|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The unapologetic attitude of the DNC about pissing off a substantial and important part of its base is all the proof I need that the wrong lessons were learned.
Also, fun fact: many of the right-wing newspapers lost a lot of subscribers for their "unprecedented endorsement" of Hillary. On top of looking like losers when she lost.
|
I think a lot of factors allowed the crazy stuff to have teeth, including long-standing disdain for the Clintons which was sometimes (but certainly not always) grounded in reality. It also helped to have our new Conspiracy Theorist-in-Chief at the helm of one political party. When we can get through most of an election cycle without a major candidate rejecting birtherism, that leaves a lot more room for globalist conspiracies and pizza-based trafficking rings to be believed. It's not just about fake news, because Moroccan lie factories are only one part in a much larger pattern of truth increasingly being ignored in 2016. In that context the actual revelations in stuff like the DNC leaks or Podesta emails, compared to the political effect of those leaks, are several orders of magnitude apart.
I'm not trying to reverse the outcome of the election or even relitigate who should have won. I'm just trying to demonstrate that the political impact of this kind of leaking is much bigger than just uncovering shady shit. It's a messaging nightmare, even for a squeaky clean campaign, and now that we're past the election everybody should be able to recognize the damage to our political system that could happen if foreign powers were able to consistently manipulate our elections in this way. Before we were arguing about whether the source or the content was more important, but the content is totally irrelevant now that Hillary Clinton is of no political consequence, which means it's now time to discuss the source, and how to prevent this from influencing our elections again.
|
On January 03 2017 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 10:16 Nevuk wrote:On January 03 2017 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2017 09:51 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@LegalLord: I think you're far too optimistic about the possibility of resolving contentious issues with a single conversation, both in politics and in a "healthy relationship." I also think your overall analysis of this election fails to appreciate how influential a lot of conspiracy theories and widely believed lies were. A Hillary campaign that went full protectionist and never once mentioned minorities would still have suffered just as much from the Pizzagate levels of misinformation out there.
@Danglars: I think I made a good faith effort to seek out why people thought a lot of these leaks were so bad. Same for the email server, Benghazi, and the rest. The answer I got, on multiple occasions, was essentially "well if you haven't figured it out by now I can't explain it to you." In each case, there were certainly concerning aspects there, but I simply couldn't find evidence for most of the more heinous accusations. The email server showed bad judgment, she handled the response to it badly, but at no point could I see much evidence that it was some explicit plan to sell secrets to foreign powers or dodge FOIA requests or something.
Somebody posted mostdamagingwikileaks.com ITT and I read through a ton of them. Most of them were misconceptions (e.g. "oversampling" polls), unsubstantiated conspiracy bullshit (e.g. Pizzagate nonsense), or someone describing something in a poorly worded way (e.g. saying "propaganda" talking about one of their TV ads). Some stuff, like Donna Brazile, was legitimately concerning, although even then it was tainted by conspiratorial assumptions like that Hillary chose her for DNC chair for exactly this reason, or that she had all the questions for all the debates, both primary and general. + Show Spoiler +This is a predictable effect of hacking all the communications of a political operation and broadcasting them publicly. Even if they aren't actually up to anything shady there'll be plenty of funny-looking stuff in there - somebody makes an off-color joke, or someone's nephew's brother-in-law is into some weird pagan shit. So if there's legitimately concerning stuff in there I have no problem talking about it, but in a massive leak like this there's a huge risk of blowing it out of proportion or lending credence to conspiracy bullshit which, this election in particular, has a huge impact on the election.
For the record, we don't have to wonder about the hypothetical of if Trump got tipped off on stories, debate questions, etc. Megyn Kelly's book (notably published post-election) goes into a lot of that. Trump buttering up journalists with gifts hoping for favorable coverage, getting tipped off on a debate question, all of it. And my reaction was largely annoyance at the double standard - I'm curious to hear yours. Where did you see this "Donna had all the questions for all the debates"? Doesn't sound like anything I've heard anywhere except maybe some random tweets? There's no need to make anything up or blow things out of proportion. Donna cheated to help Hillary, Hillary's team was aware she cheated to help them, and they proceeded to support her as DNC Chair. Could you at least do me the solid of acknowledging the primary obviously wasn't a free and fair election? Donna leaked a few of the questions due to her role at CNN. Namely the Flint debate during the primary. CNN released a statement when the news came out that basically said "We would fire her but she resigned" Donna Brazile, the acting chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, resigned from her role as a CNN contributor earlier this month. Her departure was announced Monday amid fresh revelations that she sent questions to Hillary Clinton's campaign in advance of a CNN debate and a CNN-TV One town hall. In a statement, CNN said it was "completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor." CNN said it "never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate." Brazile resigned from the network on October 14, three days after Wikileaks released an email in which Brazile says she got advance questions before a town hall event. "From time to time I get the questions in advance," she wrote in the email. At the time, Brazile denied giving the campaign advance warning, saying that "as a longtime political activist" she had shared her thoughts "with each and every campaign, and any suggestions that indicate otherwise are simply untrue." The Brazile email foreshadowed a question asked by TV One host Roland Martin at the town hall. Earlier this month, when asked by CNNMoney about the email, Martin did not deny sharing information with Brazile. Then on Monday, Wikileaks released more emails indicating that Brazile sent a question to the Clinton campaign, then wrote: "I'll send a few more." Brazile's contract with CNN was suspended in July, when she was appointed interim DNC chair. Now, she will not be returning to the network at all. In a tweet late Monday morning, Brazile wrote, "Thank you @CNN. Honored to be a Democratic Strategist and commentator on the network. Godspeed to all my former colleagues." http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resignation/ Not sure why you posted that? But I do find it funny that CNN was like "We would have fired her" while Clinton was like "let's put her in charge of the DNC". Follows nicely after DWS.
For some reason I thought you were asking if Brazile had knowledge of questions at the debates. She certainly didn't have all, but she had enough to make CNN uncomfortable. Ironically I think Clinton somehow did worse on the questions she had forewarning about
|
Two step solution to reducing the hacking problem:
1. Get better cyber security.
2. Don't prop up the second least liked presidential candidate in history.
|
On January 03 2017 10:28 ChristianS wrote:
I think a lot of factors allowed the crazy stuff to have teeth, including long-standing disdain for the Clintons which was sometimes (but certainly not always) grounded in reality. It also helped to have our new Conspiracy Theorist-in-Chief at the helm of one political party. When we can get through most of an election cycle without a major candidate rejecting birtherism, that leaves a lot more room for globalist conspiracies and pizza-based trafficking rings to be believed. It's not just about fake news, because Moroccan lie factories are only one part in a much larger pattern of truth increasingly being ignored in 2016. In that context the actual revelations in stuff like the DNC leaks or Podesta emails, compared to the political effect of those leaks, are several orders of magnitude apart.
I'm not trying to reverse the outcome of the election or even relitigate who should have won. I'm just trying to demonstrate that the political impact of this kind of leaking is much bigger than just uncovering shady shit. It's a messaging nightmare, even for a squeaky clean campaign, and now that we're past the election everybody should be able to recognize the damage to our political system that could happen if foreign powers were able to consistently manipulate our elections in this way. Before we were arguing about whether the source or the content was more important, but the content is totally irrelevant now that Hillary Clinton is of no political consequence, which means it's now time to discuss the source, and how to prevent this from influencing our elections again.
No.
She's not "of no political consequence" one reason would be, Perez adopted her terrible slogan of "progressive who gets things done" which is a slogan representative of her lingering political influence. Beyond that she'll at minimum be a working for the Clinton Foundation which has not only national political implications but international as well.
It's also not just Hillary who would have known Donna cheated for her before putting her in charge of the DNC, members of her staff were aware too, and did nothing.
I'm not sure why people are so sure she won't run again either.
Also, was that a "no" to doing me the solid on acknowledging the primary was not a "free and fair election"
On January 03 2017 10:28 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2017 10:16 Nevuk wrote:On January 03 2017 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2017 09:51 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@LegalLord: I think you're far too optimistic about the possibility of resolving contentious issues with a single conversation, both in politics and in a "healthy relationship." I also think your overall analysis of this election fails to appreciate how influential a lot of conspiracy theories and widely believed lies were. A Hillary campaign that went full protectionist and never once mentioned minorities would still have suffered just as much from the Pizzagate levels of misinformation out there.
@Danglars: I think I made a good faith effort to seek out why people thought a lot of these leaks were so bad. Same for the email server, Benghazi, and the rest. The answer I got, on multiple occasions, was essentially "well if you haven't figured it out by now I can't explain it to you." In each case, there were certainly concerning aspects there, but I simply couldn't find evidence for most of the more heinous accusations. The email server showed bad judgment, she handled the response to it badly, but at no point could I see much evidence that it was some explicit plan to sell secrets to foreign powers or dodge FOIA requests or something.
Somebody posted mostdamagingwikileaks.com ITT and I read through a ton of them. Most of them were misconceptions (e.g. "oversampling" polls), unsubstantiated conspiracy bullshit (e.g. Pizzagate nonsense), or someone describing something in a poorly worded way (e.g. saying "propaganda" talking about one of their TV ads). Some stuff, like Donna Brazile, was legitimately concerning, although even then it was tainted by conspiratorial assumptions like that Hillary chose her for DNC chair for exactly this reason, or that she had all the questions for all the debates, both primary and general. + Show Spoiler +This is a predictable effect of hacking all the communications of a political operation and broadcasting them publicly. Even if they aren't actually up to anything shady there'll be plenty of funny-looking stuff in there - somebody makes an off-color joke, or someone's nephew's brother-in-law is into some weird pagan shit. So if there's legitimately concerning stuff in there I have no problem talking about it, but in a massive leak like this there's a huge risk of blowing it out of proportion or lending credence to conspiracy bullshit which, this election in particular, has a huge impact on the election.
For the record, we don't have to wonder about the hypothetical of if Trump got tipped off on stories, debate questions, etc. Megyn Kelly's book (notably published post-election) goes into a lot of that. Trump buttering up journalists with gifts hoping for favorable coverage, getting tipped off on a debate question, all of it. And my reaction was largely annoyance at the double standard - I'm curious to hear yours. Where did you see this "Donna had all the questions for all the debates"? Doesn't sound like anything I've heard anywhere except maybe some random tweets? There's no need to make anything up or blow things out of proportion. Donna cheated to help Hillary, Hillary's team was aware she cheated to help them, and they proceeded to support her as DNC Chair. Could you at least do me the solid of acknowledging the primary obviously wasn't a free and fair election? Donna leaked a few of the questions due to her role at CNN. Namely the Flint debate during the primary. CNN released a statement when the news came out that basically said "We would fire her but she resigned" Donna Brazile, the acting chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, resigned from her role as a CNN contributor earlier this month. Her departure was announced Monday amid fresh revelations that she sent questions to Hillary Clinton's campaign in advance of a CNN debate and a CNN-TV One town hall. In a statement, CNN said it was "completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor." CNN said it "never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate." Brazile resigned from the network on October 14, three days after Wikileaks released an email in which Brazile says she got advance questions before a town hall event. "From time to time I get the questions in advance," she wrote in the email. At the time, Brazile denied giving the campaign advance warning, saying that "as a longtime political activist" she had shared her thoughts "with each and every campaign, and any suggestions that indicate otherwise are simply untrue." The Brazile email foreshadowed a question asked by TV One host Roland Martin at the town hall. Earlier this month, when asked by CNNMoney about the email, Martin did not deny sharing information with Brazile. Then on Monday, Wikileaks released more emails indicating that Brazile sent a question to the Clinton campaign, then wrote: "I'll send a few more." Brazile's contract with CNN was suspended in July, when she was appointed interim DNC chair. Now, she will not be returning to the network at all. In a tweet late Monday morning, Brazile wrote, "Thank you @CNN. Honored to be a Democratic Strategist and commentator on the network. Godspeed to all my former colleagues." http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resignation/ Not sure why you posted that? But I do find it funny that CNN was like "We would have fired her" while Clinton was like "let's put her in charge of the DNC". Follows nicely after DWS. For some reason I thought you were asking if Brazile had knowledge of questions at the debates. She certainly didn't have all, but she had enough to make CNN uncomfortable. Ironically I think Clinton somehow did worse on the questions she had forewarning about
Ah, Christian was saying that the Donna story was "tainted" by an article/people claiming she "had all of the questions for all of the debates", and I was pushing back saying that I'm unaware of where he was getting that from.
|
On January 03 2017 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 09:51 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@LegalLord: I think you're far too optimistic about the possibility of resolving contentious issues with a single conversation, both in politics and in a "healthy relationship." I also think your overall analysis of this election fails to appreciate how influential a lot of conspiracy theories and widely believed lies were. A Hillary campaign that went full protectionist and never once mentioned minorities would still have suffered just as much from the Pizzagate levels of misinformation out there.
@Danglars: I think I made a good faith effort to seek out why people thought a lot of these leaks were so bad. Same for the email server, Benghazi, and the rest. The answer I got, on multiple occasions, was essentially "well if you haven't figured it out by now I can't explain it to you." In each case, there were certainly concerning aspects there, but I simply couldn't find evidence for most of the more heinous accusations. The email server showed bad judgment, she handled the response to it badly, but at no point could I see much evidence that it was some explicit plan to sell secrets to foreign powers or dodge FOIA requests or something.
Somebody posted mostdamagingwikileaks.com ITT and I read through a ton of them. Most of them were misconceptions (e.g. "oversampling" polls), unsubstantiated conspiracy bullshit (e.g. Pizzagate nonsense), or someone describing something in a poorly worded way (e.g. saying "propaganda" talking about one of their TV ads). Some stuff, like Donna Brazile, was legitimately concerning, although even then it was tainted by conspiratorial assumptions like that Hillary chose her for DNC chair for exactly this reason, or that she had all the questions for all the debates, both primary and general. + Show Spoiler +This is a predictable effect of hacking all the communications of a political operation and broadcasting them publicly. Even if they aren't actually up to anything shady there'll be plenty of funny-looking stuff in there - somebody makes an off-color joke, or someone's nephew's brother-in-law is into some weird pagan shit. So if there's legitimately concerning stuff in there I have no problem talking about it, but in a massive leak like this there's a huge risk of blowing it out of proportion or lending credence to conspiracy bullshit which, this election in particular, has a huge impact on the election.
For the record, we don't have to wonder about the hypothetical of if Trump got tipped off on stories, debate questions, etc. Megyn Kelly's book (notably published post-election) goes into a lot of that. Trump buttering up journalists with gifts hoping for favorable coverage, getting tipped off on a debate question, all of it. And my reaction was largely annoyance at the double standard - I'm curious to hear yours. Where did you see this "Donna had all the questions for all the debates"? Doesn't sound like anything I've heard anywhere except maybe some random tweets? There's no need to make anything up or blow things out of proportion. Donna cheated to help Hillary, Hillary's team was aware she cheated to help them, and they proceeded to support her as DNC Chair. Could you at least do me the solid of acknowledging the primary obviously wasn't a free and fair election? Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 10:00 LegalLord wrote:
What you are insufficient in appreciating is how much the previously existing disdain for Hillary allowed the "crazy stuff" to have teeth. GH was talking about DNC collusion for months, and it was obvious to anyone paying attention, before the leaks proved it (to the surprise of Mohdoo and I'm not sure if anyone else).
The rest sounds like little more than a "fake news" deflection, which I will decline to talk about again because this is starting to turn into a long-winded rehash of old issues... again. I swear Hillary supporters have already forgotten that she was upside down in her favorability way back in March 2015, a month before she even announced.
I guess we might be using different definitions of "free and fair election"? The DNC was discussing political strategy with the Clinton campaign, but I haven't seen evidence of rigging votes or anything. I could see the debate question being leaked meaning the election wasn't "free and fair," but the incident seems small enough in impact that declaring the election no longer "free and fair" would seem a bit extreme to me.
Alternative phrasing: do you think it's fair to say that Democrats (or at least a democratic majority of Democrats) "chose" Hillary over Bernie? At the end of the day she was always favored to win, not because of super delegates or leaked debate questions, but because a majority of Democrats preferred her.
|
On January 03 2017 10:35 LegalLord wrote:
Two step solution to reducing the hacking problem:
1. Get better cyber security.
2. Don't prop up the second least liked presidential candidate in history.
1 is trite but useless. 2 is irrelevant, a more popular candidate could also be hurt by leaks in a similar fashion.
|
On January 03 2017 10:36 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 10:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 03 2017 09:51 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +@LegalLord: I think you're far too optimistic about the possibility of resolving contentious issues with a single conversation, both in politics and in a "healthy relationship." I also think your overall analysis of this election fails to appreciate how influential a lot of conspiracy theories and widely believed lies were. A Hillary campaign that went full protectionist and never once mentioned minorities would still have suffered just as much from the Pizzagate levels of misinformation out there.
@Danglars: I think I made a good faith effort to seek out why people thought a lot of these leaks were so bad. Same for the email server, Benghazi, and the rest. The answer I got, on multiple occasions, was essentially "well if you haven't figured it out by now I can't explain it to you." In each case, there were certainly concerning aspects there, but I simply couldn't find evidence for most of the more heinous accusations. The email server showed bad judgment, she handled the response to it badly, but at no point could I see much evidence that it was some explicit plan to sell secrets to foreign powers or dodge FOIA requests or something.
Somebody posted mostdamagingwikileaks.com ITT and I read through a ton of them. Most of them were misconceptions (e.g. "oversampling" polls), unsubstantiated conspiracy bullshit (e.g. Pizzagate nonsense), or someone describing something in a poorly worded way (e.g. saying "propaganda" talking about one of their TV ads). Some stuff, like Donna Brazile, was legitimately concerning, although even then it was tainted by conspiratorial assumptions like that Hillary chose her for DNC chair for exactly this reason, or that she had all the questions for all the debates, both primary and general. + Show Spoiler +This is a predictable effect of hacking all the communications of a political operation and broadcasting them publicly. Even if they aren't actually up to anything shady there'll be plenty of funny-looking stuff in there - somebody makes an off-color joke, or someone's nephew's brother-in-law is into some weird pagan shit. So if there's legitimately concerning stuff in there I have no problem talking about it, but in a massive leak like this there's a huge risk of blowing it out of proportion or lending credence to conspiracy bullshit which, this election in particular, has a huge impact on the election.
For the record, we don't have to wonder about the hypothetical of if Trump got tipped off on stories, debate questions, etc. Megyn Kelly's book (notably published post-election) goes into a lot of that. Trump buttering up journalists with gifts hoping for favorable coverage, getting tipped off on a debate question, all of it. And my reaction was largely annoyance at the double standard - I'm curious to hear yours. Where did you see this "Donna had all the questions for all the debates"? Doesn't sound like anything I've heard anywhere except maybe some random tweets? There's no need to make anything up or blow things out of proportion. Donna cheated to help Hillary, Hillary's team was aware she cheated to help them, and they proceeded to support her as DNC Chair. Could you at least do me the solid of acknowledging the primary obviously wasn't a free and fair election? On January 03 2017 10:00 LegalLord wrote:
What you are insufficient in appreciating is how much the previously existing disdain for Hillary allowed the "crazy stuff" to have teeth. GH was talking about DNC collusion for months, and it was obvious to anyone paying attention, before the leaks proved it (to the surprise of Mohdoo and I'm not sure if anyone else).
The rest sounds like little more than a "fake news" deflection, which I will decline to talk about again because this is starting to turn into a long-winded rehash of old issues... again. I swear Hillary supporters have already forgotten that she was upside down in her favorability way back in March 2015, a month before she even announced. I guess we might be using different definitions of "free and fair election"? The DNC was discussing political strategy with the Clinton campaign, but I haven't seen evidence of rigging votes or anything. I could see the debate question being leaked meaning the election wasn't "free and fair," but the incident seems small enough in impact that declaring the election no longer "free and fair" would seem a bit extreme to me. Alternative phrasing: do you think it's fair to say that Democrats (or at least a democratic majority of Democrats) "chose" Hillary over Bernie? At the end of the day she was always favored to win, not because of super delegates or leaked debate questions, but because a majority of Democrats preferred her.
Well you seem to not be understanding that it is in fact not even an election, once we get there, I think we can move on to whether it was "free and fair" and your alternative phrasing.
|
On January 03 2017 10:39 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 10:35 LegalLord wrote:
Two step solution to reducing the hacking problem:
1. Get better cyber security.
2. Don't prop up the second least liked presidential candidate in history. 1 is trite but useless. 2 is irrelevant, a more popular candidate could also be hurt by leaks in a similar fashion.
Cyber security is not trivial. It's important enough not to be caught doing stupid stuff. That is Competence 101.
Popular people are better at getting the benefit of the doubt for questionable things. In a more stable political climate the response would be widespread condemnation rather than division. People really hate Hillary Clinton, and she deserves that scorn. Deflecting to "Russia did it" only convinced people who already decided that they stand with her to the electable end.
|
@GH: so the primary wasn't an election now? Seemed like there was an awful lot of voting taking place.
@LL: I said trite, not trivial. Cybersecurity is important, but "get better cybersecurity" is not very helpful advice. And your suggested relationship between candidate popularity and leak vulnerability is purely asserted. We could just as easily imagine that popular candidates have more to lose. I suspect it varies more on a case-by-case basis than predictably versus popularity.
|
On January 03 2017 10:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 10:39 ChristianS wrote:On January 03 2017 10:35 LegalLord wrote:
Two step solution to reducing the hacking problem:
1. Get better cyber security.
2. Don't prop up the second least liked presidential candidate in history. 1 is trite but useless. 2 is irrelevant, a more popular candidate could also be hurt by leaks in a similar fashion. Cyber security is not trivial. It's important enough not to be caught doing stupid stuff. That is Competence 101. Popular people are better at getting the benefit of the doubt for questionable things. In a more stable political climate the response would be widespread condemnation rather than division. People really hate Hillary Clinton, and she deserves that scorn. Deflecting to "Russia did it" only convinced people who already decided that they stand with her to the electable end.
people may hate her, and she may have some considerable flaws, but she most claerly 100% does not deserve the level of scorn that she has received.
christians, I don't expect you'll get anyhwere, some people have an irrational hate-on for hillary, and that causes them to endlessly push the hate. and they choose to color everything with that so that hillary looks a bit worse. if you feel you're gaining something by this ongoing discussion, by all means continue.
|
On January 03 2017 11:03 ChristianS wrote:
@GH: so the primary wasn't an election now? Seemed like there was an awful lot of voting taking place.
@LL: I said trite, not trivial. Cybersecurity is important, but "get better cybersecurity" is not very helpful advice. And your suggested relationship between candidate popularity and leak vulnerability is purely asserted. We could just as easily imagine that popular candidates have more to lose. I suspect it varies more on a case-by-case basis than predictably versus popularity.
No, it never has been. Are you not familiar with the history of the primary process?
|
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Democrats around the country are demanding change from a national committee they say has focused too heavily on the White House at the expense of governorships, legislatures and state party operations.
"It's got to be helping us organize in our states to be able to build that power at the state legislative level," Michigan Democratic Party Chair Brandon Dillon said of the Democratic National Committee, currently searching for a new leader. "We've lost governorships and state legislatures at a rate that is pretty astounding."
DNC members gather in February to elect a new chairman, with five candidates running so far, each pledging to rebuild from the ground up. Money from the DNC to state parties has been inconsistent during President Barack Obama's tenure and, in most states, less than it was under former chairman Howard Dean. Party chairs say that's resulted in fewer staff members and training programs, a change felt particularly in Republican-leaning states. State leaders also say Obama's grassroots group Organizing for Action has functioned more like competition than a partner.
Beginning in 2017, Republicans will hold 33 governorships and fully control legislatures in 25 states, as well as the Congress and presidency. During Obama's two terms in office, the party lost more than 1,000 seats at the state and national level.
"I love President Obama, but he and his administration allowed for the deterioration, the terrible deterioration, of the state parties over the last eight years," said Mark Brewer, who led the Michigan Democratic Party for 18 years.
Obama has announced plans, though, to improve Democrats' down-ballot fortunes once he leaves office. He is launching an initiative with former Attorney General Eric Holder aimed at making Democratic gains when states redraw legislative district lines following the 2020 census. Democrats have blamed Republican gerrymandering for some of their losses in Congress and state legislatures.
State officials say it's been hard to plan long term and recruit and train candidates in off-election years due to inconsistent funding from the DNC. Under Dean, the national party installed and paid several staff members in each state. But that program ended after Obama's election. State parties began to receive monthly payments of anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000, an amount that varies depending on the year. At some point, the parties have received no money at all. The DNC does provide some money to state parties for elections based on the state's competitive races and other factors.
The change has left some states scrambling.
The Nebraska Democratic Party, for example, paid five full-time staff members during Dean's tenure. But when Dean's "50-state strategy" ended, it was hard to keep one and pay the rent, said Maureen Monahan, a vice president of the Association for State Democratic Chairs from Nebraska. Some states, such Mississippi, do not pay their party chairs. Even in Michigan, a staff that once stood at more than a dozen now is between five and seven employees, party chairs said.
"The past eight years we have not had any focus on the state parties," Monahan said. "There's been a sense that the DNC is a building in Washington."
The push-and-pull between state parties and the DNC is nothing new. State parties, congressional Democratic groups and the president's allies often spar over how best to spend party resources. The DNC defended its involvement with states.
Source
|
On January 03 2017 11:08 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 10:48 LegalLord wrote:On January 03 2017 10:39 ChristianS wrote:On January 03 2017 10:35 LegalLord wrote:
Two step solution to reducing the hacking problem:
1. Get better cyber security.
2. Don't prop up the second least liked presidential candidate in history. 1 is trite but useless. 2 is irrelevant, a more popular candidate could also be hurt by leaks in a similar fashion. Cyber security is not trivial. It's important enough not to be caught doing stupid stuff. That is Competence 101. Popular people are better at getting the benefit of the doubt for questionable things. In a more stable political climate the response would be widespread condemnation rather than division. People really hate Hillary Clinton, and she deserves that scorn. Deflecting to "Russia did it" only convinced people who already decided that they stand with her to the electable end. people may hate her, and she may have some considerable flaws, but she most claerly 100% does not deserve the level of scorn that she has received. christians, I don't expect you'll get anyhwere, some people have an irrational hate-on for hillary, and that causes them to endlessly push the hate. and they choose to color everything with that so that hillary looks a bit worse. if you feel you're gaining something by this ongoing discussion, by all means continue.
Some of the hate was overblown, yes. So was some of the support and all of the "she's a good candidate marred by an unprecedented Republican smear campaign" denialism.
Hyperbole exists on both "sides."
|
On January 03 2017 11:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Democrats around the country are demanding change from a national committee they say has focused too heavily on the White House at the expense of governorships, legislatures and state party operations.
"It's got to be helping us organize in our states to be able to build that power at the state legislative level," Michigan Democratic Party Chair Brandon Dillon said of the Democratic National Committee, currently searching for a new leader. "We've lost governorships and state legislatures at a rate that is pretty astounding."
DNC members gather in February to elect a new chairman, with five candidates running so far, each pledging to rebuild from the ground up. Money from the DNC to state parties has been inconsistent during President Barack Obama's tenure and, in most states, less than it was under former chairman Howard Dean. Party chairs say that's resulted in fewer staff members and training programs, a change felt particularly in Republican-leaning states. State leaders also say Obama's grassroots group Organizing for Action has functioned more like competition than a partner.
Beginning in 2017, Republicans will hold 33 governorships and fully control legislatures in 25 states, as well as the Congress and presidency. During Obama's two terms in office, the party lost more than 1,000 seats at the state and national level.
"I love President Obama, but he and his administration allowed for the deterioration, the terrible deterioration, of the state parties over the last eight years," said Mark Brewer, who led the Michigan Democratic Party for 18 years.
Obama has announced plans, though, to improve Democrats' down-ballot fortunes once he leaves office. He is launching an initiative with former Attorney General Eric Holder aimed at making Democratic gains when states redraw legislative district lines following the 2020 census. Democrats have blamed Republican gerrymandering for some of their losses in Congress and state legislatures.
State officials say it's been hard to plan long term and recruit and train candidates in off-election years due to inconsistent funding from the DNC. Under Dean, the national party installed and paid several staff members in each state. But that program ended after Obama's election. State parties began to receive monthly payments of anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000, an amount that varies depending on the year. At some point, the parties have received no money at all. The DNC does provide some money to state parties for elections based on the state's competitive races and other factors.
The change has left some states scrambling.
The Nebraska Democratic Party, for example, paid five full-time staff members during Dean's tenure. But when Dean's "50-state strategy" ended, it was hard to keep one and pay the rent, said Maureen Monahan, a vice president of the Association for State Democratic Chairs from Nebraska. Some states, such Mississippi, do not pay their party chairs. Even in Michigan, a staff that once stood at more than a dozen now is between five and seven employees, party chairs said.
"The past eight years we have not had any focus on the state parties," Monahan said. "There's been a sense that the DNC is a building in Washington."
The push-and-pull between state parties and the DNC is nothing new. State parties, congressional Democratic groups and the president's allies often spar over how best to spend party resources. The DNC defended its involvement with states. Source
Did we ever get a final tally of how much of the money Hillary funneled through the state parties that they actually got to spend on their local candidates?
I remember her supporters poo-pooing the idea that they would end up with very little of the money she was routing through them to circumvent campaign finance laws and I'm curious how that turned out?
|
Where was "down ballot Obama" in 2010-2016 and why are things different now? Actions speak louder than words and Obama's legacy includes widespread failure at the local/state level.
|
On January 03 2017 10:24 LegalLord wrote:
Also, fun fact: many of the right-wing newspapers lost a lot of subscribers for their "unprecedented endorsement" of Hillary. On top of looking like losers when she lost.
"looking like losers", seriously? You think endorsements are done so they can look like "winners" when their candidate pulls through? As if that matters? She was heavily endorsed because she was far more qualified to be president. It's not like Trump has done or said anything since those endorsements to combat that point. If anything he just further reinforces it with each passing day.
"looking like losers". What a juvenile line of thinking.
|
On January 03 2017 11:23 LegalLord wrote:
Where was "down ballot Obama" in 2010-2016 and why are things different now? Actions speak louder than words and Obama's legacy includes widespread failure at the local/state level.
Well that's actually not all Obama's fault. Democrats chose to run away from him in several of those elections and many of those are the ones who lost.
But Obama has a whole host of problems, and does have to own some of the responsibility for the Democratic party being such losers.
|
On January 03 2017 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2017 11:03 ChristianS wrote:
@GH: so the primary wasn't an election now? Seemed like there was an awful lot of voting taking place.
@LL: I said trite, not trivial. Cybersecurity is important, but "get better cybersecurity" is not very helpful advice. And your suggested relationship between candidate popularity and leak vulnerability is purely asserted. We could just as easily imagine that popular candidates have more to lose. I suspect it varies more on a case-by-case basis than predictably versus popularity. No, it never has been. Are you not familiar with the history of the primary process?
I suspect we're using different definitions of "election" too. It's a broad, systematic process for allowing a population to vote in order to fill a position of power. That it's not a government running it, or that it has other factors in determining it besides raw popular vote does not make it not an election. The ACS held elections recently for a new president; as a member, I was entitled to vote for an ACS president. That's still an "election."
|
On January 03 2017 11:23 LegalLord wrote:
Where was "down ballot Obama" in 2010-2016 and why are things different now? Actions speak louder than words and Obama's legacy includes widespread failure at the local/state level.
It's crazy, it sounds like he might actually be a smart guy who has learned from his failures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
