Leaked document shows the DNC wanted Clinton from start

[brendablethyn 536]

A document leaked by a hacker who took responsibility for the Democratic National Committee data breach appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign — just as Bernie Sanders has claimed.

A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 – a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid — declared that “our goals & strategy” are to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC.”

HRC stands for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The document, posted online by the hacker “Guccifer 2.0,” outlines ways to hit back at the GOP presidential field, such as “use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”

http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/leaked-document-shows-the-dnc-wanted-clinton-from-start/

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

You glossed over the part where they stated that their assessments show this to be the works of espionage not Guccifer.

In any case how is this a surprise? People underestimated Bernie at first and Hillary was assumed to be the winner by default. Bernie showed them

It doesn't mean that they treated him differently, but if they did have any internal bias, how is it shocking that they would support the poster girl of the Democratic Party who has worked with them for decades over an independent opportunist who had been and continues to be hostile towards them? 

Why do you think the political personnel in the Democratic Party (SDs) favored her so much?  

All this shows that Hillary had a lead in SDs. How is it rigging when she is ahead by four million of the popular vote again and 380ish pledged delegates, the real reasons Clinton has won? The systems in place were there far before this election.

[brendablethyn 536]

10 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

You glossed over the part where they stated that their assessments show this to be the works of espionage not Guccifer.

In any case how is this a surprise? People underestimated Bernie at first and Hillary was assumed to be the winner by default. Bernie showed them

It doesn't mean that they treated him differently, but if they did have any internal bias, how is it shocking that they would support the poster girl of the Democratic Party who has worked with them for decades over an independent opportunist who had been and continues to be hostile towards them? 

Why do you think the political personnel in the Democratic Party (SDs) favored her so much?  

All this shows that Hillary had a lead in SDs. How is it rigging when she is ahead by four million of the popular vote again and 380ish pledged delegates, the real reasons Clinton has won?

It sets a very dangerous precedent if the DNC start picking and choosing who will be the nominee before the process has begun. Some would say anti-democratic. What's the point in having a primary if we've got Debbie and her friends to select the correct nominee for us? You're right about them choosing someone who has worked with them for decades, and who will no doubt reward them, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours. Who cares about the voters 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, brendablethyn said:

It sets a very dangerous precedent if the DNC start picking and choosing who will be the nominee before the process has begun. Some would say anti-democratic. What's the point in having a primary if we've got Debbie and her friends to select the correct nominee for us? You're right about them choosing someone who has worked with them for decades, and who will no doubt reward them, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours. Who cares about the voters 

Who selected them? The election process was run and Hillary won fair and square. 

You find it weird that the Democratic Party assumed Hillary was going to win? Bernie proved them wrong by running a competitive race til he messed up and lost big time in the South and in states with a lot of minority populations.

I'm trying to understand how it is weird that the political entities aligned with the Democratic Party (superdelegates) were in favor of Hillary over Sanders. If it was Warren instead of Sanders I'd understand where you were coming from but Sanders was never an ally to the Party and thus had no favor and trust from anyone in the Democratic Party,.  

[brendablethyn 536]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Who selected them? The election process was run and Hillary won fair and square. 

You find it weird that the Democratic Party assumed Hillary was going to win? Bernie proved them wrong by running a competitive race til he messed up and lost big time in the South and in states with a lot of minority populations.

They should be a neutral part of the process. Why was their goal, when there were a number of candidates, up to 4 or 5 by the debates, to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC”? It should have been to conduct the process fairly and democratically. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

10 minutes ago, brendablethyn said:

They should be a neutral part of the process. Why was their goal, when there were a number of candidates, up to 4 or 5 by the debates, to “provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC”? It should have been to conduct the process fairly and democratically. 

How is that quote a bad thing? That plan outlined is about focusing more on the GOP as opposed to Sanders because as I said they had underestimated him at first, something widely known and they did little to hide. Hillary was assumed to be the default winner from the start and Sanders was just an upstart. It's clear they didn't expect previously unlikely voters (millennials) to show up in droves and apply pressure, something they actually appreciate Sanders for now.

In any case, why are you trying to spin it as something it is not? The superdelegates may have favored a particular candidate for obvious reasons from relevant experience to loyalty. It would not affect the votes placed in the system designed decades before this election, the same votes that ultimately had Clinton have a four million lead in popular vote and 387 lead in pledged delegates. 

Why are you trying to demonize the DNC for adopting a strategy they think would be most effective in having the Democrats win the White House? 

People need to stop thinking this is about Hillary or Bernie. Thinking that this sort of thing was "against Sanders" as opposed to "For the Democratic Party" is the same kind of juvenile competitive mindset that fails to understand that this is about long term goals not trifling stan wars.

[President Biden 5,898]

Disgusting 

[brendablethyn 536]

5 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

How is that quote a bad thing? That plan outlined is about focusing more on the GOP as opposed to Sanders because as I said they had underestimated him at first, something widely known and they did little to hide. Hillary was assumed to be the default winner from the start and Sanders was just an upstart. It's clear they didn't expect previously unlikely voters (millennials) to show up in droves and apply pressure, something they actually appreciate Sanders for now.

In any case, why are you trying to spin it as something it is not? The superdelegates may have favored a particular candidate for obvious reasons from relevant experience to loyalty. It would not affect the votes placed in the system designed decades before this election, the same votes that ultimately had Clinton have a four million lead in popular vote and 387 lead in pledged delegates. 

Why are you trying to demonize the DNC for adopting a strategy they think would be most effective in having the Democrats win the White House? 

People need to stop thinking this is about Hillary or Bernie. Thinking that this sort of thing was "against Sanders" as opposed to "For the Democratic Party" is the same kind of juvenile competitive mindset that fails to understand that this is about long term goals not trifling stan wars.

They are meant to be a neutral referee. It's not their job to pick who they think is most likely to win, and start campaigning for them against the GOP before the party has voted. Should we not have primaries at all, and let the DNC decide who is the best candidate? That seems to be what you're saying. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

11 minutes ago, brendablethyn said:

They are meant to be a neutral referee. It's not their job to pick who they think is most likely to win, and start campaigning for them against the GOP before the party has voted. Should we not have primaries at all, and let the DNC decide who is the best candidate? That seems to be what you're saying. 

No that's not what I'm saying. The election process was run and Hillary won popular support and is therefore the nominee, especially since the Democratic political entities strongly favored her for obvious reasons.

The DNC expected Hillary to win and began outlining strategies for her to defeat the GOP's nominee.

That's what responsible leadership does. Plan for the future using fair assumptions. 

I honestly continue to see how this is a bad thing for the Democratic Party. It's necessary to preemptively begin formulating strategies to beat the GOP. If Sanders won those plans would have changed. They just didn't expect him to win and they were right.

[brendablethyn 536]

2 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

No that's not what I'm saying. The election process was run and Hillary won popular support and is therefore the nominee, especially since the Democratic political entities strongly favored her for obvious reasons.

The DNC expected Hillary to win and began outlining strategies for her to defeat the GOP's nominee.

That's what responsible leadership does. Plan for the future using fair assumptions. 

I honestly continue to see how this is a bad thing for the Democratic Party. It's necessary to preemptively begin formulating strategies to beat the GOP. If Sanders won those plans would have changed. They just didn't expect him to win and they were right.

Fair enough. I just hope in future it's a fair race, and the DNC doesn't call it 6 months before voting has begun.

[Whispering 18,865]

Well, yeah...Hillary was up by so much at the time and everyone else wasn't even at ten per cent. 

The voters choose the candidate. Hillary won by four million votes and won more states and the ones with the highest population of people, so she won the nomination. 

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

Well, duh. Didn't need a leaked document to know this. 

She was the default winner from the very start and she won the primary election proving everyone right. 

[socotra 3,357]

My biggest thing has always been that while Hillary did win the popular vote, I wonder how different it would be if: 

A.) There were more debates

B.) Independents were allowed to vote in closed primaries

C.) People could switch party allegiance at the voting booth (like in California, for example, where you had to be registered as a Dem. by May 23) 

D.) There wasn't shadiness going on in certain states (i.e. Arizona) 

Majority of these grievances are not at Hillary, who excelled in the system, but at the system itself. I also do believe that it was slanted in favor of Hillary (the most glaring example of which is the number of debates scheduled). Just wish the system was better. Bernie definitely could've campaigned stronger in the South, but I also think that the media and the way they continuously portrayed Bernie as a fringe candidate also had a lot to do with his overall success. The shadiness in Arizona also bugs me.  

[Ray of Light 8,134]

The right choice  The ONLY choice now  POTUS  

[Teri Hatcher 2,053]

talent always wins