2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDebbie Wasserman Schultz must go, and the case Bernie Sanders must make tonight
That at least is the view of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Clinton campaign, from which she takes her cues. They wanted the fewest possible voters to see the fewest possible debates. So we went from 26 debates in 2008 to six debates in 2016, three of them on weekends. Its called the Democratic Party, but no one other than Clinton and Schultz had any say in the matter.
On Thursday, the DNC told the press a contractor inadvertently breached a firewall in a software program exposing data files of presidential campaigns and that a Bernie Sanders staffer (Josh Uretsky, with the campaign three months) took the opportunity to sneak a peek at Hillary Clintons files. Sanders campaign instantly sacked the staffer but Schultz still cut off its access to data, a punishment she seems to have made up on the spot, thus bringing crucial outreach and fundraising efforts to a halt. Schultz didnt even nod to due process, pronouncing the death penalty without so much as reading Sanders his Miranda rights.
On Friday, Sanders campaign filed a federal lawsuit alleging breach of contract. It sought a restraining order and money damages that, assuming the facts set forth in the complaint, exceed a million dollars a day. It was a strong case. Uretsky may have behaved unethically but there was no malice aforethought the forbidden fruit fell in his lapand from the moment the campaign learned of his possible malfeasance, it acted honorably and swiftly. Schultz, conversely, appears to have acted without color of authority under law, contract or party rule.
The contract required written notice of termination and a 10-day grace period to cure any alleged default. Clearly the DNC was in violation, not Sanders. Because the contract put the onus for securing data on the DNC, it was liable for the breach as well. But the issue was bigger than mere contract law or political dirty tricks. In suspending the vital operations of a presidential campaign, Schultz trespassed on the right of all citizens to free and fair elections. Democrats could ill afford to be seen condoning her actions. Nor could they afford to pay her bills. If she acted without authority shed be liable for damages, but only if the party was as swift and honorable in dealing with her as Sanders was in dealing with Uretsky. The party also had to ponder the sworn depositions Sanders might now take regarding such delicate matters as who Schultz spoke to about her decision to impale him....
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/19/debbie_wasserman_schultz_must_go_and_the_case_bernie_sanders_must_make_tonight/
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)about the DNC regardless of his feelings. There is no upside to attack the Democratic party.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)His campaign?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)But I think Bernie should stick to the issues tonight.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)If Bernie Sanders is smart, he'll punt on this tonight. If he blusters, he's going to lose some followers. Both he and Hillary need to just let this thing resolve itself and demur on a discussion of it tonight. However, I doubt that will happen.
If Bernie does the "J'accuse!" thing tonight, he's going to take a 5%+ hit in the polls next week, and Clinton will move ahead of him in NH, the only state he's likely to win in February.
The audience for the debate will not be made up of DU-style Sanders supporters. A display of temper isn't going to go well for Bernie. You may have noticed that he has held his tongue so far. I'm betting he continues to do that tonight, pretty much.
"This is currently under investigation and litigation. I'm not going to comment on it here." That's the phrase that will work the best. If he uses that, he maintains his current polling numbers. If he blusters, he loses ground. Hillary and Martin would pick up points from him if he does that. I doubt he wants to lose ground.
I'll be watching to see whether he's smart enough to skate through this. I'm far from sure what he will do, but I know what he should do.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I wonder if Bernie realizes that it was a mistake.
Did they take their instructions directly from Bernie? Or was that also something that he had no part in directing, and they were merely mirroring his demeanor that they observed privately? Or were they just acting on their own? (In this case, I think any possible answer isn't one that is very flattering to Bernie.)
But with regard to his own demeanor at tonight's debate, that is something that he's personally responsible for. If he chooses to go-there with billowing and blustering, he'll have nobody to blame except himself.
It will certainly be interesting to observe.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)stand to see her miserable dishonest/untrustworthy numbers rise more and this DWS-DNC-HRC scandal feeds right into that touchstone problem.
If Clinton was getting good advice, she would bend over backwards to be transparent and to project independence from the DNC, but she likely won't do this because she's as bad as Trump at accepting and addressing her weaknesses.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)lost trust in DWS will start to translate to lost trust in Clinton. And Clinton didn't enjoy enough of that to begin with.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)through a robust and fair primary process and (2) she is widely distrusted by independents, young Democrats, and potential split-ticket-voting Republicans.
This scandal amplifies both of Clinton's weaknesses -- it further enhances the argument and widely held perception that she's fostering a process that resembles a a coronation with the DNC presiding rather than a primary with the DNC assuring a fair and unbiased primary and further amplifies issues of mistrust.
This is an epic fail for the DNC-DWS and Clinton.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)it is a tragedy, and it takes a long while to come to its enivitable conclusion.