DNC allies incensed by Clinton criticism
Source: The Hill
BY CRISTINA MARCOS
Irritated Democrats say Hillary Clinton is wrong to cast blame on the national party for her loss to Donald Trump.
Allies of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in particular were incensed by Clintons criticism of the party apparatus, saying she mischaracterized the committees work while needlessly stoking internal divisions.
This is all about the last campaign. And really, what Democrats should be focusing on, and what I think Hillary Clinton should be figuring out, is how do we empower the DNC to have the best data resources to win races this year, in 2018 and 2020, a former DNC aide said.
Having hard feelings about the data that you may or may not have received in 2016 ultimately is not the reason why we lost.
FULL story at link below.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/336001-dnc-allies-incensed-by-clinton-criticism
mdbl
(4,972 posts)i'm confused.
Demsrule86
(68,348 posts)This seems convoluted.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Not some imaginary DNC conspirators which is what you clearly mean
MichMan
(11,787 posts)Steven Maurer
(455 posts)...Hillary Clinton had a smaller margin of victory among the convention delegates than she did Democratic voters.
Doug the Dem
(1,297 posts)BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)just in time for the Russia-Drumpf probe ramp-up next week.
Good job!!!
yurbud
(39,405 posts)BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)BumRushDaShow
(127,302 posts)bucolic_frolic
(42,672 posts)seems not to have been the data Democrats had and shared with the DNC
or the Clinton campaign, the problem was that data was stolen by Russians
and shared with GOP operatives to target our voters minds and email accounts.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)You mean about all her "email" and Benghazi stuff? That was all over the evening news every day because the Repugs made sure to get a headline about it. So it was already everywhere
What did they do or say when they targeted us? And was it through emails or direct mailings or calls or what? How *do* you target a voter?
bucolic_frolic
(42,672 posts)Seen the news on using Facebook for disinformation lately?
Or the Florida GOP operative who had access to the hacked data
and knew our voters' voting patterns?
Some of these stories move faster on Twitter than the MSM.
former9thward
(31,802 posts)There is no evidence of anything you posted. But I am sure you will back it up with more tweets.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)mwooldri
(10,291 posts)Hillary may have a point. It may or may not be valid. But the fact is, Hillary isn't at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the DNC had a part to play too. Hillary lost. The DNC lost. Lots of Democrats lost. It's part of the soul searching process. Sure, vote rigging, Russia etc didn't help.
Besides, I think Hillary is perfectly entitled to express her opinions on why she didn't get the job.
BeyondGeography
(39,283 posts)You could say at this point they have more at stake than she does.
bucolic_frolic
(42,672 posts)with the current GOP Congress, she would already have been impeached,
tried, and convicted for having an email account in her home, with Donnie
sniping from the sidelines.
Legitimacy and sanity are not in power right now, but they are intact on
the sidelines, and their day will come.
Demsrule86
(68,348 posts)We would be under the gun, but not nearly in as much trouble as we are with Drump...the courts alone.
Docreed2003
(16,817 posts)In her interview at the tech summit, Sec Clinton clearly laid out the deficiencies in the party's tech apparatus compared to the RNC and the Mercer family. It was in no way a jab at the DNC and it would be hard to characterize it as such.
The interview itself was one of the most real interviews of any politician I've ever seen, particularly Sec Clinton. From the way that she responded to questions to the persona she exudes it was clear that she was showing her real self and for anyone on our side to criticize her for that, with no evidence to support their position, it reeks of axe grinding and personal gripes.
I've certainly had my own complaints about Sec Clinton, but that interview will never be one of them. In fact, I think she did more to highlight her genuineness, and her compassion and empathy for people at large during that interview than she ever showed on the campaign trail. She was funny, self deprecating, and clearly has studied the tech issues at play during the election and discussed them in a way that average people could understand.
SunSeeker
(51,368 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)StevieM
(10,499 posts)She wasn't blaming the DNC for her loss, she was discussing a success she had in improving the situation for future Democrats.
csziggy
(34,120 posts)I did a lot of work with the VAN database during the 2008 campaign. After the campaign I offered to volunteer to help keep the database up to date - I knew there were still sections of our area where calls had not been made, voters had not been verified, information still needed to be updated, and tools to improve the database needed to be added. The last was beyond my capabilities, but as a power user I could work with programmers to help them decide what was needed and to beta test them.
I was unable to do much during the 2012 campaign so I am not sure how much had been done in those four years. When I hosted phone banking events at my house in 2016 and made calls myself, I was appalled at how out of date the database was. MOST of the time we spent calling was to verify phone numbers and mark disconnected or wrong numbers. A good third to half of the calls I made ended up being disconnected or incorrect numbers. When we did contact registered Democratic voters all we did was try to get them to volunteer. We did absolutely no campaigning, no discussion of issues, just recruitment.
When I tried to volunteer in 2008 I thought it would be good to keep voter databases up to date and while doing that we could push voter registration - but the Democratic Party does not seem to care about either of those between elections. If we had volunteers working on those two items ALL THE TIME we could contact every unregistered eligible voter. We could work with felons to regain their right to vote. We could keep volunteers trained and engaged and not have to rebuild our teams for every single election. And lastly we could have the teams and enthusiasm for interim elections and not lose those every time.
The VAN database only includes registered voters - we need to expand it to include people who are not registered to vote so we can try to engage them. That is a major failing. With such a poor percentage of eligible citizens not registered, and with such an abysmal percentage of registered voters turning out, we are losing our democracy. The Democratic Party should be the leaders in pushing voter registration and voter rights, and fighting voter suppression. We make token efforts every four years but in between presidential campaigns it gets ignored.
Docreed2003
(16,817 posts)I think you would do well to turn this into an OP because it needs to be shared far and wide.
RockCreek
(738 posts)stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,069 posts)FULL story: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-dnc-data-pushback/
By Eric Bradner, CNN
Updated 6:08 AM ET, Fri June 2, 2017
Washington (CNN)Democratic data gurus are lashing out at Hillary Clinton after she complained publicly that her campaign was hamstrung by a party that had out-of-date information on individual voters.
Clinton said Wednesday in an interview with Recode's Kara Swisher that once she became the Democratic nominee, she inherited "nothing." The Democratic National Committee's data, she said, "was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it."
Her comments drew swift rebuttals from some Democratic operatives who built, or worked with, that data.
Andrew Therriault, the former DNC director of data science, lashed out in two since-deleted tweets, calling Clinton's comments "f---ing bull----."
"I hope you understand the good you did despite that nonsense," he said in a message directed to DNC data staffers.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Scum like him would be ripe for firing
karynnj
(59,475 posts)but defended their work. I would imagine that his boss, who is not HRC, would not be happy with his posting an opinion on twitter, but he may very well agree with it.
I think it might be time to reread a Bill Bradley op-ed from 2005 ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/a-party-inverted.html?_r=0 ). He speaks of how the Republicans with their foundations and echo chamber have a pyramid, where each election only the top of the pyramid changes - and that nominee's campaign has all of these resources. In contrast, he argued that we have an inverted pyramid - all balanced on the nominee. I would suggest that Trump inheriting that echo chamber in addition to the media he got for free almost because he was a train wreck - rather than data or GOTV superiority - was his advantage. I remember a fair number of articles suggesting Trump would underperform because he had few local offices and was weak on traditional GOTV.
In addition, EVERY Democratic nominee has had to essentially create what is a fairly big "corporation" from the point they win the nomination to when the general election starts. Consider that in the primaries, they can move people from state to state after a primary concludes. In the general election, they need local people in every state they opt to contest. I suspect that this could be part of what HRC might be alluding to. (I also think that she may have actually started ahead of most other non incumbent Democrats because her primary organization was closer in size to a general election team.)
Still, given that she herself is obviously sensitive to spoken and unspoken criticism that she bears some responsibility for losing, you would think that she would get that the DNC would be similarly sensitive. I was surprised that she would make a statement that hurts people who long supported her . DWS, was a 2008 Clinton chair in FL. At the time she was announced, the CW was that Obama appointed a Clinton person. The previous chair was Tim Kaine - who replaced Howard Dean, who was very good as DNC head, working hard to fix state parties so that they could develop candidates everywhere who could run when unexpected events mean we could win a race previously thought unwinnable.
Dean was reacting to the fact that the state parties were in a terrible state in late 2004 when he took over. In many states, they even had to outsource GOTV to groups that could not advocate for anyone on the ballot due to their tax code. He took over from MCAuliffe who had done a great job raising money, but had not used it to make the local parties better for 2004.
An interesting question is whether the PACs, including both hers and Obama's as well as ones like American Bridge, that competed for donations might have accounted for the poor state of the DNC. It would be interesting to know how much money the DNC had going into 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016. I think now may be as good a time as any to look at Democratic organizations and seriously look at how they are run and whether there should be better integration of DCCC, the DSC, and the DNC. In Presidential years, there is an additional question of how to connect with the Presidential campaign. (ie how did HRC or the Obama (OFA?) interact with the DNC?)
I was taken back by how Clinton spoke of the DNC, but I think that we need to look at our infrastructure.
scipan
(2,296 posts)I seem to remember that Obama wanted to get rid of DWS at one time but she fought back with her allies and threatened to/did accuse him of antisemitism. I think Dean was the best one and I hope Perez walks in his shoes.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
.whose data wasn't helping her. Ground organizers in the key states that gave electoral college margins to Trump were begging her to send resources to them to GOTV. They were giving her great "data". But her campaign ignored their pleas, which I hear were desperate, and instead poured money into old tactics of expensive TV ads in other areas.
Bill kept warning her to help those troops.
still_one
(91,951 posts)adequate
tazkcmo
(7,286 posts)The DNC was a mess. I wonder who was running it?
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)this is not a surprise.
DURHAM D
(32,595 posts)the Dems were/are stuck with VAN Votebuilder and it is totally last century.
OnDoutside
(19,906 posts)her wrong. It's a vital debate to get the DNC house in order.
still_one
(91,951 posts)with from the left, the right, and media
Whose brilliant idea was it to put Cornell West on the DNC rules committee, so he could grandstand afterwards and encourage folks not to vote for Hillary?
When I was a call banker into the swing states, the call lists were inadequate, old or similar ncomplete data, and the system went down more than it should have
SunSeeker
(51,368 posts)I did swing state call banking too. At least half of the numbers weren't good. The rest of the folks weren't home. I was lucky if I reached someone every 10th number called. Most of the time it was 1 in 20.
Our phone banking did improve those lists, since we reported whether we reached anyone and when numbers no longer worked. The DNC (and the next Dem candidate) can thank Hillary for that. One person they won't thank is Bernie, who refused to turn over his fresh list of numbers to Hillary in the general election, even after saying he would do everything to help Hillary win.
still_one
(91,951 posts)LonePirate
(13,386 posts)Interesting how the DNCer uses this wording: "data that you [Hillary] may or may not have received in 2016." It should be pretty obvious if she did or did not receive the necessary data so this "may or may not" weasel wording is very suspicious. Either this aide knows nothing and should never have been used as a source or this aide is uttering some CYA language and Hillary was correct with her assessment of the DNC's data problems.
SunSeeker
(51,368 posts)The DNC was not the data powerhouse that Hillary's opponents claimed...and apparently continue to incorrectly claim.
This is is a bullshit, shit-stirring article.
But hey, it's been a slow news day, so let's dig up opinion pieces for LBN, amiright?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)still waiting on that "taking responsibility" thing from her.
Did the DNC data team physically block her from campaigning in Michigan and Wisconsin? Did they force her to condemn 45% of the country as "Deplorable?"
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I don't think you're going to like it when you hear it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)includes just about everyone but Hillary Clinton and her campaign team
Really, really not interested in hearing her complain about the election while merely pretending to take responsibility. She is not the future, or even the present, of the party.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Kerry couldn't really say much as he was still in office, but Hillary can speak candidly so why not give let her give her side of the story? I doubt if any of the books in the pipeline will bother to.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Rather, it's an exercise in self-excusal.
Why do you think Fox News and Republicans click their heels together with glee every time she makes headlines?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)There's a lot she can tell us and what we make of it is up to us.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)she's choosing not to tell us any of the parts that might reflect poorly on her judgment
we don't need her to tell us that Comey, Russia, etc may have played a role. No shit.
But, pretending that any criticism of buckraking with Goldman Sachs, Deutschebank, etc in the wake of the subprime meltdown and Wall Street bailout is motivated by misogyny, come on.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)More to the point, Clinton talking about Russia actually undercuts it because then it does sound like an excuse.
If she's going to offer a post mortem analysis, it can't be self-serving and also be worth anything.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Comey and Putin take every opportunity to give their version of events and have much bigger megaphones so why object to Hillary giving hers?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The main reason for objecting to Clinton's re-litigation of the election is that it does not seem aimed at benefitting anyone other than Hillary Clinton.
It certainly doesn't help the party's goals of winning over swing voters.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)How would he publicly blame Hillary and Huma for his own unprincipled behavior in a closed session? As for swing voters how many are Googling Recode to catch Hillary's interview?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It's weird how people are claiming she never talked about that, or still say she never talked about policies or wasn't that same woman who spoke at Wellesley. It really astounds me because none of it is true. She's like a rosharch test, everyone seems to see what they want to.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)She explicitly said her own mistakes were not to blame for her loss. That's self-excusal, not taking responsibility.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)When people talk about Clintonian rhetoric, this one's a classic.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/hillary-clinton-speaks-at-code-conference-on-the-information-war.html
In one clause pretending to take responsibility, in the next clause denying anything is her fault.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And kind of wavers when asked if she should have lied to people like her detractors did. It's a shame but I think her analysis was spot on.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Did someone point a gun to her head to force her to give the "Deplorables" speech?
lack of central theme/candidacy rationale was the DNC's fault?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Could have tipped the scales. I think a lot of people are looking to point to their pet reason and they're all right in a sense, but basically it's unfair to ignore the other reasons. I thought she covered a multitude of problems and it was very honest.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Losing Wisconsin (where she never bothered to campaign)? Not her fault.
Losing Michigan (which she also ignored)? Not her fault.
Deplorables comments? Not why she lost.
According to Hillary Clinton, the only things that caused Hillary Clinton to lose were things done by people who are not Hillary Clinton.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Is it because she didn't own creating the data? She owned relying on it, and it was a mistake. Hindsight sucks but that's what it was. Anyway, this appears to be very personal about her, and I don't get it. I thought it was a very informative and honest interview- it's obvious anything less than falling on her sword and begging forgiveness wouldn't be enough for some people. I don't get it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Similarly the decision to sacrifice persuasion for turnout in their digital strategy.
She's blaming her bad decisions on the DNC data team. That's the opposite of taking responsibility.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)If I had to focus on one issue that I think mattered more than anything else, it would be misogyny and how it led everyone to grade DT on a steep curve. But I think it's good to examine all the mistakes in a forum like that. The point was to talk about the use- and misuse- of media, and it was enlightening for many I think.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)When Clinton starts offering insight into that (and the best insight would be a frank discussion of what she did that worked as well as what she did that failed) then I'll be all ears.
But when it's still "why I lost has nothing to do with what I did" zzzzzzz.
She's starting to sound like the "RIGGED!!!!" cries from Bernie die-hards in the primary.
JHan
(10,173 posts)"I should I should have" Yes, the Clinton campaign relied too easily on the meme that the Obama coalition was still strong ( when it started to get shaky even in 2012)
She acknowledged mistakes were made. It sounds like people do not want her acknowledging or speaking of other factors.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Other factor and it blows my mind when people down play it. I think she did a perfect job explaining how it worked too, which was helpful.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)we need in public pushing that story.
JHan
(10,173 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)The woman keeps saying to take her out of the equation : when you do you understand what *we* need to do to advance the party from here on:
Was the problem our policies ? no it was not.
was the problem our messaging? Maybe, but how did our messaging not reach out to voters: It's not as if Trump had superior GOTV efforts, he did not. So How do WE mount operations of the sort Cambridge Analytica did because it is not going to stop. Do we understand the terrain we're fighting on. As Lone Pirate said below, Clinton campaigned heavily in PA, so what happened there?
Take the individual out of the equation and you understand the impact of gerrymandering and republican state legislatures implementing voter suppression. It worked and it was funded in the way Clinton described "Citizens United came to fruition" - another System Problem that needs to be fixed at the Supreme Court Level.Again, We have to talk about Systems, not constantly calling for Hillary to say a bunch of magic words.
We have to get our data together, we have to be able to counter weaponized AI, we have to unite, and we have to fight voter suppression by pushing for voters to get their IDs and through grassroots activism.
Everything I said above Clinton mentioned in the interview, but the conventional take away apparently is "when is she going to take accountability".
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And it would be deeply dishonest not to discuss- especially at a tech communications meeting it would be a glaring lie or omission. Why would that be better?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But it is fair game to query whether her maintaining a high profile while simultaneously relitigating the 2016 election she blew (while excusing herself of any blame) is helpful for our efforts going forward.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)So I really can't go along with the criticism. I think she is -and was- held up to ridiculous double standards, and that sucks.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)that it will be received well.
litigating "the country was unfair to Hillary" is not a productive use of the party's energy
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)While it was going on, so it's actually been productive for me.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)but trying to argue that criticism of buckraking speeches to Goldman Sachs is misogynist does not serve the cause well
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)By people hiding their tax returns never made any sense to me, still doesn't add up. Literally reeks of double standards.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)gender equality, civil liberties, etc.
That's the kind of stuff generally that only college-educated elitists care about.
They'll take indulged resentments over transparency and good government any day.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Makes no sense, but whatever floats your boat.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)karynnj
(59,475 posts)Do you honestly think she could not get the entire time of any Sunday talk show if she offered to do it?
There was enormous coverage of her commencement speech and this entire thread is based on her speaking to a conference.
Not only is she not silenced, when she speaks, it is covered.
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)to talk about something else like what actually happened outside of her many detractors trying to smear her.
She is very specific and uniquely qualified to prod and goad Donald and add her knowledge about the Russian hacks. She was receiving intelligence briefings, so she knows where some bones are buried. Why shut her out.
LonePirate
(13,386 posts)She closed out her campaign in Philadelphia. A lack of visits to Rust Belt states is not what lost the election.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)May have helped with liberal turnout, but we have no way of knowing.
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)Did Jeff Weaver and Sean Hannity hijack yr account today?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and political resistance to Tr*mp?
1) Corey Booker/Kirsten Gillibrand/Kamala Harris
2) Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders?
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #89)
Post removed
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)or, if you prefer text,
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/23/politics/donald-trump-approval-poll/
"Despite Trump's low approval numbers, the poll showed him retaining support among his base, with 96% of people who said they voted for him saying they would do so again. The poll showed only 85% of those who voted for Hillary Clinton would do so again, with most of those who would not saying they would either go with a third-party candidate or not vote at all.
That difference in remaining support for the two candidates would mean Trump would best Clinton 43 to 40% in a hypothetical rematch today."
*********
The Democratic Party needs to rebrand, and the first step to rebranding is ending the perception that this is the party of the Clintons.
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)Then Hillary Clinton is doing you a favor. Taking the target off Booker's back for the time being.
There's not going to be a rematch. So I don't think we need to worry about that.
Do you remember that HRC had favorables in the upper 60's when she left State?
You're a smart guy, wonder what caused that drop? Could Booker's favorables drop too?
Take care and carry on.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)Hillary-hate is a strong drug, it is difficult for those folks to resist. HRC is the perfect shiny object.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)caused by the "both sides are corrupt" crap is a huge factor that those polls don't address at all. We lost because too many liberal voters stayed home.
I have no clue what you mean by the Clinton party, I've never known anyone intelligent to think or say that one person is the be all or end all. She is one voice among many. She isn't running again. It's bizarre to think she should completely disappear or represent what happened dishonestly.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)larger goals.
Her casting blame onto others is not helpful for any meaningful goal.
SunSeeker
(51,368 posts)Regardless of her mistskes, and EVERY candidate makes mistakes, she did not lose because of her mistakes. She was on her way to winning commandingly before Comey sent out that ourageous letter on October 8. That tanked her numbers and pushed undecideds to Trump.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)What mistakes has she admitted?
Also, that race was always a lot closer than it appeared. Trump's numbers went up every time he kept his mouth shut for 24 hours.
SunSeeker
(51,368 posts)To suggest otherwise is to ignore the facts.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)NY Times poll of Florida showed Tr*mp +4--and that was entirely before the Comey letter.
Is it possible it tipped the balance? Sure.
But it was a razor close race before the Comey letter, and she needs to own the fact that she couldn't put daylight between herself and Tr*mp.
SunSeeker
(51,368 posts)She had an unprecedented fake news operation aimed at her, involving collusion between Russians and her opponent's campaign. The FBI spy hunters were investigating this collusion, yet voters were not informed of that invesigation. We had the media treating the nothingburger about her emails like it was a federal crime, while normalizing Donald Trump. That she managed to be 6 points up (as the above graph shows) despite all that right before the Comey letter demonstrates her strength as a candidate. That letter demonstrably cost her the election.
BeyondGeography
(39,283 posts)FairWinds
(1,717 posts)Here in Ohio we have hosted campaign field workers in our home
for each of the past presidential elections, and spoke to them daily.
So we had a good idea of what the campaign was doing, or not doing.
Compared to the two Obama campaigns, in 2016 there was not a lot of GOTV.
I really don't care whose fault that was, but it needs to be FIXED.
And as I have written elsewhere, the Dems continue to ignore Right Wing
hate radio at their peril - it has poisoned the minds of at least two
generations of Americans, especially out here in the hustings.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)while she simultaneously went on a "reefer madness" tirade defending putting pot smokers in prison, in an election year when 7 out of the 8 states that had cannabis questions on the ballot voted in favor of fixing those types of stupid fucking laws.
That's called putting your finger up to which way the wind is blowing, and flipping it off.
Derp derp derp.
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts):lol:
underthematrix
(5,811 posts)they played part of HRC's interview in which she said the DNC was bankrupt. Her word not mine and she got nothing from them. Again her words not mine. Then Keith Ellison was interviewed about her comments and it just went from bad to worse. He didn't criticize HRC but his demeanor was weird.
A couple of takeaways. I never heard or read anything about the DNC being bankrupt. And I still don't like Keith Ellison.
SunSeeker
(51,368 posts)newblewtoo
(667 posts)and here you go with one such article:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/205977/dnc-goes-broke-arnold-ahlert
I am not sure what exactly went on with the DNC database but I found myself wondering if it was the same on President Obama used and made available in July according to this AP article.
https://apnews.com/1e0cd64b940f49fa99ecd3db11b86d3e/obama-campaign-machine-revving-elect-Clinton
QC
(26,371 posts)LisaM
(27,759 posts)Besides, I don't think the DNC does keep that great a database, from the stories I'm hearing here, and they also let a non Democrat drive a lot of the narrative during the election season.
I've donated to both the DNC and Democratic candidates over the years, and I barely hear from them. I didn't get phonebanked at all this year. The last call I got was in 2008 from an Obama volunteer. And I have been a registered Democrat for decades (and I'm still at the same phone number I had in 2008).
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Along with the Russian interference, misogynists, the Comey letter, voter apathy, and Trump's racism.
Nothing happens in a vacuum and to just say one or two things were the REAL reason why Hillary lose is just ignoring evidence and common sense.
We just need to accept that there were multiple outside and inside influences and work to correct those problems in 2020.
JHan
(10,173 posts)As corrupt? And beholden to corporate interests? Etc etc etc?
Bleacher Creature
(11,235 posts)But when it comes from Hillary, everyone's head explodes at the nerve of her to speak out about anything, much less an election loss that will scar the nation for years and years to come.
The Hillary hate is quite a powerful drug.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Hillary Clinton is a very smart politician, but not a data science expert. The data was good, it was how the data was used that is the problem. The Russians, and Republicans who the Russians provided the stolen DNC data to, were able to effectively use the data to microtarget voters in these states that the campaign didn't recognize as being close enough to steal. Data collection seems fine.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised.
In the days before Hillary Clinton launched an unprecedented big-money fundraising vehicle with state parties last summer, she vowed to rebuild our party from the ground up, proclaiming when our state parties are strong, we win. Thats what will happen."
But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.
The venture, the Hillary Victory Fund, is a so-called joint fundraising committee comprised of Clintons presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. The setup allows Clinton to solicit checks of $350,000 or more from her super-rich supporters at extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooneys house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John.
The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICOs analysis of the FEC records found."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670
SharonClark
(10,005 posts)The Hill loves to print articles with the intent of dividing the Dems.
Alice11111
(5,730 posts)Have DT again, if all we do is scream about how bad the Repubs are for cheating, the Russians, etc. His base loves it. All of the "fuck the Repubs" & "fuck DT" get us nowhere.
http://politi.co/2rpCyBj
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Run by the incompetent Wasserman-Schultz, they managed to lose 900+ statehouse seats, have abandoned entire states. It's no wonder they were kind of useless this time around.
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)I find it amusing that folks who told us the DNC-is-the-root-of-all-evil-in-the-universe are now falling all over themselves to defend it.
Because Hillary.
Let me know when you're ready to start calling out Republicans again.
Omaha Steve
(99,069 posts)I voted for Hillary.
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)the most vulnerable people in our country to the GOP wolves and a predatory capitalist like Trump.
One of the reasons I admire you.