Jarqui
Jarqui's JournalIowa in 2016 is nearly a month later than 2008
which suggests Bernie's position is even better.
The spike in 2008 to get Obama within 5 pts or so of Clinton came just after the Iowa caucus on Jan 3, 2008.
If Bernie wins Iowa (Feb 1, 2016) and NH (Feb 9, 2016), you'll see a dramatic tightening of the polls to within single digits.
I was fearful of his presidency long before he won
I felt his election increased the odds of nuclear war substantially. I thought he was dangerous.
I was never sold on his intelligence or knowledge.
I thought he was a puppet of a president and the country was really run by those around him. I still feel that to this day.
I liked Kennedy, Carter and Obama as presidents - I thought all three were knowledgeable and bright and I generally liked their policies.
Johnson disappointed with Vietnam war which I protested but he did good too.
Nixon - he was a slimy liar long before Watergate - never liked him
Reagan - not bright, many reasons I didn't care for his presidency - in part because he personally wasn't up to the task
G HW Bush - Mixed feelings - maybe a little biased - worked in one of his think tanks
Clinton - good and bad. Bad was NAFTA and Lewinsky (the Lewinsky thing bothered me)
GW Bush - dumb as a f'in rock - couldn't stand him
I'm not so sure
The CNN poll said 32% of Clinton supporters would not vote, 54% would vote Obama 10% McCain, 64% would vote
54/64 who vote for Obama would be 84% of those Clinton supporters who vote
10/64 who vote for McCain would be 16% of those Clinton supporters who vote
The exit polls for Clinton supporters who voted broke 83% Obama 16% McCain
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p3
Not far off at all.
Harriet Christian, a PUMA voted for McCain and felt 3,000,000 of the 18,000,000 (16.7%) Puma Clinton supporters would - very close to the exit polls and CNN's poll before.
Lynn Forester de Rothschild of the top video quit the party and joined McCain
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/they-were-hillary-clintons-die-hard-loyalists-heres-where-they-are-now/2015/05/02/82025cf2-e92a-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html
Diane Mantouvalos, another ardent Clinton backer in 2008, .... Mantouvalos said, “I decided I’m done.” She did not vote for Obama.
....
Steve Rosinski, who was living in Los Angeles in 2008 and worked on the campaign doing everything from manning phone banks to planting yard signs, never gave up on Clinton.
He wrote in Clinton’s name in 2008, and even led a write-in effort for 2012.
MONDAY, JUN 23, 2008 07:15 AM EDT
Why Clinton voters say they won’t support Obama
The attack of the PUMAs, or a dozen reasons why Clinton voters are still too angry to come home.
http://www.salon.com/2008/06/23/pumas/
Party Unity, My Ass' - what the Pumas really stand for
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/07/hillaryclinton.barackobama
Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Dead-Enders Fight On
Clinton’s old supporters thrive in an alternate online reality of their own making. Party Unity My Ass.
posted on Oct. 16, 2012, at 1:06 a.m.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/hillary-clintons-2008-dead-enders-fight-on#.qdrkJPDx6
Looks to me like a lot of the top post checks out.
He destroyed Trump
Maybe Danny can get written in as a GOP candidate for the nest debate. Now that would get ratings!!
That's kind of the problem.
We've seen the logs of the current breach and heard from the data manager and all sides. They've got a fair handle on what happened there.
It's the October breaches that are far more mysterious. The guilty party there, which very, very likely isn't the Sanders campaign because they're the ones asking for an audit of that time, is going to stall as long as they can.
Video of those remarks to Code Pink on March 6, 2003
Didn't find a full screen version - it's been removed from Youtube. Hillary's quoted remarks start at 6:37
One other:
NY Times, Feb 18, 2007: Clinton Gives War Critics New Answer on ’02 Vote
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/us/politics/18clinton.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0
....
Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.
“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).
If that were true, you'd think they would document the failed attempt, like this:
"11:27:38 NH Attempts to run a search. At this point cannot access page sections."
It seems obvious to me that a log showing the activity of users suspected of taking advantage of a data breach with software that logs details of their activities would show attempts to export data like they showed for NV's Sanders data. But we didn't see any attempts like that. A common area for software to track activity is in error handling when the message comes back to the user saying "sorry you don't have security access to do that" (you write that out to the user activity log that that user tried to do something they were not allowed to do - it's technically very easy to pick that stuff off in nearly any software application)
When NGP VAN was responding to the breach - after the breach was reported, they said "While we investigated the issue, we restricted access to affected areas of the VAN product for all users and limited access to data exports." Why would they limit "access to data exports" after the breach if it was already blocked or the security limits were already in place? It seems obvious to me they would not need to do that if it was already secure.
Your position does not seem obvious at all to me. It's unlikely conjecture.
They were able to get one of their own Nevada lists exported
before their access was cut off and they were able to generate a summary report and export that.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/18/merged_document.pdf
"11:31:00 NV Logged into NV, ran a search on Sanders committee SQs, exported list"
(from near bottom of page 3)
I don't see why NGP VAN would tout NGP VAN having SQL capability, tout the ability of a campaign to add their owns fields, the Sanders campaign hire an IT Data manager who is capable of SQL (the SQL sentence I drafted is so quick and simple ...), the campaign design and implement their own fields to add to the data to the voter database ... and then leave the campaign in a limited position of not being able to get their customized data out.
Doesn't make tons of sense to me.
The uses more than one software application for their data
on the DNC server.
The vendor for the "modeling" software is who reported the October security breach to the Sanders campaign who, in turn, reported it to the DNC. The breach was apparently cause not caused by the NGP VAN software - might have been a third application that caused it.
Some of my source for that is at the start of this video of the Sander campaign's first press conference on this:
where campaign manager Weaver mentions the modeling software company (not by name but by "modeling" as a type of software)
Some of it came from Josh Uretsky's MCNMS interview
http://www.msnbc.com/thomas-roberts/watch/fired-sanders-campaign-staffer-speaks-out-588356675888
- where he maintains the October breach came from elsewhere - not NGP VAN
- which was corroborated by NGP VAN's blog
http://blog.ngpvan.com/data-security-and-privacy
Some of it came from subsequent media.
As campaign manager Weaver said in his press conference, they're "very confident" another campaign compromised the Sanders data last October. In light of that, it's hard to blame the Sanders campaign or Josh Uretsky for wanting to get to the bottom of it. The Clinton campaign may have accused the Sanders campaign of something they actually did ...
I can't vouch for every single word Uretsky said. Only a good audit can
I said more than once, if I were in his boots and someone had left my data naked for my competitors to see more than once before, as has been alleged, I'd do something similar to what Uretsky did and I stand up to the media and defend him. You cannot roll over and let your vendor or the DNC keep doing that to you.
If he hadn't done what he did, there's a good chance we wouldn't be having this discussion. Because his efforts gathered a lot of proof that the security of that data wasn't great - one security layer vendor controlled.
I generally believe what Uretsky said and feel the logs largely back him up.
I would have gone after O'Malleys data instead, if he's on that system and that data was exposed. And I would have stayed away from Iowa and New Hampshire to help keep the campaign's nose clean. (They'd probably be stuck to work on states that were coming up because that's where unique campaign data would be developed)
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 23, 2015, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 10,123
