the 1980 election loss.

He's all over the place.

Fuck him.

Getting that check.

I wonder if donors really think about that.

I guess that's where the Sanders split of that $3 dollar request is going

For FUCK sake.

That, sanctions, tax returns, FOR FUCK SAKE

were very supportive at one point in SDs using their power to help a particular candidate.

People are allowed to change beliefs based on new facts. I mean unless you believe Hillary Clinton is still a Goldwater girl and Elizabeth Warren is still a Republican.

I suppose someone could let their irrational hatred allow them to ignore such a delightful fact, but that would be silly to do.

He changes his opinion based on which master he's serving this election cycle.

He's the Democratic Paul Manafart.

“Yanukovych was ousted in 2014 after he halted Ukraine’s movement toward the European Union, yet Devine offered to help Manafort’s efforts in the 2014 Ukraine election; for a price. “We are ready to take on this project,” he wrote to Manafort partner Rick Gates, for $100,000 per month (payable in advance), $25,000 per week of runoff, a $50,000 “success fee” and expenses including first-class airfare. In June 2014 — even as talks about the Sanders presidential run were getting underway — Devine went to Ukraine to help remnants of Yanukovych’s party reforming under a new name. “My rate for something like this would be $10,000/day, including travel days,” he wrote to Gates.”

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/milbank-bernies-ad-guy-first-helped-a-pro-putin-autocrat/

Nice try. Comparing Tad Devine's ever changing "support" of SDs in his adult professional career to a high school belief HRC had is stretching to breaking, despite the frequent appearance of "she was a GOLDWATER GIRL!!!' here on DU. And as we've seen, very few if anyone on DU holds Warren to her adult GOP membership that ended in the 90's as any sort of recent "waffling." I suppose someone could let their irrational hatred allow them to ignore such a delightful fact, but that would be silly to do.

I understand that Tad's whipped back to opposing SDs since his 2016 strategy, laid out in the second quote, likely since his client who currently calls them "the danger to the process because they could place a candidate in the nomination who didn't get the majority of votes" didn't benefit from them as hoped. My understanding is that his client is known for equating having the same view on things for decades with integrity.

And it seems ironic until you realize the fun fact that Tad Devine is loyal only to whoever is paying him. be it a murderous authoritarian in the Ukraine, or any politician who can afford his very very expensive services - none of which seem to get U.S. politicians actually elected.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-bernie-sanders-ad-man-who-played-paul-manaforts-game/2018/08/01/0df78c18-95c7-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html

...after it was clear Clinton would end up with far more pledged delegates.

works.

Seeking victory by negating the popular vote.

Jesus christ

Where have we seen that tactic before??

Last edited Sun Aug 26, 2018, 05:10 PM - Edit history (2)

Which is what he says makes them "dangerous to Democracy."

It would give one whiplash if one didn't understand who benefitted from those diametrically opposed positions in a matter of weeks.

....participating in caucuses, primaries, and general elections.

Those ELECTED officials indeed, were ELECTED!

In a variety of ways.

Or do you think Bernie would've been stronger without him?

Which is why they hid him away when Weaver had the bright idea of convincing SuperDelegates to throw out the wishes of primary voters.

Tad Devine in 2016 - “Sanders’ superdelegate pitch will likely take the shape of both direct lobbying and a more formal pitch. Sanders’ campaign will argue that voter enthusiasm and holding to the populist principles of the party are on Sanders’ side. They’ll point to their massive, low-dollar online fundraising."

This is citing Devine's own words on the Sanders campaign plans to convince Superdelegates to negate the vote, and not refighting anything.

than Weaver. Thanks for the quote,

Like Pence is saner than Trump. More competent at what he does than Weaver, who did Sanders no favors several times when Weaver was interviewed.

Devine knew exactly what he was doing. He knows messaging and marketing, and knows how to get people from demonizing the existence of SDs as "corrupt and undemocratic" to unquestioningly do a 180 within a week to get them seeing using the SDs as "the only hope for democracy."

I think that Sanders keeps Weaver around because Sanders doesn't trust many people to be in his inner circle of older white men and Jane. Sanders is a known micromanager, and Weaver is a fiercely loyal gatekeeper. I think Sanders trusts Devine's instincts and loyalty, so he gives Devine a looser leash.

And I think that's why he chose to keep Weaver, even if it mean he lost most of his founding staff of Our Revolution, and why he keeps Devine, despite having not gotten the nomination.

But I think that Weaver being a "yes" man to Sanders, and preventing direct communication from staffers did harm Sanders, but Sanders would never accept that. It would mean admitting to a mistake or misjudgment.

Partner