As tptacek indicates, it isn't remarkable that the DNC was hacked or that this hack is legit. What is interesting is the content; Parts 1 & 2 suggest, but do not confirm, that the DNC was operating as an ally of the Clinton campaign.
E.g. lots of HRC defense docs, oppo research on Biden, prominence given to HRC in candidate position tableaus, etc.
Just by framing a comment like this you're taking the person who claims to have broken into the DNC at their word, that they're not releasing selectively to build a narrative.
You know, you are right. This is the framing of the narrative I have long suspected (and there is plenty of other evidence not related to this hack supporting the theory). It is possible that the DNC had similar oppo research on HRC that is unreleased. I regret the wording of my post because the reality is simply more complex (though I did mention that it was only suggestive evidence, not conclusive proof by any means).
Of course, my bias in accepting a narrative too easily isn't real evidence that the DNC did not act as allies: there is too much existing (confirmed) evidence corroborating that.
And, as mentioned downthread, the DNC could release documents showing that they did oppo research on HRC as well.
I mean it would be crazy for them not to do oppo research on HRC either way. How could they have HRC defense docs unless they also have oppo research...
This probably isn't surprising, since Bernie was openly considered the outsider, but it definitely doesn't mean it's right. But because it was basically understood this probably won't change anything.
Because for better or for worse, the DNC pretends to hold "fair elections" in its primary. Yet at the same time it's been favoring Hillary all along. Because of the elections thing, the DNC is supposed to be fair to all candidates and not try to promote one candidate over another, set-up more people to applause for a particulate candidate in the debates, send more flyers that promote one candidate over another, and so on.
If the DNC would just "appoint" its favorite candidate, that would be fine. It's kind of a normal thing to do in Europe, actually. But then, just like in Europe, the Dem and Rep parties would have to allow other parties in the general election as well, and set up a system that works for third parties, because chances are more often than not people wouldn't be happy with the main parties' "appointed candidates".
Both the DNC and the RNC want to maintain the pretense of "fair elections" within their parties, so that people think their voices are heard, so they don't need to join another party and form a competitive grassroots movement.
> Because for better or for worse, the DNC pretends to hold "fair elections" in its primary.
There is no such thing as the DNC's primary. The only Presidential nominating election run by the DNC is at the convention, when they delegates vote on the nominee.
State parties in some states hold elections in the nominating process in the form of caucuses. Primaries, where they are used, are run by state governments, not the DNC or state Democratic parties.
> If the DNC would just "appoint" its favorite candidate, that would be fine.
That's actually what the convention is: its where the DNC appoints its favorite candidate.
> It's kind of a normal thing to do in Europe, actually. But then, just like in Europe, the Dem and Rep parties would have to allow other parties in the general election as well, and set up a system that works for third parties, because chances are more often than not people wouldn't be happy with the main parties' "appointed candidates".
No, they wouldn't, and even when there was no pretense that the nominating conventions were anything other than insider-driven affairs (which only ended fairly recently with reforms in both parties to rest more heavily on either state-run primaries or relatively-open -- compared to how they used to be -- party caucuses to select delegates, or at least inform delegate selection) the electoral system did not support third parties any better than it does now.
> not try to promote one candidate over another, set-up more people to applause for a particulate candidate in the debates
The GOP already did this to Trump at one of their debates[1], and no one threw a big fit about it then. Not a Trump supporter or claiming that it's justified, just saying it's not unheard of.
It's remarkable that the documents show the DNC positioning themselves as an ally of a prominent Democrat in May of 2015 (and October, re: Biden) who was not the nominee and who hadn't been voted on by any American.
In other words: favoritism in a party primary by the party infrastructure is supposed to be verboten.
I honestly don't understand why this is surprising or problematic. Working to get Democrats elected is the purpose of the DNC. They aren't some disinterested third party. Of course they have memos on how to help Hillary Clinton run for office. And I'm sure they go further back than 2015 too. I'd hope they'd do that for many Democrats, but I'd be shocked if they didn't do tons of work to help someone as prominent as HRC.
> favoritism in a party primary
Do the documents show that or are you inferring it based on what hasn't been leaked?
Even if we grant that the DNC leadership thinks Hillary is the best... so what? It's a political party that takes public input from voters as one factor in deciding a nominee. The DNC shouldn't stuff ballot boxes and should try it's best to make the primaries as fair as possible, but to pretend they don't have like some candidates more than others strikes me as unrealistic.
Party preferences in a Democrats-against-Democrat competition while publicly declaring the party infrastructure neutral: not okay
That is, the DNC is supposed to be about promoting the chosen candidate to the American people, not actively picking one.
Nobody doubts that official favoritism isn't theoretically _allowed_ in a party primary, it just goes against the theory that it is a truly wide-open contest where the American people decide the direction of their government.
Remember superdelegates? The system is explicitly designed to not be a 100% democratic process.
(It used to be wholly decided by party elders in secret. I'm glad we mostly use primaries now, but I can see the merit of that approach. I bet the Republican leadership wishes that's still how it worked right now. )
2) The Democratic party's official position is not that superdelegates are a complement to a 100% democratic process but instead that they exist _solely_ to ensure that party leaders are properly seated at the convention and do not have to compete with grassroots activists for participation at the national convention.
I don't personally believe that (2) is a good-faith defense of what superdelegates are, but that is the DNC's position. And it's worth mentioning that there are valid reasons for superdelegates: how do you deal with a potential nominee like John Edwards, what if the convention is truly contested (with 3+ candidates and no 1st-ballot victory?).
The Republican primary went largely as it should have been, and arguably Trump should have received an even larger share of the final delegates. Voters expressed their preference and that person became the nominee (whatever I think of their preference is irrelevant).
Actually my read on Wasserman's quote (reproduced in another comment) is that superdelegates exist to promote the seating of grassroots delegates, the implied logic being that if the superdelegates weren't delegates, they would simply be elected in place of grassroots delegates with the result being a decrease in their representation (If I were the type to try and be a delegate, I really wouldn't want to run against Obama, Clinton, or Carter in their home districts)
Right, the two ways of looking at superdelegates that you and I describe are essentially dual. The point is that the purported intent of superdelegates is not to change the outcome (i.e. make the process not 100% democratic), as was claimed above. Now, if that's not true, then the superdelegate system is much more difficult for me to defend, as a party member. I'd be inclined to join a different party, like the Greens.
The Chair of the Democratic party (google for any number of sources):
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, let me just make sure that I can clarify exactly what was available during the primaries in Iowa and in New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates, those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support. And they receive a proportional number of delegates going into the — going into our convention.
Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists. We are, as a Democratic Party, really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention, and so we want to give every opportunity to grass-roots activists and diverse committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend and be a delegate at the convention. And so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn’t competition between them.
Since I must assume that you are not stupid, I have no choice but to be insulted that you think so little of the HN audience that you expect we would become convinced of your assertion after reading that statement.
That is, the DNC is supposed to be about promoting the chosen candidate to the American people, not actively picking one.
Neither the DNC or any other political party is obligated to hold elections at all. They're perfectly free to nominate a candidate by fiat if they want to. Clearly, as a matter of marketing, they want to be as inclusive as possible and not appear to be picking favorites. But that's purely a PR consideration, not a moral one. As a practical matter, one of the intermediate goals for anyone running for high office is to make sure they have a lot of supporters in the party infrastructure. Only in the general elections do "the American people decide the direction of their government." The parties are free to do as they wish, democratically or not.
Why a system that encourages interparty infighting is not a good thing for democracy.
Just switch to OMOV and have each state democratic party vote on a leader and have them run for president would save a vast amount of cash being wasted.
Political parties use to choose the nominees in smoke filled rooms. I don't find this at all surprising. Sanders spent a long term as an 'independent', so why should people whom he never supported or campaigned for, and never helped out, want to support him, and not the most popular candidate in their network, who has spent a political career building alliances?
Political parties exist for a reason, and that reason is not to run complete unbiased open primaries so that anyone may call themselves a party member and get unbiased support of the party.
Parties are biased, there's nothing surprising about that. Both Sanders and Trump are in effect, third party candidates, running campaigns trying to usurp the existing two parties into pouring support into their campaign, because third party runs don't work.
No doubt. Parties are allowed whatever method they choose to select their nominee, including the party elites backing a popular insider.
However, we shouldn't confuse that with a democratic process. We should also recognize that such actions by the DNC would contradict their public statements to the contrary, that they intend to remain completely neutral in the primary process.
If the situation were as you claim, then the parties would not have much of an argument against stronger, populist 3rd parties, because the 2 candidates served to the voters in the General Election would no longer reflect a representative choice of American voters.
It seems like Guccifer2 could easily craft whatever narrative he wants by selectively releasing documents. For example, he could release pro-Hillary material and withhold similar material for other candidates. Or, even without any malcontent on his part, the documents he nabbed may not be fairly representative.
Yes. That makes a lot of sense. One of the two largest political parties in the US should definitely engage publicly in a debate with "Guccifer2". Why didn't anyone else think of that?
If there's credible evidence that the party apparatus had decided that the fix was in from the start, they owe an explanation to their millions of supporters and rank and file members, no matter how silly the hacker's nom de guerre.
It's quite the opposite of remarkable - Clinton was not only the clear front-runner, she was ahead in all polls by a sizable margin (that Sanders caught up as much as he did is a credit to him).
Frame it as "DNC positions themselves as an ally of the predicted nominee given no strong challengers at that time" and it sounds pretty... normal.
Did any of the documents release suggest that they were helping HRC _against Sanders_? Or just that they did work that would help her against a GOP candidate?
And for all we know there are also documents prepared in support of Bernie Sanders which, if leaked, would paint the parallel picture of DNC supporting him.
And that's assuming these documents are complete and unmodified. Nothing stopped this hacker from selectively editing and selectively leaking to support their agenda.
It seems relatively obvious that the DNC would have had teams preparing for both scenarios. The only difference is that Sanders has been a viable candidate for a shorter period of time.
Are there leaked documents that contradict this statement? When they're not administering primaries, the DNC spends most of their resources trying to get nominees elected in general elections. Of course they've been working on strategy for Clinton.
If this were the case we'd expect similar documents on HRC. So far, all we have are talking points meant to counter various negative stories and narratives about her. There is an asymmetry here in the docs on each candidate and potential candidate.
That isn't exactly a balanced approach to adversarial research (which, I agree, is not a poor idea in and of itself).
It's also possible that the DNC prioritized its research based on who was most likely to win the primary. Hillary has been the overwhelming favorite for a long time now, so I don't think it's all that surprising that most of their work has been undertaken with the assumption that she would be the nominee.
I bet they have similar files on Lincoln Chafee and Martin O'Malley, but it would have been foolish to invest as many resources in developing those as they did in the HRC file.
I saw some opposition research guys in the UVM Bailey Howe Library late last year. They stood out like a sore thumb, dressed like hipsters--in the special collections room, and pulling multiple boxes on Bernie Sanders at a time. I'd never really seen someone pull that much stuff at once before. Then again, I don't visit special collections that frequently.
One of the people who work at the library contrasted it with when Howard Dean was running for president. There were opposition research guys from that election. However, instead of dressing like hipsters, they wore black suits.
E.g. lots of HRC defense docs, oppo research on Biden, prominence given to HRC in candidate position tableaus, etc.