The deep cynicism of Bernie Sanders's chief strategist

[ehrnst]

Tad Devine, during his run as chief strategist for the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, railed against the corrupting influence of money in politics.

He repeatedly echoed the Sanders message that “our economy is rigged,” that “special interests” buy politicians, that “all of the new wealth is going to the top of America,” that there is a “corrupt system of campaign finance” of which Hillary Clinton offered an “egregious” example. Sanders, by contrast, “supported the little guy.”

Those who heard Devine’s interviews and watched his Sanders TV ads therefore may be surprised to know that, in the years and months leading up to the Sanders presidential campaign, Devine was making gobs of money to secure the election of one of the world’s most corrupt political figures and then his allies.

......................................................................

Yanukovych was ousted in 2014 after he halted Ukraine’s movement toward the European Union, yet Devine offered to help Manafort’s efforts in the 2014 Ukraine election — for a price. “We are ready to take on this project,” he wrote to Manafort partner Rick Gates, for $100,000 per month (payable in advance), $25,000 per week of runoff, a $50,000 “success fee” and expenses including first-class airfare. In June 2014 — even as talks about the Sanders presidential run were getting underway — Devine went to Ukraine to help remnants of Yanukovych’s party reforming under a new name. “My rate for something like this would be $10,000/day, including travel days,” he wrote to Gates.


...............................................................................................................

In March 2014, Devine sent Gates a $100,000-per-month proposed agreement “to work on the election in Ukraine.” In court Tuesday, Devine said Gates had recruited him to work for the man who is now Ukraine’s president, billionaire Petro Poroshenko, but Devine didn’t wind up working on the project.

Just as well. It was almost time for him to launch the anti-corruption campaign of Bernie Sanders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-bernie-sanders-ad-man-who-played-paul-manaforts-game/2018/08/01/0df78c18-95c7-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html

[Cha]

1. Tad Devine is a Hypocrite.

Shame on him.

Thank You

[ehrnst]

4. With a record as an enabler of money grubbing murderous authoritarians

Looks as though Tad Devine actually became far more of what Hillary Clinton was accused of being than what Hillary Clinton actually is.

HRC speaking fees were chump change compared to what Tad Devine raked in promoting and placing into power a murderous authoritarian and his allies.

[Cha]

7. Yeah, it's sickening the way they Project.. you cannot make this shite up.

Fucking tad devine.. worked with manafort to install a "murderous authoritarian and his allies"

[ucrdem]

10. And we sucked down every tweet like a six year old sucks down Hershey bars

on Halloween ... some us anyway

[Cha]

16. Too bad we(those who didn't suck it down)..

didn't know then about ol Tad Devine's history in the Way Back Machine..

So now.. thanks to Robert Mueller!

[calimary]

68. Some of us. Not all of us.

Some others among us DID smell a rat.

[Renew Deal]

58. He's never been a major part of a winning presidential campaign

You know that whoever hires him will lose

[George II]

103. But he's gotten rich by losing.

[Hekate]

155. Which really begs the question as to WHY this would be the case

Has good old Tad ever thrown a prize fight?

[George II]

162. I don't know, but...

[Gothmog]

176. That is Devine's track record

[NurseJackie]

208. It seems that many people already agree with you...

... and many others are just now realizing the truth of your statement.

[Cha]

209. A mercenary

for hire? A hand in fucking up two countries?

Jackie

[Cha]

3. Oh yes.. the WHATABOUT Hillary? talking point.

Tad Devine is the one who worked with Manafort in the Ukraine.

[Cha]

8. Fucking tad devine.. worked with manafort to install a "murderous authoritarian and his allies"

[ehrnst]

13. Who are they defending? (nt)

[ehrnst]

20. Examining Tad Devine's record is "trashing Sanders?"

How?

[Eliot Rosewater]

169. I wonder why they dont want to know about it.

Like tax returns, voting against sanctions, etc.

If it was me, and it was at one point, I wanted to KNOW why.

[Cha]

23. Poor BS

[Cha]

35. Then how is it when BS calls the Democratic Party

"the party of 1% and Not of working people" Not helping the GOPutin?

Riddle me that, Chris?

[ehrnst]

39. "ignoring Dana Milbank blaming Bill Clinton for Trump"

You mean that your attempt to derail the topic by referencing another, unrelated article in an effort to turn this into refighting the didn't work, so you blame other people.

And ignoring your desperate efforts to derail the discusion of Tad Devine's record "helps no one but the Republicans."

Look, if Bernie was employing Tad Devine for his Senate campaign at the same time Devine was working for a corrupt politician in the Ukraine, that should be discussed, as Bernie is doing everything but announcing his intention to run for the Democratic nomination for POTUS in 2020.

NOT discussing it is what helps no one but the Republicans, who will whip it out in a heartbeat should Bernie get the nomination. Getting out in front of these things is always better.

If you think that Bernie can't handle this going public now, that shows you clearly don't have much faith in his ability to deal with it in 2020, do you?

[MaryMagdaline]

57. We're not ignoring anything

Last edited Thu Aug 2, 2018, 07:03 PM - Edit history (1)

The subject is Tad Devine. Is he or is he not a sell out POS? Concensus? Yes. He’s a mercenary, and any of our candidates who use him will be tainted.

You can start another topic about Podesta. I assume he’s mercenary as well.

The fact that Milbank has other controversial opinions on the Clintons doesn’t mean his opinion on Devine is off base. I think it WILL be an issue in future elections just how committed a candidate’s campaign strategists are to the liberal cause. Shouldn’t it be? Can you trust someone who really doesn’t care if fascism wins?

[ehrnst]

138. And he's no longer on DU.

For now.

[George II]

140. And it wasn't even the CORRECT Podesta!!!

It was Tony, John's brother.

[Cha]

22. Don't put words in my mouth, Chris Studio.

[R B Garr]

51. Devine and Manafort both ran the opposition campaign

against Hillary Clinton. We see the results.

What has to stop is not vetting candidates so we can uncover the connections/motives of people like Devine/Manafort who have direct and proven ties to the Kremlin. This explains the similarities in their approach to maligning Hillary.

[ehrnst]

24. It sounds like you are trying to trash Dems in a misguided effort to

defend Bernie via defending Tad Devine.

Do you think that Bernie will be harmed if Tad Devine's career is discussed?

Why?

[ehrnst]

65. Oh, you're trying to "unite the Dems" by trying to spread lies about John Podesta

in an effort to make a false equivalence between campaign managers, and using Tony Podesta's actions to boot...

You are the one making this about Clinton vs Bernie, and being divisive. This is a thread about Tad Devine, and his activities (which have no comparison to John Podesta's) in the employ of a murderous authoritarian's presidential campaign in the Ukraine. Yes, he was participating in those activities during the time Sanders was employing him as a consultant for his 2006 Senate campaign.

I await your evidence that John Podesta "made millions off of his firms helping dictators" like Tad Devine did.

Otherwise it looks like you are the one, as you so eloquently put it:

Defending making money from dictators that starve and murder women and children... If that's what this site and this party is about, why would I fucking bother?

That certainly doesn't give any credence to your claim of "trying to unite the Dems," or having any understanding of what site you are on.

I give you the benefit of the doubt of being a newbie, and not a troll.

[justie18]

75. False Equivalency

The post stated Tony Podesta, who is a lobbyist but was not part of HRC's campaign. His brother was, of course.

Talk about false equivalencies!

[ehrnst]

76. The poster has been told that - but replies with "they both made millions off dictators."

I'm beginning to think the poster is neither a newbie, or misguided about which Podesta is which.

The hatred of HRC is strong in this one...

[George II]

105. Who is "working with the Saudis"?

[MaryMagdaline]

54. Yes, why is it none of the people currently in power answer for their own actions

There must always be a comparison to Hillary.

[ehrnst]

6. John Podesta never lobbied for Saudi Arabia - that was his brother Tony...

Last edited Thu Aug 2, 2018, 09:10 AM - Edit history (2)

You seem to be confusing John Podesta (who left the lobbying firm in 1993, before they took middle eastern governments as clients) with his brother Tony. In that case, you are really stepping in it as far as your argument goes...

Please tell us how bringing Tad Devine's record to light is "fighting each other."

[ehrnst]

17. He ran campaigns to put authoritarian into power, and keep them and their allies in power?

Otherwise it's a false equivalency.

[Cha]

25. Oh bullshit, Chris.. quit desperately trying to shutdown

Tad Devine's Hypocritical history in the Ukraine with Manafort.. it's Not working.

[ehrnst]

32. I think you might want to explore what Democratic Underground's purpose is

being a newbie and all.

I would advise you do that very, very quickly.

[ehrnst]

52. You are confusing Tony and John Podesta.

Fact checking before you post in anger might prevent you from posting these kinds of embarassing mistakes.

John Podesta, 68, served as a top White House aide to the last two Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and was believed to be in line as White House chief of staff if Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency. In between campaign and White House stints, John Podesta helped to create and run some of the leading institutions on the American left, including the Center for American Progress think tank, and provided policy and political advice to generations of Democratic politicians and operatives.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/us/politics/john-tony-podesta-mueller-russia-investigation.html

[R B Garr]

53. Devine and Manafort. Devine and Manafort both ran

the opposition campaign against our Democratic candidate. Both have proven ties to the Kremlin. We should not allow one candidate to get away with not being thiroughly vetted.

[Adrahil]

81. Tony Podesta did not work on the HRC campaign.

You Whataboutism is utterly transparent.

[ehrnst]

93. And making false statements to support their whataboutism/false equivalency...

False statements that they have been corrected on, and continue to hang onto, in a desperate effort to smear HRC, in order to defend Devine - and by extension (in Chris' eyes) Bernie Sanders.

Too bad that people can't just absorb uncomfortable facts, and understand that one can support whomever one wants.

Tad Devine didn't do anything criminal in the Ukraine, so there is no legal issue casting a shadow on his concerrent participation in Sanders' 2006 Senate race.

It does raise some uncomfortable questions about a candidate's thoroughness in the vetting of their consultants, or their concern with their consultants other known activities. No candidate is without flaws, even Bernie.

Best that this is discussed now, before the presumed 2020 run for the Democratic nomination for POTUS, because you know that the GOP is already vetting any potential Dem primary candidate for dirt to bring out in the General. I'm betting Devine's full history and more is already in a file at the RNC, and has been for years.

[R B Garr]

83. Devine and Manafort. They enriched themselves all while conducting a campaign of lies

about our candidate and trying to smear her with feigned accusations. Now look what we have -- an insane wannabe dictator who supports Putin's regime of bombing women and children, shooting down passenger airliners, invading countries. Your hypocrisy is off the charts.

You have the wrong Podesta anyway if you want to malign Clinton more with inane lies by way of trying to throw people off the trail of DEVINE and MANAFORT.

[justie18]

36. Podesta clarification

Tony Podesta did not participate in the HRC campaign. He is the brother of John Podesta, so the parallel between Tad Devine and Tony Podesta does not work.

[ehrnst]

59. Apparently the Chris doesn't make a distinction.

Here is a PM from Chris when I pointed out the difference between the two:

[Squinch]

82. Hmm... a spanking new poster thinking about "walking away." I totally buy it.

In case it's necessary:

[gopiscrap]

185. welcome to DU

[Augiedog]

38. Ya gotta love apologists for war criminals

[Cha]

42. You gotta love apologists for tad devine working with Manafort

to install a murderous authoritarian.

[R B Garr]

84. What would be wrong with supporting the Magnitsky Act?? Are those types

apologists for murdering people who cross the Kremlin??

[ehrnst]

86. What war criminals are you talking about?

As if you have the guts to be specific.

No one here is apologizing for war criminals - with the possible exception of those here trying to portray John Podesta as Tony Podesta, in a desperate effort to make Tad Devine's resume look benign as far as Democratic POTUS campaign managers go.

But do go on. Chris seems to have dropped out of the discussion. Perhaps he's been humbled by all the fact checking on his false accusations of HRC's campaign manager "making money off dictators for years."

It appears you are in the same camp, so can you expound?

[Hekate]

161. Do explain

[mcar]

45. Ah, the "But Hillary" deflection

[Autumn]

46. Not just Podesta and Devine. Mark Penn's firms have been involved

in campaigns along with Manafort in the Ukraine. Ukrainian politics are particularly lucrative. These firms make big money overseas and as long as the money is there they will do it.
James Carville worked Ashraf Ghani’s presidential campaign in Afghanistan along with Devine’s firm. The Chicago-based media consulting firm AKPD that helped Obama win the White House in 2008, worked on campaigns in the Ukraine, Argentina, Bulgaria, Romania, Israel and Britain.

https://www.politico.com/story/2009/11/obama-consultants-land-abroad-029410

[ehrnst]

77. Why yes, that's so relevant to this article about Tad Devine.

Also known as a desperate attempt to change the topic, using whataboutism.

[Autumn]

79. Yes it is very relevant, thanks for acknowledging that fact,

I was sure you wouldn't, glad to see I was wrong. Here something else that is relevant.

Despite the pearl-clutching across the Internet, both on Twitter and from the likes of the New York Post, it’s highly unlikely that Devine had a hand in any Russian collusion. A top Democratic strategist for Al Gore and John Kerry’s presidential campaigns, Devine worked closely with Manafort in 2010 to elect the pro-Russian Ukraninan president Viktor Yanukovych. He left the team two years later, however, when Yanukovych began to indulge his autocratic impulses, jailing political rival Yulia Tymoshenko. (Manafort, it seems, had no such qualms, continuing to defend his work in Ukraine even after he was placed under house arrest.) It’s far more likely that his appearance in Mueller’s filing is mere context—a footnote in Mueller’s efforts to lay bare the nature of Manafort’s work in Ukraine.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/bernie-sanders-strategist-tad-devine-paul-manafort-files-mueller

[ehrnst]

87. Not seeing in your post anything to support your whataboutism or that negates the OpEd.

Can you be more specific?

I understand that going through Tad Devine's resume is difficult for some, but I think that it's OK to admit that it makes one uncomfortable without resorting to whataboutism.

[Autumn]

98. A post in a thread about Tad Devine, his work in the Ukraine. A post about

Tad Devine and other American political consultants is irrelevant "whataboutism"? Are you sure ? Consultants and political lobbyists making obscene amounts on money here and overseas in politics are a problem our democracy faces. Seems strange to me that would be irrelevant. How is it irrelevant? What about this one you passed over ? is this irrelevant?

Despite the pearl-clutching across the Internet, both on Twitter and from the likes of the New York Post, it’s highly unlikely that Devine had a hand in any Russian collusion. A top Democratic strategist for Al Gore and John Kerry’s presidential campaigns, Devine worked closely with Manafort in 2010 to elect the pro-Russian Ukraninan president Viktor Yanukovych. He left the team two years later, however, when Yanukovych began to indulge his autocratic impulses, jailing political rival Yulia Tymoshenko. (Manafort, it seems, had no such qualms, continuing to defend his work in Ukraine even after he was placed under house arrest.) It’s far more likely that his appearance in Mueller’s filing is mere context—a footnote in Mueller’s efforts to lay bare the nature of Manafort’s work in Ukraine.


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/bernie-sanders-strategist-tad-devine-paul-manafort-files-mueller


Is that "whataboutism"? That is part of his resume. Or you just would rather ignore it? Is there a rule a thread must be limited to what the OP wants it limited to or fits a certain narrative? It's still the same topic and very relevant. I do apologize if you don't like my post. If you can prove it wrong or that the facts in it are wrong I will be happy to delete.

[ehrnst]

125. Whataboutism:

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

US President Donald Trump has been accused of whataboutism in response to criticism leveled at him, his policies, or his support of controversial world leaders.[4][88][89] National Public Radio (NPR) reported, "President Trump has developed a consistent tactic when he's criticized: say that someone else is worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Or, in your case, that someone (or multiple people) else who is connected to a public figure you want to criticize is "equally as bad," and deflecting from, and avoiding rather than directly addressing the actions of the person you are defending. And by extension, defending the public figure they are connected to.

Since no one is using Tad Devine's past clients and actions to "defend" those other people you are accusing, the Whataboutism is on your part, and it fails to meet the definition of pointing out a double standard on the part of people commenting on Devine's actions as stated in the article of the OP. It appears to be overdefensive, actually, especially when one has stated unwavering faith in the public figure associated with Tad Devine.

Is that clearer?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

127. .

[Autumn]

141. A perfect whataboutism .

Whatabouthimism, whataboutherism are so overused. My favorite is Lalalaism, but owls don't have fingers. That makes me sad.

[ehrnst]

187. Got nothin, do ya?

You left out "whatevs."

[Autumn]

189. What's irrelevant is "whatevs."

[ehrnst]

190. I just said that you left it out of your

self-consciously "nonchalant" avoidance of actually addressing the post, while trying to look like you weren't avoiding doing it.

"Whatevs" is the usual way one does that.

[Autumn]

192. I addressed the post very well.Are you now the post police?

You are offended over my response to another persons post ?

[ehrnst]

193. You can continue to post non-answers

if you think that makes it look like you are actually responding and "getting in the last word."

I'm just letting you know that it's obvious.

The "are you the post police?" takes it one step beyond the "Whatevs" level of frustration.

Carry on....after all, how can I be the "post police" if you don't keep on posting?

[R B Garr]

143. Devine and Manafort ran the opposition campaigns

against our candidate. Devine and Manafort.

[R B Garr]

144. Article title: "The deep cynicism of Bernie Sanders'

chief strategist.” You should read the article. The hypocrisy is off the charts.

[Autumn]

146. There you go again. Did you read this?

Let me give you one sentence.

Despite the pearl-clutching across the Internet, both on Twitter and from the likes of the New York Post, it’s highly unlikely that Devine had a hand in any Russian collusion. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/bernie-sanders-strategist-tad-devine-paul-manafort-files-mueller

I have no fucks to give about Devine but some are hell bent on Bernie being a part of the Russian collusion due to their past history. Everyone has a history with someone not 100% on the up and up. To think otherwise is rank hypocrisy.

[R B Garr]

147. I do give a f**k about Devine. How absurd that

you don’t. You don’t have to be under indictment to be exposed as a fraud and a hypocrite. You should read the article.

That’s funny you are now trying to insinuate that just knowing other people is suspect. What is suspect is that BOTH Devine AND Manafort worked on the opposition campaigns targeting Hillary. That explains a lot. You should read the article.

[Autumn]

156. Try reading what I posted and stop trying to misrepresent what I said.

I never insinuated a damn thing.

There you go again. Did you read this?

Let me give you one sentence.

Despite the pearl-clutching across the Internet, both on Twitter and from the likes of the New York Post, it’s highly unlikely that Devine had a hand in any Russian collusion. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/bernie-sanders-strategist-tad-devine-paul-manafort-files-mueller

I have no fucks to give about Devine but some are hell bent on Bernie being a part of the Russian collusion due to their past history. Everyone has a history with someone not 100% on the up and up. To think otherwise is rank hypocrisy.

People are spending more time on a witness to a criminal case than the man being charged.

Your opinion of not giving a fuck is vastly different than mine. You are willfully twisting what I posted, so to avoid the drama I will save us both the bother and not respond to you again about this.

[R B Garr]

167. You keep trying to divert attention away from Devine and Manafort

BOTH working on opposition campaigns that targeted Hillary with similar material. This isn’t about so-and-so or his brother knowing other people and other inane and irrelevant sidebars to deflect attention from Manafort and Devine.

You don’t have to be under indictment to be exposed as a fraud and a hypocrite. That is what is happening. You should read the article.

[bettyellen]

153. That timeline has been totally debunked by recent emails. That he lied about the timing and those

lies are still being dragged out is very concerning. You really need to catch up w the news and stop posting discredited information.

[lapucelle]

182. This "fact" appears to be wrong.

If Devine stopped working with/for Manafort in 2012, why are there emails in evidence from 2014?

He left the team two years later, however, when Yanukovych began to indulge his autocratic impulses, jailing political rival Yulia Tymoshenko.

I wonder what talking points Devine was exchanging with Kilimnik in 2014.

[lapucelle]

188. Devine was working with Manafort and Kilimnik in June 2014,

only five months before Devine signed on with BS. The "facts" you quote say Devine stopped working with Manafort in 2012. That fact is wrong.

You also said:

"If you can prove it wrong or that the facts in it are wrong I will be happy to delete

Will you be deleting?

[Eliot Rosewater]

170. What a smart, patriotic person would do is want to know the truth, period.

Who did what and why.

Who benefited from it.

Who is connected to who and who is NOT?

Also I have noticed from outside the board when this comes up there is an onslaught of very adamant new posters trying to push this away, change the subject, and one has to wonder where do they come from? How do they know we are even discussing it?

I have my suspicions.

[mcar]

173. That's an excellent question, Eliot

Also I have noticed from outside the board when this comes up there is an onslaught of very adamant new posters trying to push this away, change the subject, and one has to wonder where do they come from? How do they know we are even discussing it?

[Eliot Rosewater]

174. I am not implying the Bernie people here are involved, actually. I think

the GRU or well really they are the KGB and the GOP have a joint effort going to continue to divide us and they know exactly how to do it.

It should be simple, smart liberals DEMAND disclosure and non disclosure TELLS us something!

[mcar]

181. I'm all for transparency

[R B Garr]

183. Exactly. Some were not too interested in the Russia interference scandal, but now that

Devine is connected, all of a sudden it's a huge push to control/change the narrative. I have my suspicions, too.

[stevenleser]

205. Yep, particularly your last paragraph

More in pm

[George II]

120. That's TONY Podesta, not John Podesta. I don't think Tony worked on any....

....domestic presidential campaigns. Throwing that name in here is irrelevant.

People like to toss in AKPD, too. That was originally David Axelrod's company, but he'd already severed ties with them in order to work on Obama's campaign before AKPD began their work in the Ukraine. AKPD itself didn't help Obama win the White House.

All this "whatabout him", "whatabout her" is, again, totally irrelevant.

As far as I know none of those people who worked for domestic campaigns AFTER their work in the Ukraine other than Manafort and Devine. Only one has worked for domestic campaigns both before and after his work in the Ukraine.

None of those people mentioned were partners in a campaign with a man who is currently on trial for money laundering and bank fraud.

[ejbr]

47. +1 n/t

[MaryMagdaline]

50. "We" are not fighting each other. Tad Devine is not one of us

Not a single DU member would have worked for Yanukovych ... not one. Devine is a mercenary.

[ehrnst]

133. +1000

[MrsCoffee]

60. Big difference. The Clintons have shown decades of tax returns and withstood

the most obnoxious vetting possible.

Sanders can’t even produce one tax return and got a pass from the media.

This whataboutism is gonna backfire big time.

[Skidmore]

71. Yes. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

171. There is a reason and a SERIOUS one why we cant see them!

[KPN]

88. +1.

A little objectivity is always refreshing.

Tad Devine is obviously an ethically bankrupt creep. As are many political strategists/consultant/marketers. He is not the only or the first one. There are lots, e.g., Dick Morris.

[R B Garr]

90. Do we get to quote anti-Bernie folks about who cost Hillary the Presidency??

Or is this a one-way street Clinton bashing only type situation? Because I could find way, way, way more that supports the first type of thing I mentioned. Way more than a teeny Dana Milbank quote. Way, way more, indeed.

[brer cat]

12. It sounds like Devine, like Manafort,

was nothing more than a hired gun with no moral compass. Money speaks and these guys jump in to milk all they can.

Devine, who had worked on Sanders’s first campaign for the Senate in 2006 (the same year he plotted Yanukovych’s comeback), earned more than $5 million for his firm from the populist Sanders presidential campaign and at least $10 million in commissions split with another firm, according to a Slate tally.

At least for Devine, the 2016 campaign had nothing to do with helping the "little guy" but everything to do with grabbing as much of the campaign millions as possible for himself. So much for getting big money out of politics.

[ehrnst]

33. Working for Ukraine authoritarians and Bernie's senate campaign at the same time.

Last edited Thu Aug 2, 2018, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Did Bernie vet Tad?

Was the demonstration of Devine's tactics in the Ukraine campaign a plus?

[Eliot Rosewater]

172. Questions a patriot would ask.

[George II]

129. That "other firm" is Old Towne Media, LLC, a media company about which very little information....

....is known.

It was the biggest beneficiary of the Sanders campaign to the tune of $83 million, 32% of the campaign's entire expenditures.

[Brogrizzly]

15. Focus people, Republicans!

I mean the dudes name is Tad, enough said on him already. But for the love of all that is holy and good, just take a moment, check the ego, think before you post.
Here’s a little hint:
If you have something bad to say about Clinton or Sanders or ANYTHING not related to kicking the guy who’s actively kidnapping children out of the White House like seriously, just please. Stop.

You’re right Cha, it was offensive. Apologize. I’m just so tired of the harangue on anything to do with Sanders, Clinton, 2016...

[ehrnst]

18. STFU? We're not supposed to talk about Tad Devine's political resume?

Why?

[Cha]

21. You're insulting with your "STFU".. who are you to

tell anyone to "STFU"?

[irisblue]

26. Telling ppl on a discussion board to STFU isn't really an effective point

[brer cat]

27. WTH does the name "Tad"

have to do with anything? Are you trying to make a point here?

And you are seriously telling us to STFU? This is a discussion group so we discuss; this thread is based on current news and most of us are quite capable of multi-tasking. The OP was not about Sanders or Clinton.

[Brogrizzly]

28. *Facepalm* look at the title

[brer cat]

40. What "title" has something to do with being named "Tad?"

[ehrnst]

29. This isn't about 2016, Sanders or Clinton. It's about Tad Devine in the years leading up to 2014.

It's about his record in the Ukraine.

[JI7]

30. this is related to trump. Hillary was the victim of the Russian attack on the elections

[ehrnst]

34. Apology accepted. (nt)

[Cha]

37. Thank you, Brogrizzly.

[Brogrizzly]

41. I just get so damn mad

I sit here and read these threads, I don’t post much. But this morning I was reading about the girls no one have seen, and inside I am raging.

Nothing at all personal, I rarely get emotional over something I read. But they still havent allowed anyone in to see these poor girls, then I think of my daughter being taken away. I teared up and just got mad as hell inside.

So please, I’m sorry everyone, you all make good points, I just got mad at the idea we are arguing over Tad Devine, and not that vicious egomaniac.

[Cha]

44. Yeah, I get mad, too.. and sometimes

it's too much to keep reading and posting about the vicious egomaniac as you so aptly called him.

Just taking a breather.

[ehrnst]

55. We can talk about more than one thing - the Manafort trial and the child abductions. Otherwise

how could we be talking about the dozens of things going horribly wrong under this administration?

Talking about this doesn't take away from anything else that is being discussed all over DU and social media as we speak.

I am upset at local laws where I live that make penalties for animal abuse less severe. That doesn't take away from the frustation that I have at the current administration, and I would not scold anyone for thinking that opposing those local laws is worth their time and energy with "ignoring" what is going on in DC.

It's frustrating and overwhelming, I know.

[Eliot Rosewater]

177. If only the attack of the D party would stop, maybe others would but it wasnt but

a few weeks ago Mr. Sanders attacked us again.

[Brogrizzly]

184. ...yeah

No, I get it. I guess where I see things, the prescient issues are more urgent in my mind. Tad Devine discussions aside, I worry that theirs so much infighting. It’s hard to see past it. Especially when Trumps policies are literally killing people, putting kids in cages, it bums me out just to type them. But, I mean I get it, Hillary’s defeat still stings deeply. Especially now, especially with the more sunlight that is given on the Russians helping shitgibbon steal the election.

My hope is people do see, we as Democrats aren’t all the same, we can care about different stuff, like a different candidate or whatever, but, and it’s a big but, all that truly matters right now, is ending the right wing coup that’s underway and that requires a certain level of solidarity.

But don’t let me Kilgore Trout ya...

[Eliot Rosewater]

194. Yeah, sure...

[R B Garr]

197. How laughable. A political "consultant" is being exposed as a hypocrite,

and you want everyone to shut up about it. Uh, no. Especially not after the damage done to our nominee.

You should be happy this is happening. Getting it out in the open is very cleansing. We need to be vigilant against hypocrites and destructive attacks against our party, especially when those doing the attacks are exposed as yuge money makers who are profiting from it and have known Russian connections to the Kremlin. No more.

[Brogrizzly]

201. Look, I get your dig, maybe it's deserved.

I understand the justified anger at Tad, but, as far as issues I’m personally concerned with his actions, what he may have done to hurt Hillary, while important, are not as important as what’s happening right now.

I just think it’s way more important to focus on the immigrant children, Kavanaugh, Muslim ban, the list goes on and on...

So yeah, I get your point, but starting flame wars over Tad(who I can’t stand) distracts us from the very real threats killing people. I got heated and sad yesterday, just felt it was turning into a Bernie vs Hillary shit show thread, that I can’t keep but thinking theirs a Russian troll somewhere cracking up at.

Anyway, yeah, sorry if I offended. I just got so damn mad at the articles about the girls and the abuse going on...don’t need to rehash. Have a good one, peace.

[R B Garr]

202. Watching and commenting about current news certainly

isn’t a “flame war”. First you have to expose the hypocrites who give lip service about integrity and superiority but then do something different to enrich themselves. Hypocrisy.

That hypocrisy is why we have Trump, so exposing it is job no. 1. Trying to browbeat people to shut up about hypocrites who cost us in the election is a really odd focus, sorry, not sorry.

[Brogrizzly]

203. Right, well I'm thinking more of an argument of past vs future tenses.

Contextually speaking, one can read the thread title and see how it would illicit a negative response from someone on the Bernie side of things, a bit dark, read to me as instant flame bait.

Then later on you got the Russians trolls with the Podesta stuff in it.

Then you can read where people are jumping on toes, I guess to me that’s where I feel frustrated.

Like when I read another Jill Stien, or Sarandon thread. I’m scared we dunk ourselves in righteous anger and miss the more pressing issues. Tad Devine as much as a hypocrite he is, along with the other two I named above, is a “past tense” problem to me, the present issues notwithstanding are dire.

You are absolutely 100% correct in that my browbeating as you put it, was uncalled for. I apologized, was just mad in that moment.

[R B Garr]

204. Your concern is noted. A lot of concern over upsetting

people with facts. Facts in the news, even.

Susan Sarandon and Jill Stein are why we have Trump, and that is not in the past. We should stay concerned with calling out the facts that are being exposed about these hypocrites, Tad Devine being the most obvious one now currently in the news. It’s long overdue to call these hypocrites out. We have to live with the results of their lies and be vigilant about exposing their lies.

If you read the article, you can see it’s about exposing Devine’s hypocrisy. No one should shy away from good information just to try and get people to shut up.

[Hortensis]

31. A person closely connected with Manafort being

embedded in the Sanders campaign while Manafort ran the Trump-Russia campaign is highly questionable. Devine's one degree of separation isn't nearly enough, and $100,000 a month salary is way too much.

The Mueller investigation has of course established that Russia was promoting the Sanders candidacy in an attempt to defeat Democrats and elect Trump. Sanders has been forced by scrutiny to admit he knew Russia was using him to defeat his own party. He is also known to have lied when he claimed he alerted the Clinton campaign. He did not.

[Me.]

118. Facts

"Sanders has been forced by scrutiny to admit he knew Russia was using him to defeat his own party. He is also known to have lied when he claimed he alerted the Clinton campaign. He did not"

Except for one thing, it really wasn't his own party, he was just a freeloader.

[Hortensis]

132. Even though he was only temporarily on the Democratic Party teat,

Sanders is STILL freeloading on the enormous resources of the Republican Party, of right wing billionaires, and of the Russian Federation. He is STILL echoing many of their hugely funded anti- Democratic Party messages as his own and STILL allowing Putin to then amplify his statements against us without identifying the major conduits and calling them out.

Nearly 20 months after the subversion of the 2016 election and 3 months out from the midterms, Sanders STILL has never denounced and defanged Putin's assistance and lead his followers against this warfare.

$27 average donations my behind. The occult funding that created and continues to further "the Sanders phenomenon" is almost all from the corporations and other "special" interests he claims to have nothing to do with.

[Me.]

142. And Yet

he still has people here and elsewhere fighting fiercely for him.

Interesting point about his fundraising which I read on a tweet someone referenced.

Six years ago he spent $1.1 on his senatorial campaign. At the moment he has more than 9 mil in his coffers and no viable opponent. Yet he keeps sending out requests for $3....half for other running candidates and the other half for him.

[Hortensis]

159. :) He seems to have been trying to build a power base

by using his name to bring in money to use to elect people who will stay loyal to and advance his agenda. A very old tactic.

Senator McConnell's done that extremely successfully for decades (his agenda personal power), all through the time Sanders has been in office certainly, but Sanders apparently didn't take notes. Few of those he's endorsed have been likely to be elected and in any case typically owe little to him, and thus his agenda. Gratitude for a joint appearance or two and a robocall on election night would have a very short half life. Plus, most by type are more prone to opposition and dissension than loyalty, and his newbies aren't just amateurs presumably looking up to him but are also unknown quantities as far as vulnerability to selling out to someone else.

McConnell's never made these mistakes. Lol -- his choices would sell anyone out by definition, but he advances those who repay investment and primaries those who don't.

[Eliot Rosewater]

175. What we need are people to get to the point where single payer is less important to them

than running the risk that we are being played by putin.

The desire for justice in economics has people willing to go down some bad roads.

Your entire post is the truth and I dont know if we have much time left , people better smarten up and quick.

[Hortensis]

191. Absolutely. It would also help if they realized

we are at grave risk of losing all progressive healthcare programs in America for perhaps another generation.

Failing to understand this and commit to fighting what the right is doing is inexcusable. It is not only our own lives that are at stake.

[Eliot Rosewater]

195. ANY Comment that we should not focus on Russia is a KGB talking point, btw

[Hortensis]

196. +1000. So is the claim seen everywhere that

the Democratic Party is now going socialist.

They, and he, didn't push that idea in 2016 because they were using Sanders as a spoiler to try to get the mainstream vote. But now they and our own right wing smear machine are pushing this idea that frightens a large majority of Americans with everything they have. They believe that is how they will retain power in November.

[mcar]

43. K&R

[Lulu KC]

48. It's the contrast

If I didn't see Bernie and bros as purists and quick to insult those beneath them, it would not be so fascinating. It is really kind of fascinating but life is too short.

Moving focus today to the Blue Wave. Eye on the ball.

[progressoid]

49. .

[ehrnst]

70. . .

[DFW]

56. A mercenary is, after all, the ultimate cynic

They fight as hired guns. You pay their fee, and they will fight for you. Some with guns, some with words.

Tad Devine is probably small potatoes compared to someone like Frank Luntz, who discovered something like 20 years ago where the most money was (Republicans). Luntz is probably so rich at this point, he just takes on big projects that put millions in his pocket in one go. Luntz makes no secret of it: he works for the highest bidder, and the Republicans have more money than we do.

A mercenary doesn't care who's right or who's wrong. To them, there is no right or wrong. They only care who pays, and they work hardest for those who pay the most. That observation hardly "bashes" those doing the hiring, but nor does it disguise that they knew perfectly well who they were dealing with.

[ehrnst]

61. +1000

[louis c]

62. You know, what I like to tell people...

...is that a candidate is most popular before he or she announces. Then the meat grinder starts. To all of you who think Bernie would have been a cinch in the general election, if only he got nominated, I say, that's in dispute, considering he never got the scrutiny that would entail.

His wife's problems at the college. Their honeymoon in Russia. His position on guns. Tad Devine's connection to Manafort (this could have been done to suppress the vote). His crazy son (who Bernie won't endorse). Bernie's college writings that allegedly demeaned women. These are just a few items that were only surface scratched.

Look, I would have campaigned my ass off for Bernie in the General. I knew what was at stake. But let's not kid ourselves that Bernie would have remained unscathed through the process. Bernie benefited by being treated with kid gloves by Hillary, because she needed a untied party in the end. On the other side, they wanted a stronger Bernie to undermine Clinton. So, before we assume Bernie would be popular no matter what, let him survive some intense, right wing, repetitive bull shit to prove he'll be resilient in the end. Let's not just assume it.

[progressoid]

67. It's a good thing it is brought up here daily.

Because as Democrats, this is an important topic we need to deal with right now.

It's not like we have a crucial election coming up less than 100 days or anything.

[louis c]

72. It was Sanders's voters who stayed home, voted 3rd party or wrote in in 2016

Did you ever wonder why the Russians targeted Sanders voters with the DNC emails? Or why so many fell for the scam?

[progressoid]

99. Really? Got some stats to support that opinion?

From what I've read, Sanders supporters came through for the Democratic nominee better than voters were in the previous contested election. Exit polls show that 12 % of Sanders supporters voted for Trump over Clinton. Compare that with 2008 when 17 % of Clinton supporters voted for McCain over Obama.

So even after all the Russian interference, Sanders supporters still voted for Hillary at a higher rate.

[louis c]

101. You want to compare McCain to Trump?

How many people who stayed home were in the exit polls? What about voting 3rd party? Your comparison is just Trump vs. Clinton. There are no statistics on Stein, Johnson, write in of Sanders' name, blank or stayed home.

I never mentioned that Bernie voters voted for Trump. They didn't vote for Hillary. That's the point.

So, got some stats to refute that?

[progressoid]

114. I'm not comparing McCain to Trump.

You ask, "How many people who stayed home were in the exit polls?" The same should be asked about all demographics. Oh, wait. It was asked. And virtually all groups showed up in lower numbers to vote in 2016. For instance in Wisconsin, Trump got the same number of votes that Romney did in 2012. But Clinton got 230,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. This 200,000-vote victory margin for Obama became a 30,000-vote defeat for Clinton. The same thing happened in Michigan. Obama won MI in 2012 by 350,000 votes, Clinton lost by roughly 10,000. She received 300,000 votes less than Obama did in 2012. In just those two states over a half million voters didn't show up.

Let's not forget that 42 % of Union Members voted for trump.
Registered Democrats: 8% voted for him.
LGBT voters: 14% voted for trump.
Latino voters: 28% for trump.
Asian voters: 27% for trump.

Ooo, then there is this...

A new study co-authored by political science professors and a policy analyst from the think tank Demos finds that Donald Trump’s electoral college victory in November depended heavily on an increase in white voter turnout and an even bigger decrease in turnout among African-American voters—particularly in the key swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Comparing data from the voter file vendor Catalist and the U.S. Census Bureau, the researchers concluded: “Without those shifts in turnout from various racial and ethnic groups, these pivotal states might have gone not to Trump but to Clinton — giving Clinton an electoral college victory.”

The study, published Monday in the Washington Post‘s Monkey Cage blog, found that between 2012 and 2016, white voter turnout jumped 2.4 percent nationally, while black voter turnout fell 4.7 percent.

The split was even more dramatic in the midwestern states that tipped the scales for Trump. In Ohio, black voter turnout dropped 7.5 percent; in Wisconsin, it declined 12.3 percent; and in Michigan, it was down 12.4 percent.

Sorry don't have time to get more stats for you but they are out there if you really want to know. Hope re-hashing this helps us win the midterms!!

[louis c]

115. That doesn't explain the Sanders' voters

You sure can provide a lot of irrelevant knowledge.

Show me how many primary Bernie voters didn't vote for Hillary in the General.

That's the only fact in dispute. The rest of these charts and graphs don't prove your point at all.

[progressoid]

130. It's not irrelevent knowledge

You made the assertion that "it was Sanders's voters who stayed home, voted 3rd party or wrote in in 2016". Regardless of DU's insatiable anger toward Bernie, it turns out every demographic stayed home. Yet, strangely, no one seems to be blaming Black voters or Union voters or Latino voters or....

Show me how many primary Bernie voters didn't vote for Hillary in the General.

That's the only fact in dispute.

How about you show me how many primary Bernie voters didn't vote for Hillary in the General. Because it's hard to dispute this since you haven't actually provided any facts to dispute.

[radical noodle]

186. I offer this without comment

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

[progressoid]

211. I offer this without comment

How does this compare to other elections?

It’s a perennial question whether supporters of losing primary candidates will vote for their party’s nominee in the general election. So let’s compare the Democratic primary with the Republican primary. In the VOTER Survey, only 3 percent of those supporting Texas Sen. Ted Cruz reported voting for Hillary Clinton, as did 10 percent of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s supporters and 32 percent of Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s supporters. So Sanders supporters were about as likely to vote for Trump as Rubio’s supporters were to vote for Clinton, and far less likely than Kasich supporters were to vote for Clinton.

Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.

An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)

And then there is this:

But again, attach a lot of caveats to that analysis.

What kinds of Sanders voters supported Trump?

Perhaps the most important feature of Sanders-Trump voters is this: They weren’t really Democrats to begin with.

Of course, we know that many Sanders voters did not readily identify with the Democratic Party as of 2016, and Schaffner found that Sanders-Trump voters were even less likely to identify as Democrats. Sanders-Trump voters didn’t much approve of Obama either.

In fact, this was true well before 2016. In the VOTER Survey, we know how Sanders-Trump voters voted in 2012, based on an earlier interview in November 2012. Only 35 percent of them reported voting for Obama, compared with 95 percent of Sanders-Clinton voters. In other words, Sanders-Trump voters were predisposed to support Republicans in presidential general elections well before Trump’s candidacy.

...

In short, it may be hard to know exactly how many Sanders-Trump voters there were, or whether they really cost Clinton the election. But it doesn’t appear that many of them were predisposed to support Clinton in the first place.

[emulatorloo]

207. Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania

Link to tweet

Sanders -> Trump voters…
WI: 51k
MI: 47k
PA: 116k

Trump win margin…
WI: 22k
MI: 10k
PA: 44k


https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/

[progressoid]

210. I'm guessing you didn't actually read the link you provided.

How does this compare to other elections?

It’s a perennial question whether supporters of losing primary candidates will vote for their party’s nominee in the general election. So let’s compare the Democratic primary with the Republican primary. In the VOTER Survey, only 3 percent of those supporting Texas Sen. Ted Cruz reported voting for Hillary Clinton, as did 10 percent of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s supporters and 32 percent of Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s supporters. So Sanders supporters were about as likely to vote for Trump as Rubio’s supporters were to vote for Clinton, and far less likely than Kasich supporters were to vote for Clinton.

Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.

An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)

And then there is this:

But again, attach a lot of caveats to that analysis.

What kinds of Sanders voters supported Trump?

Perhaps the most important feature of Sanders-Trump voters is this: They weren’t really Democrats to begin with.

Of course, we know that many Sanders voters did not readily identify with the Democratic Party as of 2016, and Schaffner found that Sanders-Trump voters were even less likely to identify as Democrats. Sanders-Trump voters didn’t much approve of Obama either.

In fact, this was true well before 2016. In the VOTER Survey, we know how Sanders-Trump voters voted in 2012, based on an earlier interview in November 2012. Only 35 percent of them reported voting for Obama, compared with 95 percent of Sanders-Clinton voters. In other words, Sanders-Trump voters were predisposed to support Republicans in presidential general elections well before Trump’s candidacy.

...

In short, it may be hard to know exactly how many Sanders-Trump voters there were, or whether they really cost Clinton the election. But it doesn’t appear that many of them were predisposed to support Clinton in the first place.

[emulatorloo]

215. Of course I read the link. Morris crunched Schaffner's numbers, that's how they came out for those

Last edited Mon Aug 6, 2018, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

three states.

Sanders to Trump voters helped Trump’s win in those states. And consequently helped Trump win the election.

If you don’t like seeing those numbers in black and white, tough shit.

I’ve had enough gaslighting from Bernie-or-Buster apologists.


==================

Link to tweet

Sanders -> Trump voters…
WI: 51k
MI: 47k
PA: 116k

Trump win margin…
WI: 22k
MI: 10k
PA: 44k

[emulatorloo]

109. Yes the McCain administration was a nightmare. I will never forget it.

[MrsCoffee]

166. !

[ehrnst]

200. Oh, noes! What's been revealed in the Manafort trial is going to stop people from voting!!!

Even talking about it amongst ourselves!!! But clearly only if it involves something about Tad Devine that makes progressoid unhappy.

Maybe discussing what has come to light concerning Tad Devine just really, really bothers you, and you're trying to rationalize that it's not your personal discomfort by saying that it's harmful to EVERYONE because it distracts us from everything that is more IMPORTANT!

The "not as bad as" fallacy, also known as the fallacy of relative privation,[2] asserts that:

If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed, then
-The problem currently being discussed isn't that important at all.
-In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A.
-In other words: nothing matters if it's not literally the worst thing happening.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)

In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable—or even admirable and superior—by plausible means.[2] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[3]

[SidDithers]

206. Kick...nt

Sid

[progressoid]

212. Thanks for the analysis.

Don't give up your day job.

[ehrnst]

213. Oh. What a burn...

[Roy Rolling]

63. Propaganda at Work

Devine: "corporate, big-money interests rule government"---TRUE

Devine: "Hillary is corporate-ruled"---FALSE

2018 Democrats now argue about which Devine from the last campaign is the "real" Devine.

Don't fall for it. It's a question that cannot be answered. We Democrats must elect Democrats in November, every ounce of energy should be spent on that effort. Tad Devine is not worth my time.

[Wounded Bear]

64. The RuBots are strong in this thread...

[ehrnst]

74. Especially the ones trying to say that John Podesta did far worse than Tad Devine

by attributing the actions of Tony Podesta to John Podesta.

[emulatorloo]

110. Yeah, Intellectual dishonesty never goes out of style at DU

[el_bryanto]

66. I wonder what the longest space between posts on that awful Bernie Sanders has been

my guess is less than 16 hours. But i suppose it could be as long as 3 days.

Bryant

[ehrnst]

69. This is a post concerning Tad Devine.

I hope that clarifies things.

[progressoid]

96. Sure. Sure. Keep telling yourself that.

Strangely, Sanders and Devine are mentioned equally in the piece. Yet this is about Devine. Sure.

[thucythucy]

116. To me this is mostly a post about hypocrisy.

Touting a candidate who's against "big money" and "corruption" while being, yourself, a tool of big money and an enabler of corruption.

Calling out Hillary for lesser examples of what you do every day of your life.

Devine from this account is a borderline sociopath, and is absolutely a stone-cold hypocrite.

And we have way too many of those in our politics today.

[mcar]

136. Yes.

That is what this is about.

[ehrnst]

128. "Equally?" It's about how Tad Devine seems to have a cynicism about 'ethics'

because he went from campaigning for a murderous autocrat to Senator Sanders as easily as changing his suit.

Perhaps you missed these points:

Devine’s seamless pivot from advocate for antidemocratic thug to champion of a principled democratic reformer shows extraordinary flexibility.

As Sanders likes to say, let me be clear: Manafort is the one on trial for money laundering and other crimes. Devine is a witness for the prosecution; as prosecutors pointed out when he testified Tuesday, he wasn’t the one with a bank account in Cyprus. There is no hint Devine did anything illegal — only cynical.

The contrast between the murderous autocrat and Senator Sanders would not be so stark if the article didn't point out how different they were. Yes?

Strangely, Sanders and Devine are mentioned equally in the piece.

Sure, sure, keep telling yourself that.

Well, less strangely, anyone who read the piece would have seen this:

"Devine" appears 22 times

"Yanukovych" appears 13 times

"Sanders" appears 11 times

"Manfort" appears 10 times

(being a researcher, one has tools that provide metrics - word counts being among them.)

Clearly the piece is worrisome to you in that it reports other than positive things in the not too distant past about someone still working with Sanders, as indicated by your outsized impression of how much Sanders is actually 'represented' in the article as compared to its true subject, Tad Devine. I suggest that you explore where your emotions are interfering with the accuracy of your perception, at least where Senator Sanders is concerned.

[George II]

135. He actually went from campaigning for Sanders, then to campaigning for a murderous autocrat....

...then to Senator Sanders.

Of all the names being bandied about to justify Devine's work in the Ukraine over the years - Podesta (TONY, not John), Mark Penn, Stan Greenberg, etc. (even David Axelrod, who never did!), only one worked for a candidate before and after his Ukraine work. That is Tad Devine.

[progressoid]

168. Sorry, I should have been more specific - Sanders and Devine are mentioned equally in the

part you excerpted for DU to read.

Still, it's a tad (pun intended) disingenuous to say this opinion piece is just about Devine. Just look at Milbank's summary sentence.

[Cha]

73. You might want to read the OP

before posting something that shows you haven't.

[el_bryanto]

100. Don't worry I know i'm supposed to hate Bernie Sanders.

With the White Hot Fury of a thousand suns.

Bryant

[Cha]

106. Don't you worry.. nobody cares about that crap.

[el_bryanto]

112. For something nobody cares about some people sure post a lot of posts about it. nt

[Cha]

164. Sorry you're not understanding. Nobody gives a CRAP

about this..

Don't worry I know i'm supposed to hate Bernie Sanders.
With the White Hot Fury of a thousand suns.

Get it?

[Gothmog]

117. It is a well done WP article

[Me.]

121. I Guess News Shouldn't Be Reported

if it reflects in the least way against Senator Sanders. And...BTW...did anyone force him to hire Devine?

[Cha]

165. Oh we know that!!! Too bad..

BS brings it on himself.

Tad Devine was a terrible hire.

Me

[Me.]

179. So Much Bad Judgment Going On Over There

Aloha Cha

[Cha]

180. Yes, and trying to blame

it on anybody else.

Aloha, Me

[R B Garr]

85. Devine and Manafort. One is on trial now. That is what this current news

about exposing Devine's connections is about. It's current news.

[sheshe2]

78. K&R

[LexVegas]

80. Rec. nt

[KPN]

89. And we wonder why people don't vote. Get money out of politics!

There's a piece of idealism for you.

[ehrnst]

92. As long as TV ads are part of campaigns, along with airline tix, paid staff

hotel rooms, postage, busses, phone lines, office space and pizza for volunteers, there will be "money" in politics - at least in campaigns.

Any donation of services counts as a $$ amount in the campaign filings.

Are you saying that if there wasn't so much money in campaigns that Bernie would not have been able to hire Tad Devine at his going rate and that would have prevented this?

Not really clear on how "getting money out of politics" and "people not wanting to vote" relates to the OP on Tad Devine.

[KPN]

97. I did say "there's a bit of idealism for you", did I not?

[ehrnst]

119. Still not clear on what campaign finance reform and people not voting has to

do with the OP.

Can you clarify?

[KPN]

131. Sure. Some people don't vote because they

feel like it really doesn’t matter because politicians are bought via campaign contributions as well as other corrupt means.

[ehrnst]

134. So... how is this related to the OP?

You think that people aren't voting because of Tad Devine's past? Because of what he got paid to consult?

I don't think that many people knew the extent until the Manafort indictment brought it to light.

[KPN]

145. I'm sure you can extrapolate.

[ehrnst]

148. You think that people aren't voting because of Tad Devine's past?

You think that people aren't voting because of Tad Devine's past? Because of what he got paid to consult?

That's what I extrapolated from what you said.

Your reticence tells me that you think actually saying what you mean will get you into trouble.

[KPN]

158. Well, I guess I was wrong.

I never said "because of" Tad Devine. But nothing new. I always expect this sort of distortion and contortion in our exchanges.

[ehrnst]

163. Being deliberately vague to avoid running afoul of guidelines

is clearly something that I'm not surprised to see.

Along with accusing me of being the one distorting and contorting. Pure projection.

[Cha]

111. I guess tad devine's history of hypocrisy

would turn off voters?

I doubt it.. I have more faith in voters concerned about losing our Democracy than giving a shite about
Tad Devine's hypocrisy.

[R B Garr]

95. Paul Manafort worked for free! lololololololol

[Gothmog]

91. Great editorial

[zanana1]

94. Please, let's not start a Bernie v. Hillary war.

The presidential election is getting closer than you think. I live in NH and in Jan. or Feb., I'll be on the phones for a presidential candidate. I don't want to hear people dissing one Dem. candidate over another.

[ehrnst]

104. I'm not doing that. Please address those who are.

[Cha]

107. Please get a grip.. this is Not about Hillary.

[mcar]

137. Who is doing that?

Hillary isn't a Democratic candidate, AFAIK.

[TexasTowelie]

150. Bernie isn't a Democratic candidate either. nt

[mcar]

152. Good point

[all american girl]

151. Considering this is nothing about Hillary, there is no sanders v Hillary war

This is about Tad Devine, sanders campaign manager. Devine's business partner is on trial, and Devine was the first witness...but you knew that. So the question is, why did you make this into sanders v Hillary? We can talk about sanders, Devine, or anyone else, without it being a dig against Hillary, or acting like this is the ole sanders v Hillary thing. And sanders is not a D by his own admission.

[George II]

102. Wow, that last sentence above is biting!

BTW, slightly off topic, have newspapers lost ALL sense of editing and proper punctuation?

The WP headline should read Sanders', not Sanders's.

[sl8]

113. Looks like the Post prefers " 's "

I don't have access to their Deskbook, but found this:

https://live.washingtonpost.com/grammar-geekery-with-bill-walsh-130107.html

...
Q: Punctuation
What is the proper punctuation for the possessive of a proper noun ending in the letter 's', Adams' or Adams's? My spell checker suggests that the latter is incorrectly spelled, but that could be just because it doesn't know the Adams.

A: Bill Walsh
Either can be correct; it's a matter of style. Most newspapers use Associated Press style and would write Adams'. The Post would write Adams's, as would most publications more formal than newspapers.
...

The AP disagrees with WP on this, but CMOS agrees.

[George II]

122. I was taught that when a word ends with "s", the apostrophe goes after the "s"....

....and there is no second "s". But that was more than 50 years ago.

[ehrnst]

124. AP Style agrees with you, but NYT style won out with WAPO.

[lapucelle]

160. Here are the rules for formal writing.

Add 's to the singular form of the word (even if it ends in -s):
the neighbor's dog
Dennis's keys (Dennis' keys is also acceptable.)

Add 's to the plural forms that do not end in -s:
the children's library

Add ' to the end of plural nouns that end in -s:
the United States' treaties
the countries' ambassadors
the Harris' home (i.e. Harris comprises more than one person)

Add 's to the end of compound words:
my father-in-law's car

Add 's to the last noun to show joint possession of an object:
Bob and Cindy's apartment

I edit professionally across the stylebooks. Here's a go-to, reliable source for questions.

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/purdue_owl.html

[ehrnst]

123. NYT style on punctuation:

Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders have differences. But according to the editors at The New York Times, one of them is not the way their names are made possessive. The Times forms the possessive the same way for both of them.

Mr. Sanders's
Mrs. Clinton's


http://www.businesswritingblog.com/business_writing/2016/03/what-clinton-and-sanders-teach-us-about-apostrophes.html

[MattP]

126. this crew was going to work for Poroshenko makes me worry about Ukraine

And sheds new light on the cutting off of cooperation between Ukraine and the probe

[Hekate]

139. KnR

[lapucelle]

149. For background and context this Salon piece is interesting.

Bernie’s man behind the scenes: Tad Devine is the Karl Rove to Sanders’ populist uprising

Devine first met Sanders in the 1990s when Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon suggested that the wild-haired congressman professionalize his political operation a bit. Devine was reluctant at first — his own political consulting firm was just getting off the ground, and he wasn’t sure how it would look to take on as a client someone who wouldn’t even join the Democratic Party. Sanders, from the other side of the Brooklyn and the University of Chicago, shared a similar upbringing with Devine, who grew up in a South Providence, R.I, housing project, the son of a sidewalk inspector, and ended up at Brown. The two became fast friends, with Devine making frequent trips to Vermont, particularly during Sanders hard-fought first campaign for the Senate.

And as much Sanders rails against the professional political class, campaign aides say he is willing to make an exception for Devine.

“He was on the ground floor from the get-go about a presidential race,” said Michael Briggs, the Sanders campaign spokesman. “He would talk about the potential that was out there for this kind of campaign. He would say he thought we were in a moment in history where our message about a rigged economic system resonates

Read the rest here:

https://www.salon.com/2016/02/15/bernies_man_behind_the_scenes_tad_devine_is_the_karl_rove_to_sanders_2016_populist_uprising/

[George II]

154. Ironic:

“He would say he thought we were in a moment in history where our message about a rigged economic system resonates"

What we ultimately wound up with is that "rigged economic system", thanks to trump's election.

[Cha]

178. And as much Sanders rails against the professional political class, campaign aides say he is willing

to make an exception for Devine.

Yeah.

Thank You, lapucelle

[ehrnst]

199. Interesting.

[betsuni]

157. K&R

[yardwork]

198. Drain the Swamp TM

[jalan48]

214. I think Bernie will be getting a new chief strategist when he runs next time.

[Gothmog]

216. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet

[KitSileya]

217. Remember Devine and Manafort communicated *during* the campaign too.

While the emails in evidence are from 2014, remember that Devine and Manafort openly talked to each other on behalf of their campaigns in 2016 too. Bernie wanted to circumvent the obvious nominee and arrange debates between him and Trump,because he refused to acknowledge the math and concede after he no longer had a viable way to win. The Clinton campaign, seeing reality, chose to pivot towards the GE, and Sanders got angry that she wouldn't keep debating him and tried to arrange a debate with Trump - the communication about the debate was between Devine and Manafort, and could now be done in the open...