7 ms·

Without going into murkier territories like bias Unfair - debate questions were leaked to Hillary ahead of time. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donna-

• mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  It’s a shame to see tribalistic downvoting on this. It’s just stating facts that render the parent comment fundamentally inaccurate. There’s nothing to downvote, there’s no possible angle of interpretation or disagreement. Downvoting this is equivalent to saying “Assange is bad no matter what the facts or evidence shows.”
• hackinthebochs 6y ago
  >Unfair - debate questions were leaked to Hillary ahead of time. Brazile on leaking debate questions[1]: >My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen. Tad Devine, senior aid to Bernie's campaign on the debate questions leak[2]: >She would get in touch all the time for guidance, so I can verify her recollection on this issue So the question of whether the leak was "unfair to Bernie" is not established. The fact that Bernie never responded critically of the leak suggests Brazile's actions weren't unusual for either side. But this just underscores the fact that a lack of context and selective leaking allows one to present a false narrative. >Destabilizing - the Hillary campaign promoted Trump as a candidate. Promoting Trump was certainly a miscalculation. But it was not at all "destabilizing" in the sense the OP meant. [1] https://time.com/4705515/donna-brazile-russia-emails-clinton/ https://time.com/4705515/donna-brazile-russia-emails-clinton... [2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/la-na-trailguide-updates-former-senior-aide-to-bernie-sanders-1476297181-htmlstory.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/la-na-trailguide...
  • throwawaythekey 6y ago
    > So the question of whether the leak was "unfair to Bernie" is not established Even if the questions were being leaked to ALL candidates (no solid proof exists) it is deceiving the public who believe the the candidates to have no forward knowledge of the questions. Or alternatively, it's unfair to the republicans who don't have advance knowledge of questions in their own debates and are unable to appear as clever on their feet as their counterparts. Or it's a disadvantage to candidates that are able to better think on their feet, and don't need to prepare, although you could argue that they were already unfairly advantaged. > Promoting Trump was certainly a miscalculation. But it was not at all "destabilizing" in the sense the OP meant. I'm not sure what the OP meant by destabilizing, but it's clear that Trump triumphing did have destabilizing effects on US politics. If you mean destabilizing in terms of intra-party politics, then I would be happy to take your word for it but argue that you're being overly narrow. Full disclosure - I'm probable biased in being from outside the US, not having any skin in the election outcome, and just enjoying the transparency provided. From the outside, at least to me, it looks like a win for democracy. Hopefully future candidates play above board more often because they realize they have higher chances of being exposed in the modern world.