US politics: Just another Mueller Monday

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

The scary thing about Fox news now picking up things that were previously relegated to infowars is that it gives credibility to things like infowars.  It's terrifying to watch the evolution of family members who were simple run of the mill conservatives who only watched Fox News but kinda sorta weren't all that psycho but who are now actively posting from breitbart and peddling infowars conspiracy theories.  Although, tbf, for my family I think the Vegas murders helped push them in that direction because there have just never been good answers for why it happened.  Still, they were already heading that way too and now that Fox has greenlit this shit, they no longer have to even include caveats like "I usually don't post these sorts of things."

Yeah, there's always been some small measure of overlap there, but it seems like these two "news" spheres are entering each others orbit with more and more frequency. It is scary. 

[DMC]

4 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I've already discussed the operational relevance of the memo

Sorry, been away so missed most of that discussion, but if anyone would like to indulge, let's look at the memo.  The biggest sticking point seems to be this:

Quote

The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate. This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature.

So, I think we can all agree the "particular" candidate is Bernie and not Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb.  Still, I am unclear what exactly "review on-line or mass email, communications" entails.  Does this mean viewing the content of Bernie's mass mailers?  His donor base?  Or even any sensitive communication between Bernie's camp and the DNC?  It could be all or none of the above, I have no idea, and I don't think we ever will - because Bernie and his camp have been consistently explicit that they did not have any arrangement with the DNC (clearly a wise choice), and thus the DNC could not alert HFA to any type of communications.

Now, that sounds strikingly similar to Don Jr.'s excuse of "there was no collusion because, even though I clearly wanted it, the Russians didn't provide any information.  However, it also seems quite odd to prop this up as some type of smoking gun considering there's not only no evidence of any "operational relevance" being employed, it hasn't even been clearly explained what that would entail.  So what else did Hillary get - beyond giving the DNC a choice of two candidates on the comms job as recently discussed? - 

Quote

With respect to the hiring of future DNC senior staff in the communications, technology, and research departments, in the case of vacancy, the DNC will maintain the authority to make the final decision as between candidates acceptable to HFA.

[and]

If asked by a State Party, the DNC will encourage the State Party to become a participant in the Victory Fund.

Ok, so Hillary had veto power over key staff and a good-faith pledge that the DNC would integrate state parties into the arrangement.  What did the DNC get in return?

Quote

Commencing on September 1, 2015 HFA agrees to raise funds for the Victory Fund sufficient to fund the DNC's data, technology, analytics, research, and communications operations. Specifically, HFA will agree to raise and to instruct the Victory Fund Treasurer, Beth Jones (who is employed by HFA) to transfer from the Victory Fund a minimum of one million and two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000.00) to the DNC from its share of the net proceeds under the allocation formula on the first day of every month (beginning October 1, 2015) for these activities (the “Base Amount”).

[and]

The parties also agree that they will enter into an agreed upon voter file licensing agreement. As consideration for that agreement, HFA will raise an additional $250,000 into the Victory Fund that will be distributed to the DNC no later than March 31, 2016.

In addition, HFA will also raise funds for the Victory Fund that will distributed to the DNC in excess of the $1,200,000 monthly base amount (Excess Amount). The Excess Amount raised by HFA that is distributed to the DNC will be spent on the DNC's data, technology, analytics, research, and communications operations as directed by HFA (Special Projects). Although the DNC will remain responsible for the day to day execution of those Special Projects, HFA will determine (in consultation with the DNC) the Special Project’s scope, strategy, staffing, budget, and manner of execution.

Sounds like pretty damn reasonable requests for the Hillary camp agreeing to save and bankroll the failing apparatus of the DNC.  Is it highly improper to begin such an active arrangement before the primaries start?  Yes.  Is it unethical?  Sure.  But from a campaign operative perspective, if you have the opportunity to co-opt the DNC's key staff and direct their cash flow to your candidate, you do it a hundred times out of a hundred.  The day the fucking Clinton's transcend realpolitik for competitive altruism is the day the Others are cold in hell.

Look, I think Bernie people have a right to be pissed off about this.  But it's incredibly stupid to jump on in to the circular firing squad between the two camps and now Brazile.  First, because it is abundantly clear none of this would have changed anything about the results.  More importantly, we should be moving on from two fatally-flawed candidates that don't really belong in the conversation about the future of the party anyway.

And in that respect, as @Mexal attempted to emphasize earlier, the truly concerning aspect of all this is that the DNC was in such debt immediately before the onset of the presidential primary season.  This is actually mostly an indictment on the Obama administration.  There's nothing wrong with driving your party apparatus into debt during a reelection fight.  But you then spend the next few years getting the ledger back into the black - something that should not have been too difficult for the most successful fundraiser in the history of the world.  Instead, apparently Anita Dunn's firm (SKDKnickerbocker) was still on retainer by the DNC even though she barely had a roll in Obama's 2012 election.  That type of shit is unacceptable.

Anyway, the fundraising problem of the DNC and related institutions is still in dire straits.  In the first six months of this year, the RNC outraised the DNC $75 to $38 million.  Entering October, the DNC had only $7 million on hand for operations and most of the donor base won't take their calls.  They fired their fundraising director just last Thursday.  This is all in spite of the fact Democratic candidates are outgunning their GOP counterparts in fundraising enthusiasm by a frightening margin (to Republicans):

Quote

Nearly three dozen Republican incumbents were outraised by Democratic challengers in the third quarter of this year – a stunning figure. Nine GOP incumbents already trail a Democratic opponent in cash on hand, increasing the likelihood that many veteran incumbents will face tough opposition for the first time in years.

So, instead of obsessing over 2016 just like Trump, how bout we focus on ensuring these candidates have the institutional support they deserve and will need?

[Kalbear]

37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If both sides can’t settle their differences then Trump will win reelection in 2020. What’s more important, feeling like you’re right or defeating him? Because I’d argue that any efforts to make unity more difficult are effectively the equivalent of working for the pro-Trump forces.

I agree, but good luck with that. The only way I see it working at this point is nominating Sanders or someone expressly approved of by Sanders, unless you happen to find a Democrat that is incredibly popular. I don't see Sanders people as being able to do anything like accept apologies and move on, and  I don't see anyone else doing things differently.

[Mexal]

27 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Right. Because it's a few comments by Sanders that fucks with people's confidence in the system and not, oh I don't know, the people actually running the system who bankrupted the DNC and people taking advantage of a bankrupt DNC to put a thumb on the scales during the primary and to circumvent campaign finance laws in ways that left state parties clinging to life support...obviously THEY didn't undermine anyone's confidence in the system. It could only be a cranky old Senator from Vermont who has the power to undermine confidence in the system. I should have known all along! I've seen the light!

This is also fair. The bankrupting of the DNC through terrible management is a huge issue and one I think is infinitely more important than reliving the 2016 primary so Donna Brazile can sell books and Sanders/Warren can win a primary.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

So, I think we can all agree the "particular" candidate is Bernie and not Martin O'Malley or Jim Webb.  Still, I am unclear what exactly "review on-line or mass email, communications" entails.  Does this mean viewing the content of Bernie's mass mailers?  His donor base?  Or even any sensitive communication between Bernie's camp and the DNC?  It could be all or none of the above, I have no idea, and I don't think we ever will - because Bernie and his camp have been consistently explicit that they did not have any arrangement with the DNC (clearly a wise choice), and thus the DNC could not alert HFA to any type of communications.

Do you know if the Sanders campaign was using VANS or something similar that everyone has access to or did they have a separate data base? Because if it's the former then it's possible for the DNC to peep Sanders data and pass it along to HFA in a way that was similar to the actions that a Sanders staffer took to look at Hillary's data. 

(not saying this actually happened, just curious if it was possible)

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I agree, but good luck with that. The only way I see it working at this point is nominating Sanders or someone expressly approved of by Sanders, unless you happen to find a Democrat that is incredibly popular. I don't see Sanders people as being able to do anything like accept apologies and move on, and  I don't see anyone else doing things differently.

In order to bounce this Apocalyptic Ass Clown? I think you're underestimating how hated Trump is across the entire (D) spectrum. It's Big Tent time. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I agree, but good luck with that. The only way I see it working at this point is nominating Sanders or someone expressly approved of by Sanders, unless you happen to find a Democrat that is incredibly popular. I don't see Sanders people as being able to do anything like accept apologies and move on, and  I don't see anyone else doing things differently.

Well it will take both sides being willing to have an honest conversation and be willing to forgive and forget and move on. The Sanders people need to accept that they lost and that it wasn't because the primaries were rigged and the Clinton people need to stop rubbing it in their faces while ignoring their concerns. It's possible to be fixed, and I think the Clinton folks will be the ones who'll have to take the higher road, but as stated before, this circular firing squad mentality needs to be put to bed. 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I see, so he said something more boilerplate about how the system of superdelegates is more biased towards establishment candidates than outsiders including him

The system of superdelegates is not biased in any way because it has been latent and never put into use since it existed.  The fact the media started counting them along with pledged delegates I suppose you can blame on Clinton since it was her only rationale for staying in the 2008 primary past February, but I would think Bernie should know it doesn't "rig" a damn thing considering he's been in Congress (and thus a superdelegate himself) for a quarter century.  Sorry, but this is a huge pet peeve.  The misunderstanding of what superdelegates are and why they were instituted in the first place is something that got so annoying during the primary I had to have a number of impromptu lectures to explain it to my students.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Do you know if the Sanders campaign was using VANS or something similar that everyone has access to or did they have a separate data base?

No, I don't, but considering they never entered any arrangement with the DNC your scenario seems unlikely to me.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

In order to bounce this Apocalyptic Ass Clown? I think you're underestimating how hated Trump is across the entire (D) spectrum. It's Big Tent time. 

Have you met the Democrats? They couldn't do it against Bush in 2004. They'll not be able to do it against Trump when there's a lot worse things going against them in 2020. 

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well it will take both sides being willing to have an honest conversation and be willing to forgive and forget and move on. The Sanders people need to accept that they lost and that it wasn't because the primaries were rigged

Yeah, that'll happen soon.

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

and the Clinton people need to stop rubbing it in their faces while ignoring their concerns. It's possible to be fixed, and I think the Clinton folks will be the ones who'll have to take the higher road, but as stated before, this circular firing squad mentality needs to be put to bed. 

We had this entire thing erupt for a week because Donna fucking Brazile decided to lie in her book, and everyone went with it. Meanwhile the DNC is still underfunded, Democrats still have no actual message worth a damn, there are still major divides and everyone seems to think that the way to beat Trump is by going excessively progressive, because that works wonders. 

Again, only way I can see this working is if Sanders wins the nomination, because he's otherwise way too willing to poison the well even more, and Trump is happy to egg him on into doing it.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Have you met the Democrats? They couldn't do it against Bush in 2004. They'll not be able to do it against Trump when there's a lot worse things going against them in 2020. 

Worse then Trump?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Worse then Trump?

Worse as a situation. In 2004 we were involved in a war that seemed shady, led by a guy that apparently lied a bunch, was perceived as a dumbass, and gas prices were insane and the economy wasn't super awesome.

Trump in 2020 is almost certainly not going to be in a long-term unpopular war, the economy is likely going to be pretty decent, voter registration suppression is going to be very high, Russia is going to continue to hack candidates because they can get away with it, knowing Republicans won't do a damn thing to stop it, and partisanship will continue to climb, making the 'sure, I hate Trump, but I can't vote for a Democrat' vibe even higher. \

The default state of the US is Republican. That's not gonna change because a dumbass is in charge. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The fact the media started counting them along with pledged delegates I suppose you can blame on Clinton since it was her only rationale for staying in the 2008 primary past February, but I would think Bernie should know it doesn't "rig" a damn thing considering he's been in Congress (and thus a superdelegate himself) for a quarter century.  Sorry, but this is a huge pet peeve.  The misunderstanding of what superdelegates are and why they were instituted in the first place is something that got so annoying during the primary I had to have a number of impromptu lectures to explain it to my students.

This was my biggest problem with superdelegates in the 2016 election because the media was reporting Clinton delegate totals as being something like 400 to Sanders' 21 delegates right after the Iowa caucuses. 

To anyone not familiar with the process (i.e. most voters), it would look like Sanders had to overcome an insurmountable lead after only 1 state had voted.

[Kalbear]

I mean, seriously, @Manhole Eunuchsbane - right now, in 2017, we have Infowars and Breitbart with press credentials and Fox News reporting and retweeting Infowars as legitimate information.

We have a conspiracy theory believing that antifa is going to overthrow the US that is being unironically reported on by the news system that is being mandated watching in millions of places around the nation.

We have a conservative media system that is going to own 70% of local markets and requires every news program to have a conservative opinion think piece on it. 

This is our system, right now. This is the US. The only thing that is going to get Trump and Republicans out of office is a major downturn in the US economy or a major unpopular war. Note that I say unpopular - because destroying North Korea is a fairly popular thing to talk about right now.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Kalbear said:

I mean, seriously, @Manhole Eunuchsbane - right now, in 2017, we have Infowars and Breitbart with press credentials and Fox News reporting and retweeting Infowars as legitimate information.

We have a conspiracy theory believing that antifa is going to overthrow the US that is being unironically reported on by the news system that is being mandated watching in millions of places around the nation.

We have a conservative media system that is going to own 70% of local markets and requires every news program to have a conservative opinion think piece on it. 

This is our system, right now. This is the US. The only thing that is going to get Trump and Republicans out of office is a major downturn in the US economy or a major unpopular war. Note that I say unpopular - because destroying North Korea is a fairly popular thing to talk about right now.

Yeah, but we're not relying on Con votes, are we? Who on the Left is buying into an InfoWars level of bullshit? Or even a Fox news level of illegitimacy. 

Get out the base. Unify the base. Rally the base. That's the best we can hope for. If that's not enough, then so be it.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, but we're not relying on Con votes, are we? Who on the Left is buying into an InfoWars level of bullshit? Or even a Fox news level of illegitimacy. 

Get out the base. Unify the base. Rally the base. That's the best we can hope for. If that's not enough, then so be it.

We're relying on undecided voters and voters who will vote Republican by default but will occasionally switch when they feel like punishing the Republicans. 

Because getting out the base doesn't help when the base isn't actually there, demographically. It doesn't matter if you make sure that Latino voters are going to vote in droves if there aren't any in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania or Ohio. 

And again, voter suppression is going to be working overtime. So is suppression of the base - via sending out any number of flat-out lies like the antifa bullshit, or focusing on the Podesta emails of 2020, or whatever scandal they can find or create. It doesn't take a lot to reduce what is needed in a few places to keep Trump in office, and it is very, very hard to beat incumbents in the US. 

[Kalbear]

Or:

https://twitter.com/CharlotteAlter/status/926834487895277570

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Or:

https://twitter.com/CharlotteAlter/status/926834487895277570

Well all I can say to that is I hope we are past criticizing our own imperfect candidates in the face of a monster like Trump. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

HAI GUYS! HILLARY SEX TAPE IS FOR REALS!

 http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/liz-crokin-the-hillary-clinton-sex-tape-will-finally-prove-that-pizzagate-is-real/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

/It made grown FBI agents cry.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Early Obamacare Enrollments Break Old Record

 http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/359011-obamacare-signups-surge-in-early-days-to-set-new-record?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

/Obamacare is a disaster