The proper term is "enhanced campaigning".

...wouldn't it be "enhanced campaigning techniques"?

On target for what should happen and the Clinton machine will never let that happen. They know we can see them and their dirty tricks and their attitude is the same as Rham Emanuel (Hillary supports him) basically..."fuck them"....

Sad but true.

as the hidden hand was doing the dirty work of harvesting Bernie's data. Remember, the bigger the outcry from the Hillaroids, the dirtier the nasty trick they are trying to hide.

I also read that he was a Hillary Campaign Plant. Interesting how quick the DNC backed down when Bernie got a Federal Judge to a hearing that same day. On DU there was a video of a young woman & man in MA talking about DNC problems & expressed concern about CT, RI. Just read that RI has closed 66% polling places.

Sid

Any evidence a Clinton staffer inappropriately accessed Sanders data AND the absence of evidence is proof that Clinton's team accessed Sanders data. Yeah that's some serious bullshit.

Also your suggested test case wouldn't prove anything for this reason the Sanders team was found to have accessed data for 10 early states. So New York and Arizona where there were significant oddities wouldn't have been included in what the Sanders team was found to have accessed. Additionally the data breach was so long ago it would difficult to determine with precision who would vote for each candidate.

And then there is the difficulty in determining who actually correctly registered and registered for the party and who only thinks they did. For example one of the examples given in New York claims she registered as a Democrat to vote for Obama in the general. I'm not sure why I should take somebody's word when they don't seem to understand the basics of voting.

And if I have a "wrong" understanding, please help educate me.

1) The DNC has a database of REGISTERED DEMOCRATS. (It gets this from the states.)

2) Campaigns are either given or pay for access to this database so they can "reach out" to potential supporters.

3) Campaigns "make notes" as to who they contact and what the results of those contacts are in a "private-just-for-them" section of the database.

4) Both campaigns start out by contacting "everyone" to recruit supporters.

5) At some point last year, BOTH campaigns were able to view the "private" stuff on the other side.

6) The Bernie side reported it more than once. They also documented what they could access and provided samples of the hole.

7) The Hillary people NEVER reported a problem, meaning either they never noticed it or thought it was a feature.

8) The IT staff of the DNC did NOT notice a problem. Their first inkling of a breach was when the Bernie team handed them the "evidence of a problem".

9) There are FOUR easy lists available:
a) the DNC list of Known Democrats as of last year
b) the people who Bernie believes are his supporters because contacted
c) the people who Hillary believes are her supporters because contacted
d) the people who got purged or changed in the last year

10) Any of these lists can be compared very easily to see which ones have more in common.

11) If a high percentage of still living breathing dependable Democrats are vanishing, DNC needs to know if those voters were identified by Not-Democrats and targeted (and investigate whether they were hacked by those with nefarious intentions in November).

12) If a significant portion of one candidate's supporters has the "vanishing" issue, that needs to be investigated, too.

Does that make sense? Simple "compare/contrast" with some random percentage of phone calls to find out if "things have changed without permission".