View Topic

Donna Brazile, former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, released an article on Politico stating how Hillary Clinton's campaign took control of the DNC before she was even voted to become the nominee of the Democratic Party. In case anyone needed further proof of how the Hillary campaign rigged the election against Bernie. It's their fault Donald Trump is now our president.

Some excerpts:

The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.
...
Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.
...
He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. 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.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”
...
Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August.
...
[The Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America]—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
...
When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain... This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

Didn't she forward debate questions to the Clinton campaign beforehand? I mean it's good that she's revealing the extent of the Clinton campaign's reach inside the Democratic party, but she's hardly innocent in all this and I have to wonder why she's speaking against the campaign now.

In my experience, the best way to prevent an organization or community from becoming corrupt or becoming a tool of an individual is for it to have as much vibrancy as possible...typically when things aren't active and people are neglecting it it's easier for shady people to extend their tendrils within it and corrupt it. This is a great example...it's always been well-known that President Obama didn't care much for the Democratic Party as an institution and preferred to direct money and attention to his own organization, Organizing for America. This allowed power to fall to people that didn't really care like Debbie Wasserman Schultz with minimal accountability, who were able to collude with the Clinton campaign through this arrangement.

Perhaps the arrangement wasn't illegal, but it's certainly shady. How can an party be objective during a primary if they're depending on one of the candidates to pay off its debts? At the very least, it shows the Democratic Party is still in need of more transparency and reform, and I doubt this is going to endear people who supported Bernie Sanders to the party either.

In my experience, the best way to prevent an organization or community from becoming corrupt or becoming a tool of an individual is for it to have as much vibrancy as possible...typically when things aren't active and people are neglecting it it's easier for shady people to extend their tendrils within it and corrupt it. This is a great example...it's always been well-known that President Obama didn't care much for the Democratic Party as an institution and preferred to direct money and attention to his own organization, Organizing for America. This allowed power to fall to people that didn't really care like Debbie Wasserman Schultz with minimal accountability, who were able to collude with the Clinton campaign through this arrangement.

To be fair (playing a bit of devil's advocate here), you could make a similar argument with Bernie... A political party rewards support, and the DNC is naturally going to be biased against someone didn't even affiliate with the Democrats until it became necessary for running for president.

Didn't she forward debate questions to the Clinton campaign beforehand? I mean it's good that she's revealing the extent of the Clinton campaign's reach inside the Democratic party, but she's hardly innocent in all this and I have to wonder why she's speaking against the campaign now.

In my experience, the best way to prevent an organization or community from becoming corrupt or becoming a tool of an individual is for it to have as much vibrancy as possible...typically when things aren't active and people are neglecting it it's easier for shady people to extend their tendrils within it and corrupt it. This is a great example...it's always been well-known that President Obama didn't care much for the Democratic Party as an institution and preferred to direct money and attention to his own organization, Organizing for America. This allowed power to fall to people that didn't really care like Debbie Wasserman Schultz with minimal accountability, who were able to collude with the Clinton campaign through this arrangement.

Perhaps the arrangement wasn't illegal, but it's certainly shady. How can an party be objective during a primary if they're depending on one of the candidates to pay off its debts? At the very least, it shows the Democratic Party is still in need of more transparency and reform, and I doubt this is going to endear people who supported Bernie Sanders to the party either.

Oh, no I agree 100%. Brazile is certainly doing this primarily to cover her own ass. She probably sees that Bernie and the progressive wing are the future, so she wants to get ahead of it and say, "Clinton and the centrists are bad! Look at what they did -- they cheated! I'm with you because I told on them!" But it doesn't take away from the fact that what she's bringing to light is true.

To be fair (playing a bit of devil's advocate here), you could make a similar argument with Bernie... A political party rewards support, and the DNC is naturally going to be biased against someone didn't even affiliate with the Democrats until it became necessary for running for president.

Yes, but it's difficult to affiliate with a group that supposedly is a "big tent" when that tent excludes some of the most basic progressive policies that he stands for. I only think they'd get the benefit of the doubt with exclusivity if they allowed for a system where third parties actually have a chance. If there were other viable left-wing parties, then yes, I'd agree that they should be able to choose or exclude whomever they want. But since they are the left-wing party, anyone left-wing should have the right to run on their ticket regardless of whether or not they pledge allegiance to the party.

To be fair (playing a bit of devil's advocate here), you could make a similar argument with Bernie... A political party rewards support, and the DNC is naturally going to be biased against someone didn't even affiliate with the Democrats until it became necessary for running for president.

In fairness, as far as I know he's always caucused with the Democrats in the Senate, so that's some affiliation at least. Whatever their actual feelings about his actual candidacy though, the problem is that the DNC declared itself neutral in the primary while it was being funded and kept afloat by one of the candidates. Even if it's not illegal, and even if it turns out the DNC didn't rig the primaries for her, it still looks shady as hell that her campaign had control of the DNC's operations during the primary.

If I put you up somewhere, paid off your debts, and then continued to fund your lifestyle, then asked you to do something for me, how easy would it be for you to say no?

Oh, no I agree 100%. Brazile is certainly doing this primarily to cover her own ass. She probably sees that Bernie and the progressive wing are the future, so she wants to get ahead of it and say, "Clinton and the centrists are bad! Look at what they did -- they cheated! I'm with you because I told on them!" But it doesn't take away from the fact that what she's bringing to light is true.

Maybe, but I think her statement will have a limited impact on politics today...the only thing it accomplishes is making Hillary Clinton look more crooked than she already did, and she's already been more or less cast out of the party and politics in general. I'm also not so sure progressives are the future of the Democratic Party...to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if both parties began to splinter into smaller parties, of which the progressive wing would make up one. The only thing that's kept the parties together as it is is fear that dividing would benefit the 'other' side.

Maybe, but I think her statement will have a limited impact on politics today...the only thing it accomplishes is making Hillary Clinton look more crooked than she already did, and she's already been more or less cast out of the party and politics in general. I'm also not so sure progressives are the future of the Democratic Party...to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if both parties began to splinter into smaller parties, of which the progressive wing would make up one. The only thing that's kept the parties together as it is is fear that dividing would benefit the 'other' side.

I'm not too sure about that; the US electoral process (FPTP, Electoral College, etc.) seems to inherently support and lead to the two-party system. It's entirely reasonable that the two current major parties could split apart, but barring massive change to both the formal and informal political institutions of the country, history seems to suggest that they'd end up resolidifying into yet another two-party system in the long run.

I'm not too sure about that; the US electoral process (FPTP, Electoral College, etc.) seems to inherently support and lead to the two-party system. It's entirely reasonable that the two current major parties could split apart, but barring massive change to both the formal and informal political institutions of the country, history seems to suggest that they'd end up resolidifying into yet another two-party system in the long run.

But I don't think there's ever been so many people dissatisfied with their party and so unwilling to accept compromise for the greater good. The Republican Party is virtually at war with itself, and the Democratic Party isn't that far behind. It would only take someone like Bernie Sanders or Steve Bannon throwing their support behind a new party to put it on the map...it's just that in their own ways they've decided to try to take over their respective parties instead.

I'm not too sure about that; the US electoral process (FPTP, Electoral College, etc.) seems to inherently support and lead to the two-party system. It's entirely reasonable that the two current major parties could split apart, but barring massive change to both the formal and informal political institutions of the country, history seems to suggest that they'd end up resolidifying into yet another two-party system in the long run.

But I don't think there's ever been so many people dissatisfied with their party and so unwilling to accept compromise for the greater good. The Republican Party is virtually at war with itself, and the Democratic Party isn't that far behind. It would only take someone like Bernie Sanders or Steve Bannon throwing their support behind a new party to put it on the map...it's just that in their own ways they've decided to try to take over their respective parties instead.

Right, but if they do that, I suspect that the former party would gradually fall out of relevance while the new party grows to dominate, leading us to yet another two-party system (much as has happened throughout US history).

Just a quick little slightly off topic tangent as a centrist and supporter of Bernie myself. "Clinton and the centrists are bad," I don't believe centrists were Clinton's main voter base at all (If nothing else she was going for the usual base that democrats have gone with for at least 30 years now). Don't get me wrong people say centrists are bad, as experience has shown me most political groups take one look at centrists and say choose a side! And when centrists say, "We're our own side because we equally like and hate points on both of your sides" generally the more radical group in question throws you to the opposite side. Case in point how any extreme Lefty stereotypical SJW types *cough* antifa *cough* will call any centrist who disagrees with them on just about anything, Alt-Right or even further a Nazi. (Continuing to diminish the power of that word among many others such as racist, sexist, homophobic and many more words that really need to keep their meaning do to the real issues they represent.)

Anyways just wanted to say that I don't believe the term centrist would be correct in who Clinton's supporters were. I would agree with the argument that centrists also receive a lot of the heat for letting that orange troll doll reject into the oval office, and thus the statement "Clinton and centrists are bad."

Sorry if I was reading too much into that, not trying to start a fight just wanted to take a moment to clear that up.

On the actual topic, hell yeah Brazile is just covering her ass, and trying to make herself look like a victim and whistle blower. But I must say its nice to have full public confirmation that Bernie was fucked over, even if it was pretty god damn obvious. The DNC really has been in need of a real clean up to the scale of what the NYPD have done to their own ranks on multiple occasions to root out the corrupt fuckwads, and while this will probably outright crush the party for awhile, it doesn't put the republicans into any better of a position as they are as people have pointed out in the midst of a political civil war.

On the party situation, I would agree that we will probably end up with another two party system eventually,(Though perhaps we'll see independents like myself become relevant for the first time since George Washington) but I have a feeling, depending on how things swing in coming years that the Electoral college will probably not survive another election.

Just a quick little slightly off topic tangent as a centrist and supporter of Bernie myself. "Clinton and the centrists are bad," I don't believe centrists were Clinton's main voter base at all (If nothing else she was going for the usual base that democrats have gone with for at least 30 years now). Don't get me wrong people say centrists are bad, as experience has shown me most political groups take one look at centrists and say choose a side! And when centrists say, "We're our own side because we equally like and hate points on both of your sides" generally the more radical group in question throws you to the opposite side. Case in point how any extreme Lefty stereotypical SJW types *cough* antifa *cough* will call any centrist who disagrees with them on just about anything, Alt-Right or even further a Nazi. (Continuing to diminish the power of that word among many others such as racist, sexist, homophobic and many more words that really need to keep their meaning do to the real issues they represent.)

Anyways just wanted to say that I don't believe the term centrist would be correct in who Clinton's supporters were. I would agree with the argument that centrists also receive a lot of the heat for letting that orange troll doll reject into the oval office, and thus the statement "Clinton and centrists are bad."

Sorry if I was reading too much into that, not trying to start a fight just wanted to take a moment to clear that up.
...
On the party situation, I would agree that we will probably end up with another two party system eventually,(Though perhaps we'll see independents like myself become relevant for the first time since George Washington) but I have a feeling, depending on how things swing in coming years that the Electoral college will probably not survive another election.

Sorry, perhaps my terminology was inaccurate. By "centrists", I meant neoliberals, who are toward the center of the global left-right spectrum. And when I said "Clinton and the centrists", I meant Clinton and the neoliberal establishment in the DNC and the party in general, not those who vote for them. And when I said "Clinton and the centrists are bad", I was saying that's what Brazile was metaphorically saying with this article to distance herself from the neoliberal establishment.

I'm not saying centrists or neoliberals are bad (having a range of political ideas is ideal), but when the Democratic Party is the left-wing party but often don't represent left-wing policies, it's easy to criticize the party. If you're gonna be the left-wing party, be the left-wing party, dammit! The usual (center-left) Democratic voter base is obviously not enough to win elections. So the party shifted towards the right rather than left (as seen over the past 40 or so years), making it a more centrist party rather than outright left-wing, and that's likely to continue in order to take those much-wanted center/right-wing votes from the Republicans (who control both houses of Congress, the executive branch, the Supreme Court, a majority of state governorships, and a majority of both houses of state legislatures). I'm arguing that Bernie and the progressive wing (i.e. those actually left-wing) are the future of the Democratic party as more and more left-wing voters will get fed up with being unrepresented and so will eventually take control.

As I said in a post above, I definitely think that neoliberals (as well as those self-identified centrists) should each have their own party so that there is no ideological splintering or pandering. And since the neoliberals are in power now, their best chance to survive would be to push for electoral reform, removing FPTP voting, which would allow for the viable formation of other parties. 2 big-tent parties obviously leaves the majority of voters dissatisfied, so why not allow people to group together into parties that actually represent their members?

With our current FPTP voting system, there will almost certainly only ever be just two major parties, so by definition, independents will unfortunately almost never be voted in (hence why Bernie had to run for the Democratic nomination). And with the Republicans in power, the Electoral College sadly ain't goin' nowhere.

@Gerrick Ah, I've gotcha, good to have that cleared up. All in all I would say I agree with you for the most part.

>Republicans FW the DNC is imploding

>Republicans FW the DNC is imploding

Laugh now, but the same is happening on the other side of the fence, albeit in a slower and less obvious way.

Both the Republican and the Democratic Parties are entering a downspiral, but as they've destroyed the democratic institutions of this country, they are guaranteed to maintain power even as they dissolve into infighting and incompetence. Dark times are coming for this nation.

I hate to say this Mariam, but I'd say we're already living in dark times. It's a matter of whether or not the people of this nation will be able to stick it out, which as history tells us we've done before. It might just be a mess with at least some blood and tears shed to get out of it. 

I hate to say this Mariam, but I'd say we're already living in dark times. It's a matter of whether or not the people of this nation will be able to stick it out, which as history tells us we've done before. It might just be a mess with at least some blood and tears shed to get out of it. 

We've never dealt with an authoritarian dictatorships before.

Also, if you think we're living in a dark time now, you're in for one rollercoaster over the course of this century.