12 ms·

It's remarkable that the documents show the DNC positioning themselves as an ally of a prominent Democrat in May of 2015 (and October, re: Biden) who was not th

It's remarkable that the documents show the DNC positioning themselves as an ally of a prominent Democrat in May of 2015 (and October, re: Biden) who was not the nominee and who hadn't been voted on by any American. In other words: favoritism in a party primary by the party infrastructure is supposed to be verboten.

csallen 10y ago
It seems like Guccifer2 could easily craft whatever narrative he wants by selectively releasing documents. For example, he could release pro-Hillary material and withhold similar material for other candidates. Or, even without any malcontent on his part, the documents he nabbed may not be fairly representative.
- rahkiin 10y ago
  All media can do this
- mordocai 10y ago
  If that was the case, the DNC could easily release materials showing that his releases are not representative. They can even make them up.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Yes. That makes a lot of sense. One of the two largest political parties in the US should definitely engage publicly in a debate with "Guccifer2". Why didn't anyone else think of that?
    - blackbagboys 10y ago
      If there's credible evidence that the party apparatus had decided that the fix was in from the start, they owe an explanation to their millions of supporters and rank and file members, no matter how silly the hacker's nom de guerre.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Sorry. I didn't mean to say directly that "Guccifer2" might not be a credible source. More, sort of slyly imply it.
    - shard972 10y ago
      Or they can just keep doing what their doing, just keep denying that anything else than the trump files were hacked and everything is fine. They can do whatever they want, but then people can look at this shitshow of a story and draw their own conclusions.
  - giaour 10y ago
    So, you're suggesting that the DNC release oppo research on its own presumptive candidate for president.
abritinthebay 10y ago
It's quite the opposite of remarkable - Clinton was not only the clear front-runner, she was ahead in all polls by a sizable margin (that Sanders caught up as much as he did is a credit to him). Frame it as "DNC positions themselves as an ally of the predicted nominee given no strong challengers at that time" and it sounds pretty... normal.
- newman314 10y ago
  “The Democratic National Committee remains neutral in this primary, based on our rules,” Wasserman Schultz said. http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/dnc_chair_democratic_national_committee_remains_neutral_20160518 http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/dnc_chair_democratic_na... Obviously, what the DNC says publicly and what the DNC does does not line up.
  - eli 10y ago
    Are there leaked documents that contradict this statement? When they're not administering primaries, the DNC spends most of their resources trying to get nominees elected in general elections. Of course they've been working on strategy for Clinton.
  - mejari 10y ago
    Did any of the documents release suggest that they were helping HRC _against Sanders_? Or just that they did work that would help her against a GOP candidate?
    - sjwright 10y ago
      And for all we know there are also documents prepared in support of Bernie Sanders which, if leaked, would paint the parallel picture of DNC supporting him. And that's assuming these documents are complete and unmodified. Nothing stopped this hacker from selectively editing and selectively leaking to support their agenda. It seems relatively obvious that the DNC would have had teams preparing for both scenarios. The only difference is that Sanders has been a viable candidate for a shorter period of time.
cromwellian 10y ago
Political parties use to choose the nominees in smoke filled rooms. I don't find this at all surprising. Sanders spent a long term as an 'independent', so why should people whom he never supported or campaigned for, and never helped out, want to support him, and not the most popular candidate in their network, who has spent a political career building alliances? Political parties exist for a reason, and that reason is not to run complete unbiased open primaries so that anyone may call themselves a party member and get unbiased support of the party. Parties are biased, there's nothing surprising about that. Both Sanders and Trump are in effect, third party candidates, running campaigns trying to usurp the existing two parties into pouring support into their campaign, because third party runs don't work.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  No doubt. Parties are allowed whatever method they choose to select their nominee, including the party elites backing a popular insider. However, we shouldn't confuse that with a democratic process. We should also recognize that such actions by the DNC would contradict their public statements to the contrary, that they intend to remain completely neutral in the primary process. If the situation were as you claim, then the parties would not have much of an argument against stronger, populist 3rd parties, because the 2 candidates served to the voters in the General Election would no longer reflect a representative choice of American voters.
eli 10y ago
I honestly don't understand why this is surprising or problematic. Working to get Democrats elected is the purpose of the DNC. They aren't some disinterested third party. Of course they have memos on how to help Hillary Clinton run for office. And I'm sure they go further back than 2015 too. I'd hope they'd do that for many Democrats, but I'd be shocked if they didn't do tons of work to help someone as prominent as HRC. > favoritism in a party primary Do the documents show that or are you inferring it based on what hasn't been leaked? Even if we grant that the DNC leadership thinks Hillary is the best... so what? It's a political party that takes public input from voters as one factor in deciding a nominee. The DNC shouldn't stuff ballot boxes and should try it's best to make the primaries as fair as possible, but to pretend they don't have like some candidates more than others strikes me as unrealistic.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  Working to get Democrats elected: okay Party preferences in a Democrats-against-Democrat competition while publicly declaring the party infrastructure neutral: not okay That is, the DNC is supposed to be about promoting the chosen candidate to the American people, not actively picking one. Nobody doubts that official favoritism isn't theoretically _allowed_ in a party primary, it just goes against the theory that it is a truly wide-open contest where the American people decide the direction of their government.
  - eli 10y ago
    Remember superdelegates? The system is explicitly designed to not be a 100% democratic process. (It used to be wholly decided by party elders in secret. I'm glad we mostly use primaries now, but I can see the merit of that approach. I bet the Republican leadership wishes that's still how it worked right now. )
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      1) superdelegates are not the DNC. 2) The Democratic party's official position is not that superdelegates are a complement to a 100% democratic process but instead that they exist _solely_ to ensure that party leaders are properly seated at the convention and do not have to compete with grassroots activists for participation at the national convention. I don't personally believe that (2) is a good-faith defense of what superdelegates are, but that is the DNC's position. And it's worth mentioning that there are valid reasons for superdelegates: how do you deal with a potential nominee like John Edwards, what if the convention is truly contested (with 3+ candidates and no 1st-ballot victory?). The Republican primary went largely as it should have been, and arguably Trump should have received an even larger share of the final delegates. Voters expressed their preference and that person became the nominee (whatever I think of their preference is irrelevant).
imjustsaying 10y ago
> favoritism in a party primary by the party infrastructure is supposed to be verboten. According to what?
awesomerobot 10y ago
>favoritism in a party primary by the party infrastructure is supposed to be verboten Since when? says who? I doubt there has ever been a time where that statement has been true.

csallen 10y ago

It seems like Guccifer2 could easily craft whatever narrative he wants by selectively releasing documents. For example, he could release pro-Hillary material and withhold similar material for other candidates. Or, even without any malcontent on his part, the documents he nabbed may not be fairly representative.

rahkiin 10y ago
All media can do this
mordocai 10y ago
If that was the case, the DNC could easily release materials showing that his releases are not representative. They can even make them up.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Yes. That makes a lot of sense. One of the two largest political parties in the US should definitely engage publicly in a debate with "Guccifer2". Why didn't anyone else think of that?
  - blackbagboys 10y ago
    If there's credible evidence that the party apparatus had decided that the fix was in from the start, they owe an explanation to their millions of supporters and rank and file members, no matter how silly the hacker's nom de guerre.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Sorry. I didn't mean to say directly that "Guccifer2" might not be a credible source. More, sort of slyly imply it.
  - shard972 10y ago
    Or they can just keep doing what their doing, just keep denying that anything else than the trump files were hacked and everything is fine. They can do whatever they want, but then people can look at this shitshow of a story and draw their own conclusions.
- giaour 10y ago
  So, you're suggesting that the DNC release oppo research on its own presumptive candidate for president.

abritinthebay 10y ago

It's quite the opposite of remarkable - Clinton was not only the clear front-runner, she was ahead in all polls by a sizable margin (that Sanders caught up as much as he did is a credit to him). Frame it as "DNC positions themselves as an ally of the predicted nominee given no strong challengers at that time" and it sounds pretty... normal.

newman314 10y ago
“The Democratic National Committee remains neutral in this primary, based on our rules,” Wasserman Schultz said. http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/dnc_chair_democratic_national_committee_remains_neutral_20160518 http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/dnc_chair_democratic_na... Obviously, what the DNC says publicly and what the DNC does does not line up.
- eli 10y ago
  Are there leaked documents that contradict this statement? When they're not administering primaries, the DNC spends most of their resources trying to get nominees elected in general elections. Of course they've been working on strategy for Clinton.
- mejari 10y ago
  Did any of the documents release suggest that they were helping HRC _against Sanders_? Or just that they did work that would help her against a GOP candidate?
  - sjwright 10y ago
    And for all we know there are also documents prepared in support of Bernie Sanders which, if leaked, would paint the parallel picture of DNC supporting him. And that's assuming these documents are complete and unmodified. Nothing stopped this hacker from selectively editing and selectively leaking to support their agenda. It seems relatively obvious that the DNC would have had teams preparing for both scenarios. The only difference is that Sanders has been a viable candidate for a shorter period of time.

cromwellian 10y ago

Political parties use to choose the nominees in smoke filled rooms. I don't find this at all surprising. Sanders spent a long term as an 'independent', so why should people whom he never supported or campaigned for, and never helped out, want to support him, and not the most popular candidate in their network, who has spent a political career building alliances? Political parties exist for a reason, and that reason is not to run complete unbiased open primaries so that anyone may call themselves a party member and get unbiased support of the party. Parties are biased, there's nothing surprising about that. Both Sanders and Trump are in effect, third party candidates, running campaigns trying to usurp the existing two parties into pouring support into their campaign, because third party runs don't work.

tanderson92 10y ago
No doubt. Parties are allowed whatever method they choose to select their nominee, including the party elites backing a popular insider. However, we shouldn't confuse that with a democratic process. We should also recognize that such actions by the DNC would contradict their public statements to the contrary, that they intend to remain completely neutral in the primary process. If the situation were as you claim, then the parties would not have much of an argument against stronger, populist 3rd parties, because the 2 candidates served to the voters in the General Election would no longer reflect a representative choice of American voters.

eli 10y ago

I honestly don't understand why this is surprising or problematic. Working to get Democrats elected is the purpose of the DNC. They aren't some disinterested third party. Of course they have memos on how to help Hillary Clinton run for office. And I'm sure they go further back than 2015 too. I'd hope they'd do that for many Democrats, but I'd be shocked if they didn't do tons of work to help someone as prominent as HRC. > favoritism in a party primary Do the documents show that or are you inferring it based on what hasn't been leaked? Even if we grant that the DNC leadership thinks Hillary is the best... so what? It's a political party that takes public input from voters as one factor in deciding a nominee. The DNC shouldn't stuff ballot boxes and should try it's best to make the primaries as fair as possible, but to pretend they don't have like some candidates more than others strikes me as unrealistic.

tanderson92 10y ago
Working to get Democrats elected: okay Party preferences in a Democrats-against-Democrat competition while publicly declaring the party infrastructure neutral: not okay That is, the DNC is supposed to be about promoting the chosen candidate to the American people, not actively picking one. Nobody doubts that official favoritism isn't theoretically _allowed_ in a party primary, it just goes against the theory that it is a truly wide-open contest where the American people decide the direction of their government.
- eli 10y ago
  Remember superdelegates? The system is explicitly designed to not be a 100% democratic process. (It used to be wholly decided by party elders in secret. I'm glad we mostly use primaries now, but I can see the merit of that approach. I bet the Republican leadership wishes that's still how it worked right now. )
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    1) superdelegates are not the DNC. 2) The Democratic party's official position is not that superdelegates are a complement to a 100% democratic process but instead that they exist _solely_ to ensure that party leaders are properly seated at the convention and do not have to compete with grassroots activists for participation at the national convention. I don't personally believe that (2) is a good-faith defense of what superdelegates are, but that is the DNC's position. And it's worth mentioning that there are valid reasons for superdelegates: how do you deal with a potential nominee like John Edwards, what if the convention is truly contested (with 3+ candidates and no 1st-ballot victory?). The Republican primary went largely as it should have been, and arguably Trump should have received an even larger share of the final delegates. Voters expressed their preference and that person became the nominee (whatever I think of their preference is irrelevant).

imjustsaying 10y ago

> favoritism in a party primary by the party infrastructure is supposed to be verboten. According to what?

awesomerobot 10y ago

>favoritism in a party primary by the party infrastructure is supposed to be verboten Since when? says who? I doubt there has ever been a time where that statement has been true.