change the party from within (obviously won’t happen in just one or two cycles, even the Clintonite corporatistism really started with Tony Coelho back in the 80s) then the current establishment would essentially be forced to hold its nose and support more economically progressive Democrats in order to have any power and influence (which these guys care far more about than ideology).

[JA]

The Democrats would be in better shape right now if they had been honest about the fact that they were going to ram through Hillary's nomination, and that was that.  Folks might have understood that somewhat.  People understand the logic of "We're doing this, and no one here wants to be responsible for blowing this!".  Instead, the whole thing was done with Hillary Clinton phoniness.  

The Clintons actually BOUGHT the Democratic Party apparatus, in a real sense.  That's crappy at a number of levels, but the slimy part was that it was secretive, in an attempt to make Hillary look like a candidate with real popular appeal.  Given the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party post 2012, is it unreasonable to wonder if those early polls that made Hillary such a prohibitive favorite with sky-high approval ratings weren't bogus?  At one time, I thought Hillary was the most prohibitive favorite in the history of Presidential politics, based on poll numbers, but when you look at the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party, you have to wonder.  How tough is it, really, when you "own" your political party to whip up bogus polls?

I can't believe Donald Trump hasn't known this all along, either.  I suspect the only folks in the dark (outside of the general public) were (A) Bernie and (B) the other GOP contenders.  

Bernie was apparently told all this by Brazille before the primary was over, according to her story. And he STILL endorsed Clinton, campaigned for her constantly, and apparently never once felt the urge to leak this story himself.

But according to the Clintonites he's still an awful, scheming, ((selfish)), crazy person who did everything in his power to ruin Hillary's chances.  

Hillary was and is and always will be an absolute and total failure.

Its comments like this that make alot of us liberals struggle to unify with the radical left. Just move on, we'll vote for a Berniecrat in 2020 if they win the nomination, so putting down Hillary wont do anything but further an unnecessary divide.

It’s amazing to me that anyone could think Sanders supporters (a candidate whose most radical policy is universal healthcare, which every other developed country posses) are “radical left.” It shows how truly right-wing American politics really is.

I don’t think anyone’s really going to “just move on,” at least not until Hillary and her supporters concede that Clinton and her campaign engaged in unethical behavior to heavily tilt the DNC and, by extension, the primaries in her favor. And, more importantly than that, that her allies in the infrastructure of the Democratic Party stop using their power to disempower and disregard Sanders supporters and allies.

[BudgieForce]

The Democrats would be in better shape right now if they had been honest about the fact that they were going to ram through Hillary's nomination, and that was that.  Folks might have understood that somewhat.  People understand the logic of "We're doing this, and no one here wants to be responsible for blowing this!".  Instead, the whole thing was done with Hillary Clinton phoniness.  

The Clintons actually BOUGHT the Democratic Party apparatus, in a real sense.  That's crappy at a number of levels, but the slimy part was that it was secretive, in an attempt to make Hillary look like a candidate with real popular appeal.  Given the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party post 2012, is it unreasonable to wonder if those early polls that made Hillary such a prohibitive favorite with sky-high approval ratings weren't bogus?  At one time, I thought Hillary was the most prohibitive favorite in the history of Presidential politics, based on poll numbers, but when you look at the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party, you have to wonder.  How tough is it, really, when you "own" your political party to whip up bogus polls?

I can't believe Donald Trump hasn't known this all along, either.  I suspect the only folks in the dark (outside of the general public) were (A) Bernie and (B) the other GOP contenders.  

Bernie was apparently told all this by Brazille before the primary was over, according to her story. And he STILL endorsed Clinton, campaigned for her constantly, and apparently never once felt the urge to leak this story himself.

But according to the Clintonites he's still an awful, scheming, ((selfish)), crazy person who did everything in his power to ruin Hillary's chances.  

Hillary was and is and always will be an absolute and total failure.

Its comments like this that make alot of us liberals struggle to unify with the radical left. Just move on, we'll vote for a Berniecrat in 2020 if they win the nomination, so putting down Hillary wont do anything but further an unnecessary divide.

It’s amazing to me that anyone could think Sanders supporters (a candidate whose most radical policy is universal healthcare, which every other developed country posses) are “radical left.” It shows how truly right-wing American politics really is.

I don’t think anyone’s really going to “just move on,” at least not until Hillary and her supporters concede that Clinton and her campaign engaged in unethical behavior to heavily tilt the DNC and, by extension, the primaries in her favor. And, more importantly than that, that her allies in the infrastructure of the Democratic Party stop using their power to disempower and disregard Sanders supporters and allies.

I was taught in college(so a while ago) that its:

radical - liberal - moderate - conservative - reactionary

I only meant Sanders supporters are to the left of liberals. Not that they're extremists. 

And you dont have to move on, but calling Hillary a total and absolute failure will only serve to divide us. Attack how the primary or the general election campaign was handled, but many democrats, including myself, still like Hillary.

[Yank2133]

Warren seems to have vastly underestimated how much of her national appeal came from rank-and-file Democrats, particularly women who happened to support Clinton in 2016.

She overestimated how big of a bloc Bernie supporters are. To be fair, she isn't the only potential 2020 nominee doing this.

They all should be trying to win over people of color instead of pandering left and right for Bernie's people.

[Doimper]

The Democrats would be in better shape right now if they had been honest about the fact that they were going to ram through Hillary's nomination, and that was that.  Folks might have understood that somewhat.  People understand the logic of "We're doing this, and no one here wants to be responsible for blowing this!".  Instead, the whole thing was done with Hillary Clinton phoniness.  

The Clintons actually BOUGHT the Democratic Party apparatus, in a real sense.  That's crappy at a number of levels, but the slimy part was that it was secretive, in an attempt to make Hillary look like a candidate with real popular appeal.  Given the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party post 2012, is it unreasonable to wonder if those early polls that made Hillary such a prohibitive favorite with sky-high approval ratings weren't bogus?  At one time, I thought Hillary was the most prohibitive favorite in the history of Presidential politics, based on poll numbers, but when you look at the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party, you have to wonder.  How tough is it, really, when you "own" your political party to whip up bogus polls?

I can't believe Donald Trump hasn't known this all along, either.  I suspect the only folks in the dark (outside of the general public) were (A) Bernie and (B) the other GOP contenders.  

But according to the Clintonites he's still an awful, scheming, ((selfish)), crazy person who did everything in his power to ruin Hillary's chances.  

I donated to and voted for Bernie. Were you old enough to vote?

[Mr. Smith]

Warren seems to have vastly underestimated how much of her national appeal came from rank-and-file Democrats, particularly women who happened to support Clinton in 2016.

She overestimated how big of a bloc Bernie supporters are. To be fair, she isn't the only potential 2020 nominee doing this.

They all should be trying to win over people of color instead of pandering left and right for Bernie's people.

Not mutually exclusive.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Warren seems to have vastly underestimated how much of her national appeal came from rank-and-file Democrats, particularly women who happened to support Clinton in 2016.

Uh many Bernie supporters were 'rank-and-file' Democrats

[8 Dems control senate]

Interesting is, that the so-called "media" is barely reporting and pretending it is no scandal. Imagine President Trump had done something similar, all the liberal hacks would go crazy. No wonder lots of Berniebros supported Trump in the end.

[justfollowingtheelections]

The Democrats would be in better shape right now if they had been honest about the fact that they were going to ram through Hillary's nomination, and that was that.  Folks might have understood that somewhat.  People understand the logic of "We're doing this, and no one here wants to be responsible for blowing this!".  Instead, the whole thing was done with Hillary Clinton phoniness. 

The Clintons actually BOUGHT the Democratic Party apparatus, in a real sense.  That's crappy at a number of levels, but the slimy part was that it was secretive, in an attempt to make Hillary look like a candidate with real popular appeal.  Given the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party post 2012, is it unreasonable to wonder if those early polls that made Hillary such a prohibitive favorite with sky-high approval ratings weren't bogus?  At one time, I thought Hillary was the most prohibitive favorite in the history of Presidential politics, based on poll numbers, but when you look at the REAL relationship between the Clintons and the Democratic Party, you have to wonder.  How tough is it, really, when you "own" your political party to whip up bogus polls?

I can't believe Donald Trump hasn't known this all along, either.  I suspect the only folks in the dark (outside of the general public) were (A) Bernie and (B) the other GOP contenders. 

Bernie was apparently told all this by Brazille before the primary was over, according to her story. And he STILL endorsed Clinton, campaigned for her constantly, and apparently never once felt the urge to leak this story himself.

But according to the Clintonites he's still an awful, scheming, ((selfish)), crazy person who did everything in his power to ruin Hillary's chances. 

Does it really surprise you?  Some of these Clinton supporters are insane.

[BudgieForce]

Interesting is, that the so-called "media" is barely reporting and pretending it is no scandal. Imagine President Trump had done something sililar, all the liberal hacks would go crazy. No wonder lots of Berniebros supported Trump in the end.

MSNBC just grilled Northam on this f.y.i. The media isnt ignoring it.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Interesting is, that the so-called "media" is barely reporting and pretending it is no scandal. Imagine President Trump had done something sililar, all the liberal hacks would go crazy. No wonder lots of Berniebros supported Trump in the end.

MSNBC just grilled Northam on this f.y.i. The media isnt ignoring it.

I saw that. It was the first mention of it I've seen on a channel that isn't Fox News. That's hardly "coverage."

[BudgieForce]

Interesting is, that the so-called "media" is barely reporting and pretending it is no scandal. Imagine President Trump had done something sililar, all the liberal hacks would go crazy. No wonder lots of Berniebros supported Trump in the end.

MSNBC just grilled Northam on this f.y.i. The media isnt ignoring it.

I saw that. It was the first mention of it I've seen on a channel that isn't Fox News. That's hardly "coverage."

Untrue, I know MSNBC has discussed this multiple times today.

[8 Dems control senate]

Interesting is, that the so-called "media" is barely reporting and pretending it is no scandal. Imagine President Trump had done something sililar, all the liberal hacks would go crazy. No wonder lots of Berniebros supported Trump in the end.

MSNBC just grilled Northam on this f.y.i. The media isnt ignoring it.

They should grill H and Podesta instead. As far as I know, Northam was not in charge of DNC.

I'm for special counsel on this issue. We have a special counsel for an "offense" much less than that.

[tallguy23]

Interesting is, that the so-called "media" is barely reporting and pretending it is no scandal. Imagine President Trump had done something similar, all the liberal hacks would go crazy. No wonder lots of Berniebros supported Trump in the end.

I've seen plenty of reporting on it, even on MSNBC. It's just overshadowed by the Mueller investigations.

People will obviously prioritize covering the current WH occupant.

[Fight for Trump]

Donna Brazile on point as usual! She should be the only one on the entire panel they retain.

MSNBC remains most superior of course.

For Christ's sake, I thought even Democrats admitted Donna Brazile was a self-righteous hack who never said anything remotely of value.

I have met Donna Brazile a couple of times at party events in Chicago, and she is a wonderful woman.

[RINO Tom]

How is "Undemocratic" to ask people to engage & talk over an election?

Hillary supporters have jobs. They didn't have 12 hours out of the day to sit around defending their vote and being shouted down by Bernie supporters.

Uh, I thought I read somewhere that Sanders' primary voters were often higher income than Hillary's...

[Rookie Yinzer]

How is "Undemocratic" to ask people to engage & talk over an election?

Hillary supporters have jobs. They didn't have 12 hours out of the day to sit around defending their vote and being shouted down by Bernie supporters.

That’s exactly what Republicans love to say. Nice.

I was being facetious.

[Fight for Trump]

Tom, any comment?

For Christ's sake, I thought even Democrats admitted Donna Brazile was a self-righteous hack who never said anything remotely of value.

[BudgieForce]

Donna Brazile can f#ck off for all I care...

I'm done. This scandal was bullsh**t.



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

[Rookie Yinzer]

How is "Undemocratic" to ask people to engage & talk over an election?

Hillary supporters have jobs. They didn't have 12 hours out of the day to sit around defending their vote and being shouted down by Bernie supporters.

Uh, I thought I read somewhere that Sanders' primary voters were often higher income than Hillary's...

The jobs part was an (attempted) joke. The second part of my statement is true. Bernie supporters did yell at Hillary supporters at caucuses. My friend’s mother experienced this in Nevada. His supporters were more passionate, which is great, but he did benefit from the caucus system which is undemocratic. He often left this out when he went on tirades Against the “system”.