Bernie wuz robbed!

[Shake]

The Democratic Party is salvageable, but it's only salvageable through angry and pissed off behaviour, the same as how the Tea Party took over the Republican Party. You're not going to be able to "work together" with a group of entrenched oligarchs who are dedicated to the status quo and who are happy limping along as the lesser of two evils.

There doesn't seem to be much of an effort to take over the party, so expect more of the same old milquetoast, half-assed effort next election. Likely with the same result.

This is where the Justice Democrats come in. We are aiming to do a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party. Joe Manchin and Diane Feinstein are just 2 of the corporate, establishment Democrats who will be facing primary competition in the next elections. We're pushing a progressive platform, fundraising Bernie-style, and are committed to taking no money from big donors or PACs. We have approximately 30 candidates already set to run: in some places, against the GOP, and in others, against the corporate Democrats who've just been losing again and again over the past few years (over 1,000 seats lost nationwide since Obama took office ).

As for how Bernie would have done in the general election: while Hillary's poll numbers had her at a slight lead, it was within the typical 3-4% margin of error. The average poll had Bernie up by around 10% over Trump. If you haven't been paying attention, Bernie held a town hall in the middle of Trump country (rural WV) earlier this year, and had the people there (majority Trump voters) applauding his idea of universal healthcare!

 

[ZiprHead]

And my original question, in context, remains unanswered. Could you perhaps outline what exactly Hillary did that was corrupt and illegal?

There was at least one answer to the question in the OP article:

The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

Huh, where?

 

[LordKiran]

The Democratic Party is salvageable, but it's only salvageable through angry and pissed off behaviour, the same as how the Tea Party took over the Republican Party. You're not going to be able to "work together" with a group of entrenched oligarchs who are dedicated to the status quo and who are happy limping along as the lesser of two evils.

There doesn't seem to be much of an effort to take over the party, so expect more of the same old milquetoast, half-assed effort next election. Likely with the same result.

This is where the Justice Democrats come in. We are aiming to do a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party. Joe Manchin and Diane Feinstein are just 2 of the corporate, establishment Democrats who will be facing primary competition in the next elections. We're pushing a progressive platform, fundraising Bernie-style, and are committed to taking no money from big donors or PACs. We have approximately 30 candidates already set to run: in some places, against the GOP, and in others, against the corporate Democrats who've just been losing again and again over the past few years (over 1,000 seats lost nationwide since Obama took office ).

As for how Bernie would have done in the general election: while Hillary's poll numbers had her at a slight lead, it was within the typical 3-4% margin of error. The average poll had Bernie up by around 10% over Trump. If you haven't been paying attention, Bernie held a town hall in the middle of Trump country (rural WV) earlier this year, and had the people there (majority Trump voters) applauding his idea of universal healthcare!

Meh, the DNC is disposable if you ask me. Let them burn to the ground if they don't want to get with the program. We can replace them, and we will be stronger for it.

 

[Elixir]

There was at least one answer to the question in the OP article:

The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

Huh, where?

Sounds to me like the repugs were all butthurt about not finding Russians colluding with HRC. Poor snowflakes!

 

[Derec]

Meh, the DNC is disposable if you ask me. Let them burn to the ground if they don't want to get with the program. We can replace them, and we will be stronger for it.

Who is this we? You do not even have a driver's license and you want to replace a major party?
And what do you want to replace DNC with? Politburo?

- - - Updated - - -

Huh, where?

You do not think this entanglement between campaign and party is at the very least unethical?

 

[ZiprHead]

Huh, where?

You do not think this entanglement between campaign and party is at the very least unethical?

What ethic says it was? The campaign was putting money into the party, not the other way around.

 

[Derec]

What ethic says it was?

Article V, Section 4 of the DNC charter:

In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and
campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the
Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process.

While it may not be technically illegal, it is still unethical af.
DNC Lawyers Argue DNC Has Right to Pick Candidates in Back Rooms

The campaign was putting money into the party, not the other way around.

And in return, DNC favored Hillary (quid pro quo Clarice!) in the primaries to the extent that she became the "crown princess" and only an old coot who looks like Larry David and is not even technically a Democrat was willing to seriously confront her.

The result of all that is the Trump presidency.

 

[ZiprHead]

DNC favoring Hillary is something they are allowed to do. They are not allowed to act on that in official capacity. Do you have a list of actions that were taken?

 

[Elixir]

You do not think this entanglement between campaign and party is at the very least unethical?

What ethic says it was? The campaign was putting money into the party, not the other way around.

Aw, poor Derec is just butthurt because Republican corruption is so well known to be SOP, and he desperately wishes there was corresponding Dem corruption. He can't come up with any Russian collusion or Dems laundering Russian money, so... grasping at straws to attain equivalence.

 

[LordKiran]

DNC favoring Hillary is something they are allowed to do. They are not allowed to act on that in official capacity. Do you have a list of actions that were taken?

I'd say the existence of super delegates is pretty unethical. Sort of undermines the idea that we pick our candidates.

 

[Shake]

DNC favoring Hillary is something they are allowed to do. They are not allowed to act on that in official capacity. Do you have a list of actions that were taken?

I'd say the existence of super delegates is pretty unethical. Sort of undermines the idea that we pick our candidates.

I recall looking over the names of the super delegates for my state of NY, thinking maybe they'd be better for Bernie. Here are two of the names I distinctly recall: Bill Clinton and Kirsten Gillibrand. IOW not exactly unbiased people.

Origins of superdelegates (according to Wiki):

After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, at which pro-Vietnam War liberal Hubert Humphrey was nominated for the presidency despite not running in a single primary election, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process to correct what was seen as "illusory" control of the nomination process by primary voters.[12] A commission headed by South Dakota Senator George McGovern and Minnesota Representative Donald M. Fraser met in 1969 and 1970 to make the composition of the Democratic Party's nominating convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast in primary elections.

(emphasis mine)
The problem is they have come to be tools of the establishment, as highlighted here. Clinton won NY by a 58-42 margin.
Now this:

“I would not under any circumstances switch my allegiance from Secretary Clinton to Senator Sanders,” Queens Congressman Gregory Meeks said.

The other four New York superdelegates — who can pledge and withdraw their allegiance to a nominee based on their personal preference — also would never pull their support from Clinton, their spokespeople said.

makes sense because Hillary was overwhelmingly popular in NYC. In fact, if you look at the map, she won NYC, Rochester, Buffalo, and Syracuse (but interestingly not Albany).

In spite of Sanders winning 15 states — including some by an 80%-20% margin — over 94% of the 498 superdelegates have said they are backing Clinton.

Clinton has 469 superdelegate votes, compared to just 29 for Sanders.

I also counted 22 superdelegates from NY who represented the DNC, which as we now know, was strongly supportive of HRC.

- - - Updated - - -

DNC favoring Hillary is something they are allowed to do. They are not allowed to act on that in official capacity. Do you have a list of actions that were taken?

I'd say the existence of super delegates is pretty unethical. Sort of undermines the idea that we pick our candidates.

I recall looking over the names of the super delegates for my state of NY, thinking maybe they'd be better for Bernie. Here are two of the names I distinctly recall: Bill Clinton and Kirsten Gillibrand. IOW not exactly unbiased people.

Origins of superdelegates (according to Wiki):

After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, at which pro-Vietnam War liberal Hubert Humphrey was nominated for the presidency despite not running in a single primary election, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process to correct what was seen as "illusory" control of the nomination process by primary voters.[12] A commission headed by South Dakota Senator George McGovern and Minnesota Representative Donald M. Fraser met in 1969 and 1970 to make the composition of the Democratic Party's nominating convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast in primary elections.

(emphasis mine)
The problem is they have come to be tools of the establishment, as highlighted here. Clinton won NY by a 58-42 margin.
Now this:

“I would not under any circumstances switch my allegiance from Secretary Clinton to Senator Sanders,” Queens Congressman Gregory Meeks said.

The other four New York superdelegates — who can pledge and withdraw their allegiance to a nominee based on their personal preference — also would never pull their support from Clinton, their spokespeople said.

makes sense because Hillary was overwhelmingly popular in NYC. In fact, if you look at the map, she won NYC, Rochester, Buffalo, and Syracuse (but interestingly not Albany).

In spite of Sanders winning 15 states — including some by an 80%-20% margin — over 94% of the 498 superdelegates have said they are backing Clinton.

Clinton has 469 superdelegate votes, compared to just 29 for Sanders.

I also counted 22 superdelegates from NY who represented the DNC, which as we now know, was strongly supportive of HRC.

 

[blastula]

DNC favoring Hillary is something they are allowed to do. They are not allowed to act on that in official capacity. Do you have a list of actions that were taken?

I'd say the existence of super delegates is pretty unethical. Sort of undermines the idea that we pick our candidates.

Superdelegates have never gone gone against the popular vote, though that is what the Sanders campaign wanted them to do.

 

[Derec]

DNC favoring Hillary is something they are allowed to do.

They may be legally allowed to violate their own charter like Harvey Weinstein violated actresses, but that doesn't make it ethical.

They are not allowed to act on that in official capacity. Do you have a list of actions that were taken?

They admit they violated the charter. They are just arguing it is not against the law for them to do so. That may be true, but it doesn't mean they violated their charter any less.

 

[ZiprHead]

DNC favoring Hillary is something they are allowed to do. They are not allowed to act on that in official capacity. Do you have a list of actions that were taken?

I'd say the existence of super delegates is pretty unethical. Sort of undermines the idea that we pick our candidates.

Hillary enacted the super-delegate system. Glory be!

- - - Updated - - -

They may be legally allowed to violate their own charter like Harvey Weinstein violated actresses, but that doesn't make it ethical.

They are not allowed to act on that in official capacity. Do you have a list of actions that were taken?

They admit they violated the charter. They are just arguing it is not against the law for them to do so. That may be true, but it doesn't mean they violated their charter any less.

I ask again, please provide a list of those violations

 

[dismal]

There was at least one answer to the question in the OP article:

The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

Huh, where?

Which are the words in there you don't understand?

 

[ZiprHead]

There was at least one answer to the question in the OP article:

The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

Huh, where?

Which are the words in there you don't understand?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The Democratic Party is salvageable, but it's only salvageable through angry and pissed off behaviour, the same as how the Tea Party took over the Republican Party. You're not going to be able to "work together" with a group of entrenched oligarchs who are dedicated to the status quo and who are happy limping along as the lesser of two evils.

There doesn't seem to be much of an effort to take over the party, so expect more of the same old milquetoast, half-assed effort next election. Likely with the same result.

I agree. I foresee a Trump re-election because of this. And that is mind blowing.

 

[dismal]

There was at least one answer to the question in the OP article:

The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

Huh, where?

Which are the words in there you don't understand?

View attachment 13047

I didn't write that. Donna Brazile did. I find it pretty easy to comprehend.

I guess the problem is on your end.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

So, it's not so much that the DNC skewed the primary elections to help the Clinton Campaign, it's that the DNC was the Clinton Campaign.

Also it seems Donna Brazile is a Russian hacker.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

Bogus. Clinton was the party because Clinton funded the party. Sanders could have participated but his campaign wasn't getting large donations which he could use to help fund the debt ridden national party.

This is true. Control of the Democratic Party was for sale to the highest bidder, and Bernie didn't pay enough to buy it. Hillary did. So Hillary was the rightful owner of the Oligarchy Party (formerly known as the Democratic Party).

 

[Elixir]

The Democratic Party is salvageable, but it's only salvageable through angry and pissed off behaviour, the same as how the Tea Party took over the Republican Party. You're not going to be able to "work together" with a group of entrenched oligarchs who are dedicated to the status quo and who are happy limping along as the lesser of two evils.

There doesn't seem to be much of an effort to take over the party, so expect more of the same old milquetoast, half-assed effort next election. Likely with the same result.

I agree. I foresee a Trump re-election because of this. And that is mind blowing.

Nah. Trump will be re-elected because BENGHAAAAZI, PIZZAGATE! and EMAIIIILZes. That's how stupid Trump voters really are.