Brazile: Thought @ Replacing Hilary/ Kaine with Biden/ Booker

[xcvbn]

You're responding to someone I ignore, but, yeah, I've noticed that there's a huge contradiction between reactions to Brazile's stuff and the narrative that there was some kind of sinister DNC plot to select Clinton.

Hahahahahahahhah

Take your head out the sand, hack.

 

[xcvbn]

Your point makes no sense. You can't have it both ways.

Tony Podesta and Harvey Weinstein being forced to step down from their own companies are very recent examples of how it works.

 

[kpt018]

Tony Podesta and Harvey Weinstein being forced to step down from their own companies are very recent examples of how it works.

What the hell do they have to do with what you or I said?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Gavin Newsom is a piece of shit who wants all guns banned yesterday.

And hes for sanctuary cities...doesnt matter.
The most charismatic candidate virtually always wins, back to JFK or televised appearances.
He defends points well, and i say this disagreeing personally with many of them. I also doubt his national politics would be congruent with SFC mayoral or Sacramento state stances

Hes apparently running for Gov next anyhoo, but im telling u hes the real threat to the right that should be taken seriously

 

[VivaRevolution]

Evidence that the Democratic National Committee rigged the 2016 presidential primary in favor of Hillary Clinton has been known for well over a year. But the leadership of the Democratic Party has refused to address evidence, preferring to “move forward” by coercing Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders into uniting with the very elements of the party responsible for losing to President Donald Trump.

Now, former interim DNC chair Donna Brazile has given credence to claims that the DNC rigged the primary, which is what members of the Sanders campaign and supporters have repeatedly asserted—even though most DNC officials or Clinton supporters treat such claims as the product of sexism or downright foolishness.

Brazile found a copy of the joint fundraising agreement between the DNC, Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary For America. It was signed by former CEO of the DNC Amy Dacey and Robby Mook, who was Clinton’s campaign manager. The Clinton campaign’s legal counsel, Marc Elias, was copied.

It specified that Clinton would “control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

The agreement was inked in August 2015, which was months before the first votes were ever cast in the primary.

As Brazile put it, “The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”

A story from Politico in May 2016 revealed how the Clinton campaign setup a fundraising operation through state party apparatuses that was essentially money laundering. States only kept less than a half percent of $82 million raised. This was a method to circumvent campaign finance limits. It also put Sanders at a disadvantage, as the state parties weren’t fairly making these funds available to his campaign.

DNC chair Tom Perez appeared on CNBC and was asked about what Brazile wrote. “Well, hey, we’re moving forward. We’re building, you know, I’ve been asked that question a number of times since I started.”

Perez suggested he would ensure plans for the nomination process in 2020 were fair and transparent. The primary debate schedule would be set in advance before any officially declared candidates are known. But what if DNC officials already have a candidate for 2020 in mind, like they did with Clinton?

In October, as widely reported, Perez “stripped a number of longtime party officials of their ‘at-large’ delegate status or leadership positions, while appointing a slate of 75 new members that include[d] Clinton campaign veterans, lobbyists, and neophytes.” Many of those demoted were progressives who backed Sanders or Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison when he ran against Perez for DNC chair.

Some of the people tied to corporate interests, who were granted superdelegate votes, included Joanne Dowdell, who was a registered lobbyist for News Corp (which owns Fox News) and Manuel Ortiz, a lobbyist for CITGO Petroleum Corporation and Citigroup. And ten other newly appointed superdelegates had previously registered as federal lobbyists.



Indiana Democratic Representative Andre Carson also was on CNN and asked what he thought of Brazile’s allegations. Initially, Carson refused to address them and said he knew Brazile and would probably read her forthcoming book. Wolf Blitzer pressed him, and Carson deflected. He maintained he had no knowledge of any fundraising deal between the Clinton campaign and DNC.

“If what Donna Brazile is saying in this new book is true, I assume you’d be pretty upset that there was this formal arrangement to use the DNC, the assets of DNC, which are considerable, to help this one presidential candidate and in the process hurt others who may want to challenge her for the nomination,” Blitzer added.

It did not visibly bother Carson at all. Addressing Clinton and Sanders supporters, Carson answered, “Going forward, we need to come together. Though we may have our differences and different approaches in terms of methodology. We have to come together and use our numbers to make sure we don’t re-elect Donald Trump or see another Donald Trump rise.”

This strategy for unity, which involves forcing conformity among Sanders supporters, failedat the Democratic National Convention, and it failed to ensure Clinton had the turnout among working class people of color and young people that was necessary to defeat Trump, especially in swing states. It has, however, helped officials obstruct accountability, transparency, or any transformation away from the very centrist agenda that has ensured the party remains weak.

One of the few Democrats to recognize reality was Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren. She appeared on CNN and emphatically answered, “Yes,” when asked if she thought the DNC rigged the primary. She said the Democratic Party needed to be “held accountable.”

Warren was hounded throughout the 2016 Democratic primary by Sanders supporters for remaining silent about who she supported. Her silence was regarded as a favor to the Clinton campaign that was intended to help the campaign ensure the scales did not tip against them in key New England states.

What Warren said flustered several Democrats, including Joy Ann Reid, a Democrat and MSNBC host with quite the following on Twitter.

Reid contended, “The question is: what does the DNC actually do, and can it, even if it wanted to, rig 50+ primaries for any given candidate?” She added, “Even if one objects to the [joint fundraising agreement], as Donna did, it didn’t hurt Sanders financially. By April, he’d raised as much as [Clinton].” She insisted Clinton won the nomination because she received more votes than Sanders.

However, what those in denial refuse to confront is that Clinton may have received more votes because citizens believed it was impossible for Sanders to win, since the news media kept reporting Clinton had so many more superdelegates than him. Plus, whether Sanders was able to overcome the impact of an unethical fundraising agreement does not change the reality that it made the primary unfair.

Hillary Rosen, a prominent Democratic Party strategist who regularly appears on CNN, insisted Democrats could not reckon with Brazile’s allegations when attention must be paid to the GOP’s tax proposals. She also misleadingly argued Brazile could not find any evidence that the system was rigged against Sanders, which is not what Brazile wrote. Brazile said she could not find any evidence to support widespread claims until she came across the joint fundraising agreement.

“The voters chose Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, and it had nothing to do with any staff person at the DNC,” Rosen asserted.

In May 2016, Rosen said, “Bernie Sanders is losing this race, and instead of taking it like a man, he’s working the ref. He’s encouraging his people to think that the system is rigged. The system he signed up for as an independent to run in a Democratic primary. This constant sort of whining and complaining about the process is just really the most harmful thing, in some ways, he could do because he’s encouraging his supporters to think that the process actually is cheating them, and they’re not.” So, Rosen has an interest in maintaining her denial of reality.

The reality is hundreds of superdelegates pledged their allegiance to Clinton before votes were cast in Iowa, a limited number of debates were scheduled to ensure voters had the least amount of exposure to Clinton opponents, the DNC and Clinton campaign falsely accused the Sanders campaign of “stealing” voter file data, and Democratic women supporting Sanders faced forms of retaliation for not supporting Clinton.

https://shadowproof.com/2017/11/03/democrats-denial-brazile-allegations-confirm-primary-rigged/

I'm just going to quote this, and leave it here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

And hes for sanctuary cities...doesnt matter.
The most charismatic candidate virtually always wins, back to JFK or televised appearances.
He defends points well, and i say this disagreeing personally with many of them. I also doubt his national politics would be congruent with SFC mayoral or Sacramento state stances

Hes apparently running for Gov next anyhoo, but im telling u hes the real threat to the right that should be taken seriously

Assuming you're still talking about Newsom, I don't see it. I like him, but I don't think he has enough rube appeal, and it will be very easy to paint him as corrupt, even if his closet is clean. And "the most charistmatic candidate" is generally identified retroactively so that point fails.

I think he's right (and long has been) on the most important issue in CA and a big one in a lot of other parts of the country--housing (an issue that most Democrats have been really wrong about, too). Wrote a good piece on it here (remove the space):

https://medium.com/ @GavinNewsom/the-california-dream-starts-at-home-9dbb38c51cae

Not sure if there's a national-level solution there, though, but a lot of local fixes would have a noticeable impact on growth around the country (not *large*, but almost no gov't policy can really affect growth that much).

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Assuming you're still talking about Newsom, I don't see it. I like him, but I don't think he has enough rube appeal, and it will be very easy to paint him as corrupt, even if his closet is clean. And "the most charistmatic candidate" is generally identified retroactively so that point fails.

I think he's right (and long has been) on the most important issue in CA and a big one in a lot of other parts of the country--housing (an issue that most Democrats have been really wrong about, too). Wrote a good piece on it here (remove the space):

https://medium.com/ @GavinNewsom/the-california-dream-starts-at-home-9dbb38c51cae

Not sure if there's a national-level solution there, though, but a lot of local fixes would have a noticeable impact on growth around the country (not *large*, but almost no gov't policy can really affect growth that much).

it's not identified retroactively...
neither of reagan's opponents had any, and he was an actor ffs
Clinton clearly had it over Bush and then Dole and it wasn't remotely close
Bush was rubish in charm or charisma, but Gore had negative charm (the male Hillary iow), and neither did Kerry's boring ass
Obama clearly had it over McCain (haha) and Romney wasn't that bad, but not on Obama's level

I"m not saying it's the only factor, of course not, but that is a pretty strong and clear correlation going back to JFK/Nixon in 60

As per corrupt, i'm unaware of what you're talking about, unless it's just it would probably be easy to paint him as having affairs (i.e. John Edwards except he really did have one) just due to how he looks, and he's on Maher alot, etc...

But to me, none of the other DEM leaders seem to have the charm, intelligence, and let's be honest looks (nobody wants an old haggard lady if we're being frank here) and at the same time he doesn't come off as that smug, arrogant, or condascending to me. He clearly LOOKS like he would, but everytime i've seen him he's been articulate but not talking down to people either

 

[xcvbn]

What the hell do they have to do with what you or I said?

You say ownership cannot be removed. But owners can and do get replaced from within, rather often actually.

 

[xcvbn]

And hes for sanctuary cities...doesnt matter.
The most charismatic candidate virtually always wins, back to JFK or televised appearances.
He defends points well, and i say this disagreeing personally with many of them. I also doubt his national politics would be congruent with SFC mayoral or Sacramento state stances

Hes apparently running for Gov next anyhoo, but im telling u hes the real threat to the right that should be taken seriously

I really want to like the dude but he's hellbent on removing the 2nd amendment. Says a lot of good things otherwise but for that alone he's scary. Unfortunately I think he's got the governorship locked up tbh so I hope he either softens up his gun stance a lot or falls flat on his face.

 

[Jack V Savage]

As per corrupt, i'm unaware of what you're talking about, unless it's just it would probably be easy to paint him as having affairs (i.e. John Edwards except he really did have one) just due to how he looks, and he's on Maher alot, etc...

But to me, none of the other DEM leaders seem to have the charm, intelligence, and let's be honest looks (nobody wants an old haggard lady if we're being frank here) and at the same time he doesn't come off as that smug, arrogant, or condascending to me. He clearly LOOKS like he would, but everytime i've seen him he's been articulate but not talking down to people either

The kind of oily look is what I'm talking about. And there was that affair, which was legitimately low. I think it's naive to think that he actually has to have done or said anything bad for the opposition and a significant portion of the media to be convinced that he's a monster.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

The kind of oily look is what I'm talking about. And there was that affair, which was legitimately low. I think it's naive to think that he actually has to have done or said anything bad for the opposition and a significant portion of the media to be convinced that he's a monster.

it's not that as to your last pt (although i think you exaggerate the effect of those ads and everything, but maybe it's me who is understating them, who knows), but if ALL they can get is some kind of affair thing, that's pretty good in this day and age tbh...

Plus after Trump, i think that argument can largely be laid to rest unless of course the candidate is really hypocritical about it (like say if Mike Pence came out w/ mad affairs)

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

You can't compare the actual candidate who actually was the target of a sustained smear campaign with hypothetical candidates who had no smear campaign against them. Regardless of what one wants to be true, that's lazy thinking that leads to wrong beliefs. The electorate wasn't the same in 2016 as it was in previous elections (because they're all different).

Well I agre that any candidate for the democrats would've been run through the republican smear campaign. I do agree with that statement.

 

[kpt018]

You say ownership cannot be removed. But owners can and do get replaced from within, rather often actually.

I didn’t say that. I’m saying “bought” means they control it. If a person can be removed they do not control it.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Well I agre that any candidate for the democrats would've been run through the republican smear campaign. I do agree with that statement.

Its a shame the DNC doesn't run attack ads of their own...

 

[xcvbn]

I didn’t say that. I’m saying “bought” means they control it. If a person can be removed they do not control it.

But they can control it and still be removed...Harvey Weinstein and Tony Podesta are examples of owners who controlled their companies until they were deemed unfit and removed. Donald Sterling, former majority owner of the LA Clippers, is another example of someone who controlled a company and was still forced out.

 

[SBJJ]

I don't trust a word that comes out of this woman's mouth.

The Seth Rich stuff. Ugggghhhh

 

[Anung Un Rama]

But they can control it and still be removed...Harvey Weinstein and Tony Podesta are examples of owners who controlled their companies until they were deemed unfit and removed. Donald Sterling, former majority owner of the LA Clippers, is another example of someone who controlled a company and was still forced out.

Brazile didn't have the power to change the ticket. Not by herself and not at that stage of the game. I think that musing is a either:
A. her thinking "out loud", or
B. trying to look like the DNC is reformed to the Bernie supporters.

 

[Space]

Would have been an easy win if so

Everyone knows that the only candidate Trump could have possibly beaten was Hilary

Bernie would have lost even harder.

His bros would have been too hungover or stoned to even register to vote.

 

[MiniCraque]

You can't compare the actual candidate who actually was the target of a sustained smear campaign with hypothetical candidates who had no smear campaign against them. Regardless of what one wants to be true, that's lazy thinking that leads to wrong beliefs. The electorate wasn't the same in 2016 as it was in previous elections (because they're all different).

Come on Jack, you honestly don't think Biden would be less vulnerable against the smear campaign? Yeah, the right would've done that to anybody, who the candidate is doesn't change that. It does change, however, how much of the shit flinged by the right sticks.

Obama was a great candidate because not only was he a relative newcomer (not much you could accuse him of unless you went deep into crazytown shit like him being a Manchurian Candidate) but he also had a lot of finesse and could just roll with the punches. Hillary was visibly worse in both categories.

I don't deny that the smear campaign Hillary faced was a lot more sofisticated than what other Democrats had to face. But the fact that she deeply alienated a lot of people and failed to energize the base can't be blamed solely on her opponents.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Bernie would have lost even harder.

His bros would have been too hungover or stoned to even register to vote.

Everyone who voted for Hillary would have voted for Bernie. That's the biggest part. It's not just the Bernie Bros

A few Bernie Bros who abstained would have voted for him. Some people who voted for Trump to vote against Hillary wouldn't have voted Trump

It would have been enough to sway it