Democratic (Party) Direction

haha i had a very similar thought

Donna Brazile is lying about numerous aspects of the Democratic primary race, to try to make herself relevant to Bernie Sanders fans. Now Elizabeth Warren has fallen for Brazile's lies. What a shit show. All because Bernie & his fans can't handle that he lost by MILLIONS of votes

— Palmer Report (@PalmerReport) November 2, 2017

this is hard-hitting stuff

haha the fuckin palmer report

opened that tweet and immediately discovered that barack obama follows them, yeesh

Obama follows a lot of people.

A Twitter thread:

Okay, I am at home, I got a bunch of links open and I am ready to start explaining in mindnumbing detail the HVF.
— Elizabeth Rogers (@ahumorlessfem) November 3, 2017
― grawlix (unperson), Friday, 3 November 2017 02:37 (twelve hours ago) Permalink

I though the point of the story was that the Clinton campaign was given de facto control of the DNC in exchange, not that the HVC is some kind of corrupt slush fund.

*HVF

"re-litigating": use other words, doinks

It's about the future, not about two people who aren't going to be president

future of the party in 2001 was disowning the clintons.

Gore even tried it the year before, but didn't have much else

charlie pierce weighs in:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a13148225/donna-brazile-dnc/

"seems like nothing, but Senator Professor Warren*, who i actually respect and probably knows a lot more about this than i do, seems to disagree, so maybe i'm wrong, idk". great take charlie

lol I don't have enough time to cover all the db shit but hoo boy is the asterisk thing annoying

*dumb

I need to poll Pierce's monikers, but "Senator Professor Warren" is his worst.

what's with the asterisk? is it just a more clever way of saying SCROTUS?

not MY president

the unfounded—and, generally, pretty stupid—claim that the primary process was “rigged” against Bernie Sanders. That the DNC at least had half-a-thumb on the scale was common knowledge almost from jump

lol

I always translate "The party can't get out of its own way" as SURRENDER, LEFTIES

This seems like a pretty good summation, better than Pierce's piece: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/11/dnc-clinton-separating-signal-noise . It tries to examine the whole thing seriously, and avoid snark except for a Lincoln Chaffee joke.

yes, very good piece. it is beyond me why it is so difficult for some people to accept (or admit) that mistakes were made by lots of different parties to this process

In politics, many mistakes are made by almost everyone, usually tracing back to their decision to enter politics.

xpost good link, thanks

"The memo made clear it pertained only to the general election." So we just had an outrage cycle over primary "rigging" for nothing, huh. https://t.co/Awrn3blTvv

— (((Yair Rosenberg))) (@Yair_Rosenberg) November 3, 2017

Oh for fucks sake

Donna Brazile just wants to sell some books yall

would be cool if the democratic party could get its act together or if there were more parties. either would be fine.

Andrew Sullivan has another typically fraught piece on nymag about how the dems are completely fucking up the Northam vs. Gillespie race that's happening in VA next week. I can't believe I actually tried to read it. Northam seems like a schmuck but I'm withholding my verdict until the votes are in, I just don't have the energy.

I feel like I have a long post about the Brazile / Clinton / Obama machine meltdown but it might be better suited for the "barack obama's flaws" thread than here.

The good thing about the Brazile bombshell was that it was related to a specific piece of paper meaning it could easily be fact checked. It has been fact checked, it's bullshit. And the story goes on and on.

16 more years of trump

The bigger picture seems to be that none of the democratic party campaigning, fundraising or messaging machinery is functional at this point. There appears to be no managerial competence remaining. While it's a hell of a lot of fun watching the GOP eat itself, Bernie didn't exactly run a shit hot campaign, and you cannot win tight state and local races on personality alone.

you cannot win tight state and local races on personality alone.

― El Tomboto

proof please

lol

The good thing about the Brazile bombshell was that it was related to a specific piece of paper meaning it could easily be fact checked. It has been fact checked, it's bullshit. And the story goes on and on.

Wait, is Rosenberg right that the agreement pertained only to the general? The memo is reprinted here: http://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015 and includes:

With respect to the hiring of a DNC Communications Director, the DNC agrees that no later than September 11, 2015 [i.e. a year before the general] it will hire one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to HFA.

and

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.

At this point, I'm not even sure what all this adds up to but idk if what Rosenberg says is accurate either.

Contrary Twitter thread:

how does anybody believe the DNC-HFA memo only applied to the general? Clinton controlled every communication mentioning a primary candidate pic.twitter.com/aofrEjkrUe

— Brendan Fischer (@brendan_fischer) November 4, 2017

They really have those misdirects down to a Science.

The highlighted text really doesn't make his point. There is no contradiction in saying candidates can review materials involving the race, themselves and their opponents. Particularly if their funds are being used. As a campaign, I want to see what the party says about me and my opponents. It is only problematic if only one candidate is given this right of review. What did Sanders' agreement say?

Sanders didn't have this kind of agreement. And the main problem with the revelation that the agreement was only meant to be about the General Election isn't whether or not it is true, it's that Brazile left it out, undermining her credibility as to the rest of what she wrote completely. The agreement is still bad and stupid, but the story is basically more about DNC incompetence since 2008, culminating in the Hillary campaign having to bail them out, then it is about impartiality. The NPR story can still only mention the whole weekend debate controversy, as if that did any difference at all.

Sanders also signed a joint fundraising agreement, which is what this is. Highlighted language is typical right of review for a joint venture.

Clinton's joint fundraising agreement is a separate document. This was a memorandum on top of that, according to that NPR piece.

So Brazile apparently also claims in her book that she considered taking the nomination away from Clinton and making Biden and Corey Booker the ticket.

(For those who don't know, this is not actually something the head of the DNC can do.)

hoooo boy

A Twitter thread from Joy Reid:

A small note - that’s actually a big one - on the subject of “rigging...”

— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) November 3, 2017

Mastery of trivia in the face of apocalypse is something, for sure

brazile is producing some...interesting quotes, if legit

This is such grandiloquent nonsense. The idea that Brazile had it in her power to do this but had mercy on Clinton’s followers. My god. pic.twitter.com/mBY8rD7y4i

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 4, 2017

this is definitely not a sign of a Party in terminal crisis https://t.co/PychLyplaJ

— LG (@TradWifeWineMom) November 5, 2017

Impossible to even follow that thread linked in there

how's the terminal crisis going

like this?

Favorable views of the Democratic Party have dropped to their lowest mark in more than a quarter century of polling, according to new numbers from a CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

Only 37% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Democrats, down from 44% in March of this year....

Overall, 36% of registered voters who identify as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting next year, down from 44% who said so in September. That puts Democratic enthusiasm on par with that of Republicans, which stands at 37%.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-democrats-taxes/index.html

I read it too. What a difference 24 hours makes. I may wake up and wanna watch Lifeboat again.

you mean those two lesser-evil assholes that won last night make it all bed-der? Shirley, you can't be serious...

The downballot victories are more significant