And as far as Ted Cruz eating black children, you don't know whether he did or not. If there is a reporter worth their salt at Ted Cruz' next press conference, that person will ask that question. You are hilarious. Afraid Slick Willie will get another crack at 8 years as President (or Big Popi as the ladies call him?)? So doofus breeches security and it is Clinton's fault? Notice "pro worker" Bernie FIRED the person involved? Either way, carry on.... Between your nazi threads and global warming "hoax" threads you give us all a good laugh.
That would be nuts, but even better would be Hillary vs Cruz as the establishment Democrat and Republican winning those nominations with Sanders running as a Socialist and Rand Paul running as a Libertarian.
I'm not partial to either candidate here, but why would Sanders' campaign expect either party to be "even-handed"? Seems to me the parties are intended to be biased, by definition. The Republican party is threatening to be unfair to Trump and no one cares about that.
And the RNC specifically changed primary rules to benefit establishment candidates at the expense of grassroots candidates, though it may be backfiring on them. Instead of having few people watch the debates, they basically made a whole bunch of people's votes count less. They also changed their own debate rules because they didn't like how it helped minor candidates in 2012. Parties do whatever they think is in their best interests - there's nothing new about that. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/us/new-party-rules-fail-to-speed-up-republican-race.html http://theconservativetreehouse.com...ow-they-impact-the-2016-presidential-primary/
Bernie sanders campaign chief told wolf blitzer yesterday that their systems were attacked a few months back and they believed it was Hilary's team but couldn't prove it
My biggest take away here is that the Clinton campaign is atleast some what concerned about Sanders, which is good for me . I am a firm supporter of Sanders.
They should be - even if he's not a threat (and he really isn't, barring a Hillary meltdown), the campaign should have learned from 2008 not to ever assume anything, and that running a coronation campaign is a terrible idea. Her team's response to this was dumb as well - they should have stayed above the fray. Ultimately, you want Sanders' support, so going after him when you are 98% the nominee seems counterproductive.
This seems contradictory. IMO they are going after him because it's nowhere near 98% certain he's a real threat. I'll give you 60 or 70%, but where Bernie is right now with just under a year to go is really really dangerous for Hillary. Continues to draw big crowds, polling well in New Hampshire and Iowa. Lots of people STILL have no idea about his policy platform, a sizeable number of voters still barely know who he is. Likely voters will get to know Bernie WAY more in the next 7-8 months while not much will change about their knowledge of Hillary. Given the socio-economic make up and state of the US, that's going to be a big advantage for Bernie. The man broke Obama's # of campaign contributors record. If Trump wins his side with his terroristic rhetoric and Bernie is in the running with his semi-left views, I think you'll see a different and much larger voter turnout than for Obama's first term. If Bernie were black, latino, asian, female, handsome or young with exactly the same campaign, he would be cleaning up right now IMO. Bernie has a much stronger policy on gender issues yet Hillary is getting 65% of the female vote according to recent polls >> that's ridiculous. Bernie is Obama 2.0 without the public speaking skills and super pacs, but with a much greater track record for following through on these policies. That's a disadvantage which several months ago led many to believe he had absolutely no chance of being where he is right now. Today we're looking at a candidate who dares to call himself a socialist white jewish immigrant on television and he is doing well against Hillary of all people. It's very significant and unfortunately Hillary is doing the right thing by taking it seriously. She couldn't even beat Obama in these same circumstances and Bernie is Jesus Christ himself when compared to Obama's campaign lies.
From what I've read, the DNC is saying that the Clinton campaign did not take advantage of the breach, according to the logs. I don't care to put on my tinfoil hat and theorize the DNC is lying about it.
Blindly aligning yourself with the DNC in the middle of a scandal that is under independent review is the activity that you put your tinfoil hat on for in this case.
Not really aligning myself with the DNC. More just making simplifying assumptions based on my experience with organizational behavior. I deem it unlikely they would tell a bald-faced lie in this situation precisely because of the potential for an independent review that would catch them out. Bernie can ask for one and sue for one to keep them honest. I won't bother spending my mental resources on it though because I think I know the likelier outcome. This is a good 'trust but verify' situation.
If the logs are very detailed and accurate, what would possess the DNC to cut off the blood flow to the Bernie campaign so heavy handedly? Given it's 100% punitive, does it really make sense to have a CLEARLY conflicted person responsible for making these massive punitive decisions?
The DNC has shown itself to be a fairly corrupt association. Debbie Wasserman who was heavily involved in the Hillary campaign last time unilaterally makes most of the decision wrt to number of debates or cutting off Sander's access to his data without consulting other board members. The DNC needs to become more democratic and accountable and Waserman should be made to resign if the DNC is to retain credibility.
