Bernie's In

Have you guys considered getting tee shirts?

Yeah, I find that description incredible, as well. A short term loss. Dismantling of Roe v Wade, Continued dismantling of voter rights, dismantling of health care gains, rolling back clean/green gains, SCOTUS taken over by neocons. Yeah, short term loss indeed.

Incredible and naive.

People are talking about the future of America, not a game of Risk.

I like much less what it says about people who willingly accept the **** being shoveled by the DNC who is being paid by the oligarchy that controls this country.

I embrace whatever adjective you want to assign to not putting up with the bullshit anymore.

It looks for all the world like you're ignoring the certain storm of nonstop 100% unadulterated bullshit that will be getting shoveled if the GOP gets in power. But ya'll sure would've SHOWED 'em though, huh?

Snood,

I guess we all have our personal tipping point. How much am I willing to put up with before I make a change that I know is going to be rough on me for a while, but ultimately worth the struggle?

I'm at my tipping point with politics as usual in my country.

I'm willing to stay busy with activism, rallying, financial contributions, and whatever else happens in order to fight the power of the ultra-wealthy billionaires that run this country and the crooked politicians that make it possible.

It's about a hell of a lot more than "showing" anybody anything. It's about fighting corruption on a national scale when we finally have a trustworthy leader. It may never happen again.

I'm not sitting this out.

I knew I would be vindicated re Lash. She has been a ultra conservative ever since she has been posting and I found it very hard to believe she could be suddenly an ultra liberal. Do you think that maybe a conservative plant was in Bernies company. Lash seems to be very happy over what she considers the fragmenting of the demo. party. But she wont be quite as happy when she finds its just politics as usual, not fragmentation.

First of all, I want to acknowledge that Lash has been making an effort to be less confrontational in her posts. She really seems to be easing up on the bashing kind of thing that we all have indulged in when discussing this stuff.

I am making an attempt to reciprocate.

That said...I was surprised by the degree of delight she seemed to derive from this latest brouhaha.

I'm not sure what is going on with the "I hate Hillary Clinton more than anyone in the world" crowd. I honestly do not see the reason for it. The intensity is all out of proportion to the explanations any of them give for it.

Anyway...I am hoping that most of the liberals/progressives claiming they will not vote for Hillary if she is the candidate...change their minds when Election Day arrives...and the specter of a conservative win becomes even more ominous.

When Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, his band played "The World Turned Upside Down." These days I feel it should become our National Anthem.

It was $1 million yesterday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/19/amid-dust-up-with-dnc-sanders-raises-1-million-in-a-single-day-campaign-source-says/

It's quite the dilemma in this kind of system. You are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

If you want to change the system the only way is to take risks that might hurt you if it does not succeed (e.g. voting third party is one way to express dissatisfaction with the current two parties but in practice it will usually mean that you merely help the one of the two parties you disagree with the most).

What if someone views an attempt to break the two-party monopoly as more important than the supreme court nominees? Why does that have to be naive instead of merely prioritizing something different than you do?

Maybe having a judge on the court they don't agree with is not as unpalatable to them as having an entire system they disagree with.

What makes your values not naive and theirs naive? I'm not being contrary here I'm asking myself this question too. I mean, I guess if you merely accept that the system will never change (this is closer to my position than the opposite) you could say that it was wasted effort but on the other hand no such change will every happen without some initial folks getting out there and trying, often before the point at which there is any realistic chance of it happening.

George Bernard Shaw once said that "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." I think this is very apropos and that our systems depend on both kinds of people. The quixotic ones are certainly unreasonable: until they succeed.

Lash and I well roil on views. We know each other and have squabbled over time. Have met. I was afraid to meet her, but on seeing me, she hugged me. I will always love Lash.
I differ in that I don't take her as a plant (see older posts).
Whatever my take on her views, I don't perceive her as the vile person you do, and I'm getting weary of your assumption of her duplicity.

It is my opinion that anyone (particularly those who live in swing states) who claims to be a progressive or liberal...or who claims to champion a progressive/liberal agenda...

...who votes for a third party or refuses to vote rather than vote for Hillary (if she is the candidate)...

...is a damned fool and a traitor to progressive thinking. In fact, a traitor to ANY kind of thinking.

I consider that way of dealing with this election to be stupidity to the max.

But, I understand that intelligent, well-intentioned people may disagree with me on that.

It really just comes down to what you value the most: changing the status quo or acting most rationally within it to your interests while conceding that it's here to stay.

You can almost never revolutionize a system of government without pain points before things get better. Your position is the more "rational" one in the sense that the odds of changing the status quo are slim to the point that most attempts will fail and harm the interests of those who attempt it. That is true. Still, without those unreasonable/irrational people no progress will ever be made. Almost every big step forward in life comes from someone who is irrationally overoptimistic.

It's just like starting companies. It's a simple fact that it is much better on average (financially) to work for someone else than to try to start your own company. Those who do so anyway are partly delusional because they believe that they somehow will succeed when the odds make clear they are overwhelmingly likely to fail. These irrational entrepreneurs are necessary, if we had none of them humans might not have advanced very far or made it till today) but if we were all like that then the world would fall apart.

You can call it stupid, and there's an obvious case to be made that it is irrational. But all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

I truly, truly understand your argument...and agree in major elements, Robert. But "the change in the status quo" is better, and more likely obtained...but incremental changes...rather than by precipitous ones.

Losing the SCOTUS to more Scalia's or Thomas'...IS NOT THE WAY to obtain the change you are talking about.

Getting Justices more along the lines of Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan...WILL.

I am not arguing against changing the status quo...I AM am arguing for doing it in a reasonable, realistic way.

I lean in your direction on the question of 'working from within the system or toppling it from outside'. But you've got to admit Frank - neither side is without risk. Their side risks the carnage that could certainly descend on us all, if the Republicans get unharnessed power. But our side risks - by going along with the status quo - fortifying and thereby perpetuating a corrupt and rigged way of doing things. I just want everyone to be honest and clear-eyed about this. Neither side really has any advantage of foreknowledge that allows them to be too cocksure. If we all are concerned about what's in the greater interest of the (sane) Americans, it may serve us all (including me) to be less pugilistic and more collaborative.

You are right here, Snood. I acknowledge that.

There is certainly risk with both positions on the issue being discussed...and I acknowledge that completely.

But ultimately, we have to choose a side...the side we think has the most chance of success.

Perhaps my fears about a Republican victory are unfounded or inflated. Perhaps if Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz is elected...they will not appoint young, conservative firebrands who will easily be approved by a Republican dominated Senate when the inevitable vacancies occur on the SCOTUS.

And of course, I may be wrong about the sensibilities of a majority of Americans about the effect of the term "self-described socialist." Perhaps we are ready to elect someone who describes himself that way...a point which will be hammered home in ways that only be imagined right now should Bernie Sanders be nominated.

But as I said...I have to choose a side...and I feel an obligation to try to "spread the news" about it.

There is risk in taking the road I am advocating...but I think the dangers on the other path are far greater.

This is going to be one hell of an election. If the Republicans win...we will see how things work out for America and the rest of the world.

If the Democrats win...I expect we will see talk of secession from the Union and impeachment of the new president starting the Wednesday after Election Day.

After Blocking Sanders Campaign from Voter Data, Democratic Party Relents and Restores Access
As the DNC and Sanders accuse each other of data theft, one wonders if anyone was spying on Bernie's base?
By Steven Rosenfeld / AlterNet
December 19, 2015

Print
Comments

Photo Credit: Crush Rush See All/Shutterstock.com

Update: The DNC has relented and will restore the Sanders' campaign access to the Democratic party’s 50-state voter file.


ADVERTISING


Anyone who followed Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign knew it was only a question of when and how—not if—she or her allies would go after anyone blocking her path to the 2016 nomination. But fighting over DNC voter files?

On Friday, the strange story about the Bernie Sanders campaign, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee jumped into a new orbit as Sanders’ campaign manager said at a press conference that the campaign might sue the DNC because it had shut off access to a nationwide voter file database. “They are not going to sabotage our campaign,” Jeff Weaver declared.

Several hours later, the Sanders campaign sued the DNC in federal court in Washington, claiming it violated a contract clause that it give the Sanders campaign 10 days notice before blocking access to the Democratic voter database.

The fight’s spark occurred Wednesday, when a handful of Sanders staffers viewed Clinton campaign voter files because the DNC's voter database vendor had taken down a firewall. The Sanders campaign reported a similar security breach in October and was told it would be fixed, Weaver said, adding that Sanders' data had been given to other candidates at that time.

These are the party's files of every registered Democrat and each campaign's notes about them; from what they say in phone bank conversations, to candidate preferences and get-out-the-vote needs.

However, the DNC quickly accused the Sanders campaign of improperly accessing Clinton's files and fingerpointing ensued, with the DNC announcing Thursday it was punishing Sanders. Weaver said the DNC's decision to shut off his campaign's access to the files and information compiled by Sanders' supporters revealed an institutional bias for Clinton.

“It is our information and the information of all of these volunteers and the people who support our campaign, not the DNC’s. In other words, by their action, the leadership of the Democratic National Committee is now actively attempting to undermine our campaign,” he charged. “This is unacceptable. Individual leaders of the DNC can support Hillary Clinton in any way they want, but they are not going to sabotage our campaign, one of the strongest grassroots campaigns in modern history.”

“I’m sure there are people within the Democratic establishment who are not happy about the overwhelming success Sen. Sanders is having all across this country,” Weaver said. “To do that, we need our data which has been stolen by the DNC.”

“The Sanders campaign doesn’t have anything other than bluster at the moment that they can put out there,” DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schulz told CNN on Friday, adding that Sanders staffers knew they were doing something wrong, and if Clinton’s team did the same thing, she would be expected to punish them. “It’s like if you found the front door of a house unlocked and someone decided to go into the house and take things that didn’t belong to them.”

The New York Times’ account of the brouhaha said that Sanders’ now-fired national data director, Josh Uretsky, insisted they were not fishing through Clinton's voter data, but trying to create a search record the DNC and its vendor could use to rectify the latest firewall breach.

Brian Fallon, Clinton campaign spokesman, countered, "We were informed that our proprietary data was breached by Sanders campaign staff in 25 searches by four different accounts. We are asking that the Sanders campaign and the DNC work expeditiously to ensure that our data is not in the Sanders campaign's account and that the Sanders campaign only have access to their own data."

In the meantime, Uretsky said shutting off access to voter file data hurts the Sanders' campaign. “It makes it very difficult for the campaign to conduct its daily activities,” he said. “The campaign routinely relies on these lists and data.”

A Good Week Until…

The DNC’s actions come after a week in which Sanders was gaining momentum as he crossed the 2 million donation line to his campaign, beating Barack Obama’s 2008 record by several months. He also gained two important political endorsements, from the Communication Workers of America, a labor union, and Democracy for America, a progressive group. Meanwhile, Clinton raised more than $8 million Thursday at a ritzy dinner at New York City’s Plaza Hotel and the latest polls from New Hampshire show her closing in on Sanders’ lead, which she now trails by 2 percent.

Before the data spat, the Democratic race was getting tenser. The next Democratic debate is slated for Saturday night, though the other two candidates have criticized it as being a pro-Hillary favor from the DNC because it’s scheduled on a day and time unlikely to get a big audience. Against this backdrop, the DNC data spat could be seen as predictable pressure cooker tensions from every side.

“The Democratic National Committee just did the unthinkable: Only a few short weeks before Iowa, they’ve completely shut down the Sanders campaign’s access to the DNC’s 50 state voter file—all because of a security error made by a third party vendor,” wrote Charles Chamberlain, Democracy for America’s executive director, in a Friday e-mail blast. “There is simply no excuse for this."

The DFA’s chairman explained that blocking access to voter files is like throwing a stick between the spokes of a fast-moving bicycle wheel at a key point in the race. “The voter file contains contact information about potential Democratic primary voters across the country,” he said. “Campaigns rely on it to conduct their get-out-the-vote efforts. By taking away access to the voter file, the DNC has crippled the Sanders campaign and its ability to mobilize grassroots activists to identify supporters.”

Chamberlain said none of this is the fault of Sanders’ staff. “They discovered an already existing software glitch that put their own data at risk, along with the data of other major campaigns. When they realized the extent of the problem, they contacted the vendor, NGP-VAN, to let them know what they had found and demand that it be fixed. But instead of penalizing NGP-VAN for recklessly handling the data of all the campaigns, the DNC is inexplicably punishing the Sanders campaign by taking away their access to crucial campaign data when they need it the most.”

The DNC’s statement, issued Thursday by Wasserman Schultz, said the Sanders staff saw a way to access Clinton campaign data and started going through it.

“Over the course of approximately 45 minutes, staffers of the Bernie Sanders campaign inappropriately accessed voter targeting data belonging to the Hillary Clinton campaign… and in doing so violated the agreement that all the presidential campaigns have signed with the DNC. As the agreement provides, we directed NGP-VAN to suspend the Sanders campaign’s access to the system until the DNC is provided with a full accounting of whether or not this information was used and the way in which it was disposed.”

Wasserman Schultz said the Sanders campaign might get access to the voter data again soon. “I have personally reached out to Senator Sanders to make sure that he is aware of the situation,” her DNC statement said. “When we receive this report from the Sanders campaign, we will make a determination on re-enabling the campaign’s access to the system.”

All of this back-and-forth will raise the stakes in Saturday evening’s final Democratic presidential debate, the last of 2015. While statements from the Sanders campaign reveal they were deeply relying on the party’s voter files, one can only wonder if this will backfire on the DNC and Hillary supporters if a solution is not forthcoming.

Late Friday afternoon, Weaver sent an e-mail blast to Sanders supporters urging them to sign a petition to pressure the DNC to restore their access to voter data. "We'll be in touch soon as this situation evolves," he wrote. "You are the power behind this campaign. We are doing something unprecedented, and that has a lot of people scared."

Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America's retirement crisis, democracy and voting rights, and campaigns and elections. He is the author of "Count My Vote: A Citizen's Guide to Voting" (AlterNet Books, 2008).

Because it is naive, Robert. Our system is not set up for a third party challenge. Its only set up for a third party spoiler.

The Surpreme Court, which could actually help reset the system for a three or more party election, is very important. The next President could be naming two or three new justices.

Sanders can easily beat any republican.