2016 Elections

[O Really]

Agreed. But Trump can replace Goldwater as one of the worst everrr. The term "trump" will no longer mean "better than" but will be used to describe a really awful candidate for office or a job, or for a really bad process, as in, "he would have won but his team trumped up badly." Or, "here are the top four candidates for the job. I'll send turn-down notices to the trumps. Or, I drank so much last night I was totally trumped up."

[Vrede too]

Emails Released by WikiLeaks Appear to Show DNC Trying to Aid Hillary Clinton

Just days before the Democratic National Convention, Wikileaks has released emails from top DNC officials that appear to show the inner workings of the Democratic Party and what seems to be them attempting to aid the Hillary Clinton campaign during the primaries.

Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support.

“It might may [sic] no difference, but for KY and WA can we get someone to ask his belief,” Brad Marshall, CFO of DNC, wrote in an email on May 5, 2016. “Does he believe in God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My southern baptist peeps woudl draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”

Amy Dacey, CEO of the DNC, subsequently responded “AMEN,” according to the emails.

During the primary battle, Sanders and his supporters accused both the party and Wasserman Schultz of putting their thumb on the scale for Clinton and these emails may indicate support for those allegations.

Sanders called for Wasserman Schultz to step down, and in an April 24 email she received with an article detailing Sanders talking about the DNC being unfair to his campaign, the chairwoman responded, “Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do.”

After the Nevada Democratic Convention, where things got out-of-hand over a delegate fight, Wasserman Schultz called Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver a “damn liar.” In another instance, she referred to him as an “a--," according to the emails.

The DNC did not respond to requests for comment. The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment....

[O Really]

I'm not sure it's the job of the DNC or RNC to assure a level ground for everybody who wants to run. The are the management of the Party. Not the referee of a public process open to all. It's their job to get people in their party elected, and frequently they support (financially, speakers, yada) while ignoring others. I can understand Bernie fans being upset, as were/are Trump fans over the RNC and "establishment" Republicans trashing their guy. But there's no scandal here, and those of us who cheered RNC's opposition to Trump can hardly whine loudly about the DNC.

[Vrede too]

It most definitely is the job of the top leaders of the DNC or RNC to stay neutral during the primaries and we're not talking about generic "establishment" Dems but rather the analogs to the RNC chair, Reince Priebus. If he had expressed anti-Trump bias and got caught working to undermine Trump, which I don't think he did, I would feel the same.

I'm reminded of a housemate that was as progressive as me but maintained scrupulous neutrality in her role as County Dem chair during our 1984 caucus.

Then, the religious bigotry is disgusting no matter which official does it.

If we're going to reject basic ethical standards and religious tolerance we might as well be Trumpette Republicans.

[O Really]

Yes, the use of religious bigotry is despicable, but is undeniably a factor in current races. I disagree that a national committee is required to be neutral, and think that Pribus and friends were (even if passively) working against Trump and, last election, worked actively for Romney. Just off the Presidential circuit, David Duke has announced his candidacy for Senator from Louisiana. To their credit, the RSNC has clearly stated they will not support him.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/d ... kkk-226028

Not that I personally have anything against Bernie, as I would probably have preferred him as President. While some polls showed him able to beat Trump (before anybody tried to trash him in the General), but his nomination would have been chancy. Could he attract the Middle? Could he neutralize the inevitable Republican chants "We told you Obama was a socialist- this guy calls himself one. Believe him! Besides, though it doesn't bother me, he never was even a Democrat, having been an "Independent" in the Senate.

So if I'm the DNC, I'm going to try to grease the rails for my best chance to win. Wouldn't have played the religion dirty tricks, though.

[Vrede too]

David Duke is not comparable to Bernie or the other Dems that ran. Any appearance of goodwill or even tolerance towards Duke automatically harms the RNC.

We can agree to disagree on the ethics, but I would still argue that it's a bad idea to confirm to millions of non-front runner voters that the system is rigged. Hillary doesn't want large numbers of them staying home.

[O Really]

"Rigged" has a bad connotation, but isn't necessarily accurate. If you can point me to where it says the DNC/RNC has to treat all candidates equally and without preference, I'll go away on this issue with my tail properly tucked. I don't think they do.

Anyway, "rigged" or not, middle-of-the-road Republican-lite or not, HIllary is a better choice for progressives than Trump. And those are the only two realistic choices available.

So, do we assume Wikileaks supports Trump?

[Vrede too]

"Rigged" has a bad connotation, but isn't necessarily accurate. If you can point me to where it says the DNC/RNC has to treat all candidates equally and without preference, I'll go away on this issue with my tail properly tucked. I don't think they do.

This is the ethics question we have to agree to disagree on. Not counting party-destroying extremists like Duke, it's a longstanding and widely held belief that the party apparatus should be neutral until primary voters have had their say, as my former housemate knew, believed and upheld.

Anyway, "rigged" or not, middle-of-the-road Republican-lite or not, HIllary is a better choice for progressives than Trump.

Sure, but everyone has limits. Many individual Dems over the decades have lost my vote under any circumstances.

And those are the only two realistic choices available.

Like it or not, staying home is also a realistic choice.

So, do we assume Wikileaks supports Trump?

I wouldn't know, it seems to have been pretty evenhanded in exposing official malfeasance, limited only by who chooses to leak to it. In this case, I suspect a high level Dem that places ethics over blind partisanship.

[rstrong]

"Rigged" has a bad connotation, but isn't necessarily accurate. If you can point me to where it says the DNC/RNC has to treat all candidates equally and without preference, I'll go away on this issue with my tail properly tucked. I don't think they do.

Both the RNC and DNC are private clubs. Neither are neutral on candidates, nor are they required to be.

Both party leaderships have their way of putting their thumb on the scale. Democrats have super-delegates. Republicans delegates in many states are only required to reflect their states' choices in the first round of convention voting, after which they become "unbound delegates" who can vote any way they choose. In some states most delegates are "unbound" even on the first ballot.

And it can get more extreme than that:

Remember back in 2000 - not 2008, but 2000 - when McCain was still his own man? Anyone running for office as a Republican was given what was essentially a loyalty oath, stipulating that they would support George W. Bush in the forthcoming primaries exclusively, and not McCain, and if they didn't agree, the Party would withhold its financing from their election bid.

[O Really]

"Rigged" has a bad connotation, but isn't necessarily accurate. If you can point me to where it says the DNC/RNC has to treat all candidates equally and without preference, I'll go away on this issue with my tail properly tucked. I don't think they do.

This is the ethics question we have to agree to disagree on. Not counting party-destroying extremists like Duke, it's a longstanding and widely held belief that the party apparatus should be neutral until primary voters have had their say, as my former housemate knew, believed and upheld.

Anyway, "rigged" or not, middle-of-the-road Republican-lite or not, HIllary is a better choice for progressives than Trump.

Sure, but everyone has limits. Many individual Dems over the decades have lost my vote under any circumstances.

And those are the only two realistic choices available.

Like it or not, staying home is also a realistic choice.

So, do we assume Wikileaks supports Trump?

I wouldn't know, it seems to have been pretty evenhanded in exposing official malfeasance, limited only by who chooses to leak to it. In this case, I suspect a high level Dem that places ethics over blind partisanship.

Well, sure, staying home might make an individual voter feel righteous, but while s/he's self-congratulating over rejecting both the scoundrels, either Clinton or Trump is going to be President. I'd like to see "none of the above" on the ballot. But it's not.

[Vrede too]

Staying home is not the choice I make or encourage but given our already dismal turnout relative to other nations', every party and pol has to be concerned about it. Getting caught at BS like this makes it more likely.

.... I'd like to see "none of the above" on the ballot. But it's not.

I have a VT friend that will be voting Green Party. Here, we'll have the Libertarian Party and possibly others.

[O Really]

Green, Libertarian, Pastafarian, stay home - it's all the same.
If one believes Trump's followers will be enthusiastic, then a vote for anyone but Hillary is a vote for Trump.

[Vrede too]

Green, Libertarian, Pastafarian,

Leave religion out of this, like Brad Marshall & Amy Dacey should have done.

stay home - it's all the same.

I thought your, "I'd like to see 'none of the above' on the ballot," signaled a shift. I was just saying we already have it.

If one believes Trump's followers will be enthusiastic, then a vote for anyone but Hillary is a vote for Trump.

Only in marginal states.

[O Really]

Only in marginal states.

[/quote]
Yep. Those are the ones that count.

I don't see voting for a third tier party/candidate as the same as a real "none of the above" choice. But realistically, a "NOTA" box wouldn't win very often, although it would have a chance in this race apparently.

[Vrede too]

It would be a version of the Prisoner's dilemma, and advance polling would be very unreliable.

[Vrede too]

I think there will be more marginal states than in 2012, to Trump's disadvantage. Most lefties and moderates will know if they're in one and will hold their nose, if necessary, and pick Hillary or Trump. That said, I can understand if some are so disgusted with the options that they stay home, vote but leave POTUS blank or go 3rd party. It's a principled stand and we need more principles in politics, not less.

Bernie got 115,863 votes in VT, 86.1% of the Dem votes and more than all the other Dem & GOP candidates combined. Unlikely, but I wonder if there's a chance that the Green Party candidate will get VT's 3 electoral votes.

[Vrede too]

... Not that I personally have anything against Bernie, as I would probably have preferred him as President. While some polls showed him able to beat Trump (before anybody tried to trash him in the General), but his nomination would have been chancy. Could he attract the Middle? Could he neutralize the inevitable Republican chants "We told you Obama was a socialist- this guy calls himself one. Believe him! ...

... a vote for anyone but Hillary is a vote for Trump.

Given that Bernie's democratic socialism is well known, that he didn't temper his agenda during the yearlong campaign, that he did better than Hillary in all polls vs. Trump, and that the effectiveness of theoretical ads against him is speculative, if Trump wins it will have been that your vote for Hillary was a vote for Trump.

[Wneglia]

"Rigged" has a bad connotation, but isn't necessarily accurate. If you can point me to where it says the DNC/RNC has to treat all candidates equally and without preference, I'll go away on this issue with my tail properly tucked. I don't think they do.

Anyway, "rigged" or not, middle-of-the-road Republican-lite or not, HIllary is a better choice for progressives than Trump. And those are the only two realistic choices available.

So, do we assume Wikileaks supports Trump?

Hey Counselor-Ya think this Lawsuit is going anywhere?

[GoCubsGo]

No

[Vrede too]

Not being a Counselor . . .

“The first is a claim for fraud ...” ... the DNC broke legally binding neutrality agreements in the Democratic primaries by strategizing to make Hillary Clinton the nominee before a single vote was cast.

The second claim filed is for negligent misrepresentation, a legal theory based on the first claim of fraud.

Seems valid, if they really are "legally binding neutrality agreements".

The third claim alleges the DNC and Wasserman Schultz participated in deceptive conduct in claiming the DNC was neutral during the Democratic primaries, when there is overwhelming evidence suggesting favoritism of Clinton from the beginning.

Dubious, almost all parties and pols engage in "deceptive conduct". Where would we draw the line?

The fourth claim of the lawsuit seeks retribution of any monetary donations the DNC to Bernie Sanders‘ campaign.

The fifth claim alleges the DNC broke its fiduciary duties during the Democratic primaries to members of the Democratic Party by not holding a fair election process.

True . . . but actionable?

The sixth claim is for negligence on behalf of the DNC—for not protecting donor information—as hackers broke into the DNC networks, potentially compromising their personal information.

I think they have to find DNC donors that were actually harmed and that want to sue.

Whatever, it was stupid of the DNC to do and then get caught at. There were plenty of high level, non-DNC, officials to promote Hillary and the DNC should not have violated our assumption that it would act neutrally.