Hillary Clintons Campaign Turns Over Email List To DNC

[pnwmom]

Source: Huffington Post

The Democratic National Committee announced on Sunday that Hillary Clintons campaign had turned over its email list, giving the party a major boost as it rebuilds under a new chair and prepares for the midterm elections next year and the 2020 presidential race.

The list, provided as an in-kind contribution from the Hillary for America campaign organization, includes more than 10 million new names that the DNC did not have on its voter files, according to both Clinton and DNC aides. The contribution was valued as $3.5 million, according to data from the Federal Election Commission.

This information will help candidates up and down the ballot engage with voters and win seats from the school board to the Senate, said Xochitl Hinojosa, communications director for the DNC. Were seeing momentum and energy across the country, and this investment will help us harness the energy and turn it into votes.

The decision to turn over the email list ― in addition to providing the DNC with its analytics and voter modeling tools ― fulfills a campaign promise that Clinton made. During the primary, the former secretary of state pledged that if she were nominated, she would focus her resources on rebuilding a Democratic Party infrastructure that had decayed under President Barack Obama.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-dnc-email-list_us_58f278b9e4b0da2ff8613acf

---

Bernie Sanders has not promised to turn over his email list, saying that many of his supporters were independents -- as if that means they shouldn't be reached out to by Democrats. But these names could be critical in the 2018 elections.

[Historic NY]

1. Shows you BS is all BS....

Perez is hanging around with him, I think too much.

[thesquanderer]

3. re: "as if that means they shouldn't be reached out to by Democrats"

Last edited Mon Apr 17, 2017, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Well sure, we want to reach out to Independents. I think the gray area here is what the voter who signed up wants.

This is kind of related to all the privacy issues, people selling lists to other other people who they didn't necessarily agree to give their info to. So I can see both sides of this.

If you contributed to Hillary and signed up to be on her list (and *especially* if you did so after the primary was over), I think it is reasonable to assume that you may also end up on some other Democratic email list.

OTOH, if you signed up to be on Bernie's list, well yes, many of these people are Dems, but as pointed out, many probably were not, and may not have intended to authorize giving their info to the Dem party (even though BS was running as a Dem nominee).

I guess on one hand, nobody should expect any info to remain in one place anymore... you give out your info, it can end up anywhere. OTOH, though, there is still a question about whether or not that is a good thing. Those of us who have concerns about that shouldn't necessarily knee-jerk approve the sharing of info when it happens to be to our benefit.

I'm not suggesting that BS should or should not share his list, I'm just pointing out that I can see where it's not an obvious easy decision, and deserves some consideration.

[elleng]

5. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

We need such.

[murielm99]

6. What is this word salad?

BS is either going to help, or not help.

Your post makes no sense.

[thesquanderer]

11. One person's "word salad" is another's "thoughtful response." And so it goes. (n/t)

[BainsBane]

15. Crib note version

It makes sense for Clinton to turn over her list since her supporters are Democrats, while many of Sanders supporters are not Democrats. That according to the "thoughtful response" above. If you or I had made that point, we'd be pilloried.

[murielm99]

24. I thought the Sanders supporters

were trying to bring in the voters who had not voted for Clinton in the general election. The grassroots organizations around here speak about reaching white males and rural voters. They want to reach the people who sat out the election or voted third party. Therefore, it would make sense to turn over those email lists.

Yes, we would be pilloried. We would be pilloried even if we wrote the response in clear language.

[thesquanderer]

40. Side note: Sanders supporters are not monolithic. (n/t)

[BainsBane]

43. As opposed to Clinton supporters?

[thesquanderer]

45. Of course Clinton supporters aren't monolithic either.

But I was specifically responding to a post about the motives/goals of Sanders supporters. Context!

[BainsBane]

68. That was your own post. nt

[thesquanderer]

69. No, my post #40 was a reply to murielm99's post #24.

And it is coming up that when when I view it (it says "response to..." and it is properly nested in the thread view). Maybe you're viewing it some other way...?

[JustAnotherGen]

79. But - we are supposed to welcome them into the Party

As non party participants. Can't make this up.

Either they want a say in the Primary candidates or not. If they don't - then they get what they get.

You have to be registered in NJ with affiliation to vote in a Primary.

[Cha]

108. It makes sense for Hillary to turn hers over bc she's a Uniter..

she cares deeply about our Planet.

[Hortensis]

27. Sanders' list may be politically problematic in that

it almost certainly contains many people who did not intend, and in many cases probably still have no intention, of voting for Democrats. A real percentage of his voters were conservatives who wanted to use him to defeat the stronger Democratic candidate. And yet others liked him because they imagined him farther left wing than he was positioning himself.

Most of his voters are, o fcourse, people the party is nevertheless hoping he can woo for the next election, but nevertheless these lists would probably be counterproductive to him if actually counted and held up for scrutiny by a press to lives to poke the sensitive spot. Just for instance, between 37-44% (depending on the exit poll) of Sanders primary voters in one conservative state (definitely among the most extreme examples) said they wouldn't vote for him if he won the primary. Then there are the 49 other states...

And then there is the simple fact that the party's and Sanders' interests and goals are not...exactly the same. Why WOULD he strengthen those portions of the party leadership he is hoping to oust? Knowledge really is power.

[pnwmom]

38. As long as Bernie is refusing to support the party, he is reducing the chances

of our winning majorities in Congress in 2018 and 2020.

If he really cared about the people, he would do everything he could to help the Dems get back Congress.

[FakeNoose]

93. Most computerized lists have a merge/purge feature

I'm sure the DNC will be able to tell if somebody who receives their advertising is either:
1. already enrolled in the DNC
2. already made donations to the DNC
3. has done neither and may not be interested
4. take them off the list, they don't want the spam.

Computers are able to make these distinctions and keep the lists separate.

Just sayin'

[pangaia]

51. It makes all the sense in the world.

[Gothmog]

7. This response does not make any sense

Either you are or are not trying to help the party. I was a maxed out donor for Obama and Clinton ans so I am on a number of lists. I am also a member of the Democratic Party and do not object to getting these e-mails. I support the democratic party and I really have no idea what point you are attempting to make

I am proud to be a member of the Democratic Party. the concept that someone who ran for the party nomination is not supporting the party does not make sense.

[thesquanderer]

10. re: "I really have no idea what point you are attempting to make"

The simplest way to put it might be to consider the fact that just because *you* are "a member of the Democratic Party and do not object to getting these e-mails" that doesn't mean that everyone who signed up as a Sanders supporter necessarily feels exactly the same way you do. And with that in mind, Sanders is not necessarily misguided to think about whether he does or does not want to provide that list, which will presumably include both people who do and who do not want their names sold to the Dem party, who do and do not want to receive the emails that you want to receive.

[Gothmog]

18. Again, your posts is sad and does not make sense to anyone who is a member of the Democratic Party

Either you want to help the Democratic Party or you do not want to help the Democratic Party. Clinton did the right thing. She is trying to help the party and that is a good thing. The fact that you think that this is wrong is sad to me

[thesquanderer]

46. I never said it was wrong of Clinton to do what she did, or anything like that.

In fact, one of the points in the post was that Sanders' situation is a little different from Clinton's, and I think that difference justifies a little more thought before rubber stamping a similar action.

Apart from that, twice you said something to the effect of "Either you are or are not trying to help the Democratic party." I'm not sure who the "you" is referring to there. Any generic person? Me? Sanders? A person whose name is on Sanders' email list? One's response to the thought might be a bit different depending on which of those you intended. But regardless, the bottom line is that things aren't always so black and white, and party is not always the single most important thing in every decision.

[pangaia]

52. I am am member of the Democratic Party, and the post does very well make sense to me.

So I guess it is all the members of the Democratic Party---except me.

[Gothmog]

59. Really-So supporting the Democratic Party is optional?

I do not understand the concept that one can take the benefits of the Democratic Party and ignore any obligation to support the part.

[HoneyBadger]

54. If you are trying to support the Democratic party (not a candidate)

It follows that the Democratic party already has your email, and it would just be a coincidence if the candidate did.

[Gothmog]

60. I support all of the candidates in the Democratic party including down ballot candidate

That is why party fundraising is important. I do not understand the concept of accepting the benefits of the Democratic Party and then refusing to support it.

[SergeStorms]

70. Then they have the right......

to delete the emails, unsubscribe from them, recycle any snail mail literature received etc. We're not asking for a loyalty oath, we're not going to brand them, we just want to spread the word. They can either accept that, or reject it. I don't see what the big deal is. I thought the goal was to prevent the election of more ill-tempered, orange orangutans?

[thesquanderer]

71. Some feel more strongly about opt-in vs. opt-out than you do...

...and about receiving junk mail, etc. You're making a decision for someone else based on your own feelings about these things. Sure, lots of people don't care, but there are others who are irritated (and others who, beyond mere irritation, even take the time to put themselves on do-not-call lists, remove themselves from mailing lists, etc.), so "what's the big deal" varies with the person.

we just want to spread the word

Similarly, people have different feelings about, say, visits from Jehovah's Witnesses.

No matter your goal, and how important it is to you, and how important you think it should be to the people you are reaching out to, not everyone will look at it the same way.

This reminds me about about how the "golden rule" has been put forth both positively and negatively, i.e. "Do unto others what you would have done unto you" vs. "Do not do unto others what you would not want done unto you." There is actually a big difference between the two, though not everyone sees it.

Speaking of do-not-call lists, as you may know, political calls are always permitted. On one hand, people here may feel that that's a good thing, as it is an important GOTV tool. OTOH, some people are irritated that they can't avoid those calls. These are both valid perspectives, IMO.

This doesn't have to be an issue. Ideally, when you sign up to give money or get on a support list for a candidate, there should be a checkbox that allows you to give or deny permission for your info to be given or sold to others. But absent that, you need to make a judgment.

Again, I'm not saying that it would necessarily be a bad idea to give the names to the DNC, I'm only saying that there is another perspective at least worth giving some thought to.

[ATL Ebony]

72. Strongly agree and was just posting the same message.

Anyone would have the right to delete/unsubscribe or otherwise reject Democratic outreach messages. It's a non-issue from my standpoint and don't understand BS's invalid point. BS supporters on this board have stated "of course he's a Democrat", "his state won't allow him to register as Democrat so he's listed as Independent but he's as blue as they come and always supports Democrats" -- I don't happen to agree and leery of BS and his stance on sharing his mailing list increases my concern. Neither BS nor anyone on his list need to commit to Democratic loyalty so sharing his mailing list wouldn't hurt anyone but could enhance the Democratic party's outreach.

[progressoid]

22. So you showed similar dismay when OFA didn't release it's list until 2015

I guess Obama doesn't support the party either.

From the Hufpo article...

Obama’s win in 2008 had bolstered the party’s elected ranks. But his own outside group, Organizing for Action, attempted to play much of the traditional role of the DNC, fostering frustration within party ranks. National and state party officials worried that local races were neglected in favor of Obama-specific ones. And they chaffed that they were not given complete access to the OFA email list until 2015.

[Gothmog]

23. Really? I was solicit by the DNC and OFA during the 2014 cycle

[QC]

26. Shhhhh....you're disrupting Two Minutes Hate. n/t

[Gothmog]

61. Why are you so sensitive?

Do you really believe that one can accept the benefits of the party and then refuse to support the party?

[pnwmom]

35. Don't you think it's important to learn from past mistakes? Our party would be stronger today

if the structure hadn't deteriorated during Obama's terms.

[ColemanMaskell]

32. Really? It was pretty clear to me - -

You are or you are not? So in your view, if someone supports x, then they have to be willing to do literally anything and everything in support of x, without limits? Get a grip, Gothmog. In real life people support things within what they consider decent and reasonably bounds. This person is saying that Bernie might feel that turning over a list of names would be a betrayal of the trust placed in him by his independent supporters, and that would transcend an ethical limit. I have no idea what Bernie thinks about it, but it is a perfectly reasonable position to take, and not at all difficult to comprehend.

Of course, Bernie could contact the people on his list and ask them each individually to check yes or no as to whether they are willing to have their information shared with the Dems in general. Or there are other approaches he could take to mitigate whatever problems he might see. So he might do something in time.

I don't see how you can take the position that a person having ethical limits on their support "does not make sense".

[BainsBane]

44. Funny he didn't say that

when it became an issue surrounding the election of the DNC chair.

It's also interesting that trust doesn't work both ways, since he shows no such concern when contacting people who did not give him their emails.

[HoneyBadger]

53. That is an anecdotal response

Do you have a scientific basis to support this opinion?

[brer cat]

31. We have been told ad nauseum here

that we should let the one "true Democrat" Bernie and his supporters remake the Democratic Party in their blessed image, but now you are saying we shouldn't expect support for the party because they really aren't Democrats after all, especially if it involves getting an email they don't want. So when Bernie chooses to call himself a Democrat, we are to provide party support and infrastructure for his benefit, but not expect anything in return. Sounds rather grifterish to me.

[Gothmog]

62. I agree with your analysis

[Justice]

65. Agree 100 percent

[thesquanderer]

84. Not what I was saying. Please see my post #71.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141754604#post71

Maybe that will help explain.

[brer cat]

95. Yep, that explains a lot.

We are facing the absolute worst crisis of our lifetime with this idiot in the WH, and you are spending your time worrying that someone will get their fee fees hurt if they get a damned email they don't want. That about cover it?

The people who are going to die because they lose their healthcare, the young black men and women who will be murdered because Sessions green-lights police brutality, the men and women who will die in a war started because our man-baby president wants to play with his "toys"....are any of them going to get an "opt-out"? Well at least they won't be getting any more junk mail.

[George II]

34. I signed up and contributed to Hillary Clinton, and did NOT do so for Sanders...

...(this isn't refighting the primaries in case anyone thinks so)

Curiously the day after the DNC breach by the Sanders' campaign, which he fully admitted to, I began getting emails from the Sanders campaign via DFA. I never gave them my email address. It started with one or two a day, and as time passed it got to be four or five a day.

Once again, they never was given my email address and the emails began flooding my inbox the day after the breach.

Now, from time to time Sanders has said, to the effect that he "would do whatever he could to elect Democrats", but by withholding his email database, the majority of whom would probably vote for Democrats, he's not doing "whatever he could to elect Democrats"!

My beef with this is that it appears he got MY email address (and probably hundreds or even thousands) from the DNC database. Many of those may never have been Sanders supporters or voters who contacted his campaign directly.

[NastyRiffraff]

47. I'd forgotten about the Sanders emails!

I got them too, in the same time period. And a note to those whose LIVES WOULD BE DESTROYED if they got an icky email from the Democratic Party, ALL campaign emails, including those from Bernie Sanders, must have an opt out option in the email itself. You can always click on that if you're that traumatized. It worked for me with the unwanted emails from Sanders.

[George II]

50. I didn't opt out because I wanted to see just how many I'd get until the campaign was over....

The number was in the hundreds, all "on behalf of Sanders" from various people at DFA with a DFA domain name.

[Gothmog]

76. So your claim breaks down to the concept that Sandersmay want to be run as a third party later

It appears that you are arguing that Sanders may run as a third party later and therefore he needs to keep his e-mail list available for such a third party run. Is this what you are really claiming?

[thesquanderer]

83. I never said anything like that. And it doesn't even make any sense!

I made no reference whatsoever to Sanders running again (whether as Dem or third party).

But even IF he ran again, that would not preclude him from continuing to use his list, even if he provided the list to the DNC as well. His email list would remain available to him no matter what. So how does your idea even make any sense?

[Gothmog]

9. I supported Tom Perez and I have no trouble with Perez reaching out

However you are either supporting the Democratic Party or you are not supporting the party. Hopefully Tom Perez' efforts will bear some fruit.

Clinton did the right thing with respect to her list and I support her decision. Supporting the Democratic Party is a good thing

[Gothmog]

2. This was the right thing to do

Hillary Clinton is out to help the Democratic Party

[thesquanderer]

4. Yes, but not always so simple, see my post #3

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141754604#post3

[Gothmog]

8. It is a poorly written post that makes little sense to me

It may be that I am a member of the Democratic Party but your attempt at a post does not make sense

[shenmue]

14. Yes

[Hortensis]

28. Agree. This was a big of-course, zero surprise.

[William769]

12. Just confirms what we knew last year. Hillary is the better person. nt

[shenmue]

13. Yes

[BainsBane]

16. and committed to strengthening the Democratic Party.

[Gothmog]

19. That is clear

Clinton is a member of the Democratic Party and wants to help the Democratic Party

[riversedge]

36. Well said William769 and a big Thank You to Hillary.

[NastyRiffraff]

48. Hillary supports the Democratic Party, and Democrats

If Sanders did, he'd release that list of his. He SAID he'd do "everything" to defeat Donald Trump, but when push came to shove, his support of Hillary was lukewarm at best.

Note to jury: I'm talking about the GE, not the primary.

[progressoid]

17. Obama didn't give his full list to the DNC until 2015.

Obama’s win in 2008 had bolstered the party’s elected ranks. But his own outside group, Organizing for Action, attempted to play much of the traditional role of the DNC, fostering frustration within party ranks. National and state party officials worried that local races were neglected in favor of Obama-specific ones. And they chaffed that they were not given complete access to the OFA email list until 2015.

[pnwmom]

20. Which is one reason the party structure deteriorated during his tenure. That was unfortunate. n/t

[progressoid]

29. Indeed.

I hope Bernie doesn't follow Obama's lead in this. It would be great if he coordinated with the party for a more unified front. But considering the contentious nature of the two camps, I expect it will be a tricky thing to negotiate.

[BainsBane]

21. That was quite obviously a mistake

So why are you citing it as justification?

[progressoid]

25. It was.

I'm not citing it as justification. Bernie shouldn't follow Barack's example. I just find it interesting that Bernie (who we are regularly reminded on DU, isn't a Democrat) is held to a higher standard than the leader of our party was.

I applaud Hillary for doing this. I hope the party gets it's shit together. The last election was a clusterfuck on our local level. A more unified, and cohesive approach is desperately needed.

[Hortensis]

30. Bernie and Barack have different goals, different motivations,

different strategies for very different outcomes as regards the Democratic Party.

Obama is of course held to a far higher standard when it comes to serving the party because his commitment to using a very strong Democratic party to defeat the extreme right's destructive forces is well known. And, also of course, as a constitutional scholar, he knows all too well which party is committed to protecting it.

Sanders wants a "revolution" in the party that will push aside the leadership with whom he shared mutual disdain for the past quarter century and empower him. The standard to which this proud non-Democrat independent is held is that of merely coming through on his promise to support the party in turn for being given a position in the party's leadership. Not unreasonably high most would think.

[pnwmom]

33. I'm not holding him to a higher standard. I wanted Obama to do this, too, and think the party

would have been stronger if he had. We should be able to learn from each other's mistakes -- not keep repeating the same ones.

So good for Hillary.

[BainsBane]

39. He isn't held to a higher standard

Not by a long shot. I never saw Obama treated with the absolute reverence that Sanders is. I have never seen a politician, much less Obama, treated as though he were inherently superior to anyone else on planet earth before. To even claim such a thing is preposterous.

You clearly are using it as an excuse. That you claim there is a double standard when most of us had no idea of Obama's position as it was happening is a weak attempt to excuse Sanders' actions, the party be damned.

I will admit to one double standard. I expect nothing from Sanders. I know where his concerns lie, which is why I find this sort of thing unsurprising. He wouldn't agree to it even in the midst of his play for DNC chair. He certainly isn't going to do it now.

[George II]

37. Are you sure of all that?

[progressoid]

41. It's cited in the Huffpo link from pnwmom's post above.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/democrats-get-the-keys-to-obamas-massive-campaign-email-list#.alGb6JnZVw

[George II]

42. "Cited" from unnamed sources and at least one unnamed "Clinton ally"....

...all undocumented unless I'm missing something.

[beam me up scottie]

55. OOPS.

How dare you bring facts into this?



And I was all ready to hyperventilate too.

[George II]

56. So? Not the subject of course, but since you bring it up......

...there was quite an intermingling of the two email lists, OFA and DNC. And as I noted elsewhere to you, that "fostering frustration within party ranks", "chaffed", etc. were undocumented comments from "unnamed sources" and "unnamed Clinton allies", or perhaps one or two disgruntled people.

[progressoid]

67. I just thought for fairness sake, we should also point out that a candidate holding onto his mailing

list isn't unique. "Fostering frustration" notwithstanding, Obama clearly held onto his list long after he needed to.

Sorry I interrupted everyone's game of Shit on Sanders.

Kudos to Hillary for what she did.

[Justice]

66. That was also wrong

[klook]

49. How to sign up for DNC emails:

If anybody wants to receive emails from the DNC, it's pretty easy. Just go to https://democrats.org/ and you'll see a prompt saying "Be one of the first to learn more" followed by fields for email address and zip code. So you don't have to wait for your email address to be shared by the publication or candidate you gave it to. You can go go straight to the source! (Trigger Warning: Above that section there's a banner with pics of Tom Perez and Bernie Sanders with the message "Join Tom Perez and Bernie Sanders on the Road.&quot

BTW, I never give out my real email address. I have hundreds of disposable temporary email addresses, and I create a new one for each service, site, group, or product I want information about. That way I can a) easily cut them off at at any time if I get tired of their messages in my inbox, and b) see at a glance if the email address I've given them has been shared, sold, or hacked.

[karynnj]

57. I think it is possible that it is better to let Bernie control his list

As noted, many people signed up for it specifically for him. This might mean that a Sanders email sent to the list asking people to support candidates where he makes a case for them with a link to the candidate's website might produce more positive reactions than the DNC sending a similar request to his list as a part of a list combining all lists.

Many might actually read a Sanders email and consider responding while they might simply delete the DNC one. Not to mention, it would mean Sanders speaking to people who trust him making the ask.

I know in 2007 that many accused Kerry of giving his list to Obama, which he didn't. What he did do was to email his list with a link to video of his endorsement of Obama and a link to the page on the Obama website where people could get on his list.

If anything, there is more reason for Sanders to do something like this as well providing he has the money to use the list himself in this way.

[pnwmom]

58. If Bernie became a Democrat and gave a full-throated speech on the need for all progressives

to join together, he could have a much more powerful influence.

[Gothmog]

63. Why?

This analysis makes no sense unless Sanders is planning on starting a third party

[karynnj]

64. I know it made sense when Kerry used his list that way

For those of us on that list who shared most of Kerry's values, his well written, concise endorsements often described candidates in ways that hit home.

Sanders, who is further from the center of the Democratic party, might be able to make a strong case for a candidate that appeals to the self selected Sanders supporters. In his case, he might be able to reach people who the Democratic party can not reach. Sanders vouch ing for someone might be the way to reach them.

Where Kerry's list might have been valuable to almost any Democrat, there are likely a significant number of people on the Sanders list who might be teachable only through Sanders.

The list, used by Sanders in support of Democrats, might be more powerful than the same list turned over to the DNC.

[thesquanderer]

73. Something you have in common with Kerry: Nuance. ;-) (n/t)

[karynnj]

74. Thank you for what I will take as a compliment

I greatly miss the nuance that characterized many in the Obama administration - not just Secretary Kerry. I have always prefered a quiet, nuanced view of the options to a strident "this way is right, all others stink" posture. Here, there are two very good ways to use the lists gathered.

As to nuance, I wonder if this is a discreet signal that Clinton, while publicly staying involved as an advocate on issues she cares about, will not undertake another run for the Presidency. Note that giving the DNC a copy of her email list would not preclude herself using it - either on her issues or for a Presidential run. As was said for Sanders, a good portion of that list -especially if she has the list as of the time when she became the de facto nominee - would be people who have supported her for years and who might list to an appeal from her more than from anyone else.

Caveat - with either Sanders or Clinton, their persuasiveness has limits. There is no statesman I admire more than Kerry, but there was NO WAY in 2006 that I was the least bit open to sending a check to Jim Webb, with his history of swiftboating Kerry and being a misogynist. He was likely correct that Webb was the primary opponent with the highest likelihood of winning that seated - which gave us the majority.

[thesquanderer]

81. Yes, it should be taken as a compliment! (n/t)

[Gothmog]

75. Kerry never threatened to form third party

[Gothmog]

77. Is this because you want Sanders to be able to do a third party later?

[karynnj]

78. No - of course not

I seriously doubt that is his goal. He is a very smart man. I think it is pretty obvious that each party has about the same size base -- with a relatively small group that are really do migrate between the parties. Additionally, as we know the US has a low percent of people who bother to vote. I seriously doubt that we would have a shot at winning if a liberal/progressive third party gained strength at the expense of the Democrats.

However, note that SCHUMER, a centrist Democrat, gave Sanders a role in the Senate. This was a smart move by Schumer for many reasons. The first is that they will coordinate with Sanders - sometimes possibly coopting him to do things that benefit the party. The second is that - like HRC in 2008, whose power had she returned to the Senate been more than the role of a relatively junior Senator - his power is the support that he earned from the people who followed him in 2016.

[Gothmog]

80. That is the only explanation that makes sense

Your explanation makes no sense whatsoever. You do know that the JPR idiots want Sanders to run as a third party candidate and Sanders' refusal to release his e-mail list fits into these plans.

[karynnj]

85. I do not read JPR and have no reason to thing my Senator does either

I have rarely been accused of making no sense -- so, that is a bit of a novelty to me.

I don't get how you fail to understand that Sanders lists includes many people who were NEVER interested in being on the DNC or DCCC , DSC lists. Many do not identify as Democrats. What they have in common is that for various reasons, they were drawn to Bernie Sanders. They were drawn to him because he spoke to some of their concerns.

I remember the anger on DU in 2007 when people, especially Edwards supporters, raged that Kerry had given Obama his list. In many cases, their proof was that they had personally received an email from Obama or Clinton. Kerry people made it clear that they had not given the list to anyone. I suspect that Sanders people would be extremely angry if they suddenly got a lot of email from the DNC. That anger would partly be directed at Sanders - which diminishes his ability to advocate for Democrats.

(Although a different issue - I would expect that in some races - GA 6 might be an example - you will not see Sanders supporting him publicly. Consider that that might be that in some areas candidates might see a strong endorsement by him to be a negative. )

[Gothmog]

87. Do you approve of the concept of Sanders preserving his right to run as a third party candidate

The only reason that make any sense for Sanders to hold onto his list is to preserve his ability to run as a third party candidate. Your explanation makes no or little sense to me.

Whether you read JPR or not, the hard core BOB and JPR types are pushing hard for Sanders to run as a third party and Sanders holding onto his list fits with these plans

[karynnj]

88. Sanders has NOT spoken of running for President third party

My explanation makes sense to me, where your insistence that it makes sense only for a third party run makes no sense what so ever.

In fact, given that he got about 46 percent of the vote against a candidate with everything in her favor, including neat 100 percent name recognition, a golden resume and Obama's tacit support, if he wants to run, why not as a Democrat?

I do not think he will run, but it is clear he is working for all the same things he did as mayor of Burlington.

[Gothmog]

90. Sanders got far less than that percentage of the vote

Hillary Clinton got in excess of 58% of the primary vote and sanders relied on undemocratic caucuses for many of his delegates. I am hoping that the DNC will be eliminating undemocratic caucuses for the next cycle.

As for next cycle, many states will require Sanders to provide his tax returns to be on the ballot. Do you think that Sanders will actually ever provide his tax returns?

Again, do you approve of Sanders preserving his ability to run as a third party candidate? That is the only explanation that makes sense

[karynnj]

91. I meant to write delegates, not vote

However either way the point stands. He far exceeded expectations.

I do not expected him to run either way in 2020. I DO think someone from the progressive side, whether Warren, Sherry Brown or someone else, I do not know.

The message from the primary is either HRC was a poorer candidate then anyone expected OR there is a lot of support for a populist. I could argue it either way. The 2016 primary should have looked like 2000's where the obvious candidate could not be beaten anywhere. Consider that 2004, which was seen as competitive even in January 2004, was a cake walk for Kerry, who only lost 4 states - 2 of which to favorite son candidates AFTER they were out of the race.

I expected Bernie to do about as well as Kuchinich or Dean, he far exceeded that.

So, was he stronger than almost anyone thought or was HRC weaker?

[Gothmog]

92. I strongly disagree with your analysis

We had Comey and the FBI and russian machine intervene in this election. There are several studies that show that Comey's intervention 9 days before the election gave the election to trump.

In addition, the russian disinformation campaign was amazing and took place here and especially on the JPR board. The number of fake news stories about pizzagate, her health and other lies were amazing. The russian efforts evidently involved micro-targeting Trump voters in Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan and Penn. The idiots on the JPR board pushed each and every one of these lies or fake news and that board is still pushing Sanders to go third party.

Sanders did not add any new voters to the party during the primary process and essentially Sanders got the same white voters who supported Dean over Kerry or Bradley over Gore. That base was never enough to win. There was extensive review of the primary exit polls on this issue.

You do realize that Sanders was mathematically eliminated after Super Tuesday and so the Clinton campaign and the media never vetted or looked into sanders. Sanders never made a meaningful dint in Clinton's pledged delegate lead following Super Tuesday. Clinton had 4x the pledged delegate lead over Sanders compared to the pledged delegate lead that President Obama had over Clinton in 2008. Without undemocratic caucuses, that lead would have been far greater. I disagree with your assessment of Sanders' strength based on the actual numbers.

Again, Sanders will have to provide his tax returns if he wants to run. There will be several key blue states that will not let anyone on the ballot without tax returns. I doubt that Sanders will ever release his tax returns.

Based on the facts, I am sill concerned that Sanders is not releasing his e-mail list because he is reserving the right to go third party. Sanders is not running as a Democrat for Senate in 2018.

[karynnj]

94. I strongly disagree with your analysis

JPR had no more impact than the PUMA faction in 2008 -- and both were anti Democrats. Obama/Clinton was a very very tight race insurgent Obama won. I notice that you ignore the comparison to Gore/Bradley, which should have been similar -- and ignore that Kerry lost only OK. SC, NC and VT in a race against competitive candidates.

Sanders was mathematically eliminated after super tuesday only if you count the declared superdelegates (almost all with Clinton) who can change. Not until after the June 7th primaries was Sanders REALLY mathematically eliminated. (Kerry had enough declared delegates on March 11.)

[Gothmog]

99. Your math is totally wrong-I was talking about lead in pledged delegates

Clinton had a substantial lead in pledged delegates that Sanders made no dent in and actually lost ground in New York and California. Under the proportional allocation system, Sanders had not change of overcoming Clinton's lead in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday.

Math is math. Math is not that hard.

[karynnj]

109. California was in June long after super Tuesday

Until California voted, while it was unlikely that Sanders could win, he was not mathematically elimininated. That would mean that HRC already had more than half of all the pledged delegates there were. She didn't. Improbable as it was, before the vote, Sanders could have won 85 percent in California and received all their pledged delegates. If a terrible baseball team would need to win all its last 25 games to qualify, you could bet they are not going to with great odds, but until they lose one more, you do not say they are mathematically eliminated.

By the way, in 2008, HRC stayed in after it was unrealistic that she could win half the delegates too.

[Gothmog]

110. Do you tire of being wrong?

Math is not that hard. Clinton's lead after super tuesday was too large to over come in the real world. Sanders never chipped into that lead and at the end Clinton had four times the lead in pledged delegates over Sanders compared to the lead that President Obama had over Clinton.

You are wrong about when the parties got out of the race. I was a delegate to the Texas State Convention in 2008 and Clinton dropped out before that convention and it was a great event. Sanders stayed in the race until a couple of weeks before the National Convention. The Texas state convention was a zoo with Sanders delegates being not nice people. I was a delegate to Philadelphia and the Sanders delegates were still trying to steal the nomination up until the end

The math is the math. The fact that you are ignoring the math does not change the math https://www.democraticunderground.com/12511902272

I can also post the video on bernie math if you want

[karynnj]

111. You are the one that is wrong

By the way, I majored in Math and did well enough that I was hired by Bell Labs. I would suggest that the universities which gave me degrees and the then preeminent research company obviously thought better of my understanding of mathematics than an anonymous person on an internet board. I never said that Bernie had a chance - I said he was not mathematically eliminated. Improbable as it was, had he blown out California, he could have taken the lead. Not surprisingly, he not only did not do that, he lost. YOU used the phrase, "mathematically eliminated", which is more from sports than math -- and you were wrong.

I never claimed any time ever that - before votes were cast, during the primaries, or afterwards, that Sanders had any chance of winning. Before Iowa, I would have expected his results to look more like Kucinich, who stayed in until the convention in 2004, or Dean, who only won VT and a few delegates elsewhere.

In fact, what I would have predicted is that VT might give him SOME delegates and maybe a win as the favorite son, but that otherwise, the election would look like 2000 -- with Clinton winning every state (other than possibly VT). My point is that she was treated by the party as they treated Gore. Many Senators, friends of and closer ideologically to Bradley endorsed Gore, "because he deserved it" - including Kennedy.

What was surprising in the primaries was NOT that Sanders was poised to win, but that such an unlikely candidate, whose VT supporters - and I know many - could not see him getting more than say 10% of the delegates, were stunned when a 74 year old social democrat,with low name recognition, who is a prickly person, without a well experienced campaign team could do as well as he did against the most famous woman in the world with a golden resume and the President's tacit approval.

Where I have a problem is that all the arguments made in 2008 for HRC continuing to attack Obama - at least as hard as Sanders hit Clinton - were as if never said in discussing 2016. Where is the equivalent of "She made him a stronger candidate because of all the debates? or "She vetted Obama". Give me an example of anything Sanders said that was as much a gift to the Republicans as - "John McCain and I are ready day one for the 3 am call" - suggesting Obama was not.

The fact is that NEITHER dropped out when it was first clear the other was going to win the nomination. It is also true that BOTH gave good speeches and appealed to their base to get them to vote for Hillary Clinton. In BOTH cases, there were some in their base who angrily said that they wouldn't. I KNOW you were at the convention in 2016. I am not surprised that there were some delegates who acted badly. What was important was that the vast majority of Sanders delegates cheered Clinton even after the DNC leaks timed to appear immediately before the convention. The expected story that did not happen that the networks seemed to be suggesting in the run up was that this could end up looking like the 1968 convention. Instead the story out of the convention was that the Democrats were united ... and after the Republican convention, that they weren't.

I was not a strong supporter of either - wishing that I had a less flawed choice. I do not expect that Sanders primary run will be praised by the Clinton supporters, but I find it ridiculous that so many try to blame Clinton's lose on things Sanders did which were no different than what any candidate - including Clinton herself - does.

[Gothmog]

112. Again, you are wrong

I live in the real world and in the real world there was never any chance that Sanders could catch up to Clinton in pledged after Super Tuesday. As for math skills, it is clear that you do not understand that political process or the math involved in the political process. BTW for what it is worth, I passed the CPA exam after taking my last accounting course four years from the exam and after studying for less than a week. Math is easy and in addition I actually understand the political process involved.

Have you heard of the concept of proportional representation? It is not a hard concept. The Democratic primary process used something called proportional representation which means that Sanders would have to win several primaries by the same 30% to 40% spreads that Clinton won the Super Tuesday primaries. Clinton won Texas by 65% to 32+% over Sanders and that gave Clinton a large advantage in pledged delegates. Sanders never dented Clinton's Super Tuesday and in fact that lead in pledged delegates continued to grow. President Obama had a far smaller lead in pledged delegates over Clinton but Clinton still dropped out immediatedly after the last primary which was the correct thing to do. Sanders did not drop out until there had been a significant amount of damage. Sanders never achieved any primary results similar to Clinton's victories on Super Tuesday and later in California, New York and DC.

No one in the press or the real world thought that Sanders had a chance which is why the Clinton campaign treated Sanders with kid gloves and why the press never vetted Sanders. The real world was aware that Sanders was not going to be the nominee. As a practical matter in the real world where I live, Sanders never had a chance of being the nominee because Sanders was never going to wrack up victories like Clinton did on Super Tuesday.

In the real world, a normal candidate in Sanders situation would have dropped out.

As for the math, here is a video that may help you. https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512672933#post40

[karynnj]

116. I understand both the political process and the math ... and I understand ... English

I went out of my way - several times - to say that Bernie had no realistic chance. What do you think "mathematically eliminated" means. I gave you an example of a time that had a terrible record and would have to win the remaining 25 games to get in the playoffs. That team, at that point is not mathematically eliminated. Not until they lose one more game.

Clinton did NOT drop out "immediately" after the last primary. She waited a few days. I agree that 2016 was nowhere near as close as 2008. However, note that it was the establishment "inevitable" candidate who lost in 2008.

PS The Clinton campaign absolutely did NOT treat Sanders with kid gloves. They attacked his real record of fighting for Civil Rights in the 1960s --- arguing he had little involvement.

I never questioned your mathematical ability, but I can assure you that my degrees in Math and decades of work in analytical research trump your proving your proficiency on a CPA math test, which does not cover much math higher than many kids learn in high school honor programs.

PS I will not respond to this again

[Gothmog]

118. I actually attended the Texas state conventions in both 2008 and 2016

Your posts are amusing but show that you have no real world expierence. The two conventions were so very different. In 2008, Clinton had immediatedly dropped out and the convention was focused on unity. In 2016, Sanders was refusing to drop out and the convention was not unifying but was very divisive.

In the real world, Sanders was eliminated on Super Tuesday. The size of victories and the number of pledged delegates that Hillary Clinton won on Super Tuesday could not be over come by Sanders. In a normal election a candidate in Sanders position would have dropped out but Sanders stayed. Sanders never reduced Clinton's margin of Pledged delegates.

I live in the real world. Your math skills are suspect if you ignore the political processes and how delegates work. Again, this video may help you understand the math

[lapucelle]

82. That list is the only leverage that Sanders has left.

Sanders was unable to lead his voters to the polls in November; Our Revolution seems to have blown another opprtunity last week in Kansas. Personally, I think the alue of the list is being overhyped.

[karynnj]

89. CLINTON was not able to lead enough voters to the polls

In November.

Bernie helped, but the nominee is the lead.

[lapucelle]

96. Clinton's coalition made it to the polls.

That's why she had a such a stunning popular vote total. Third party voters and no shows in very specific localities closed the door on the progressive Democratic platform, ideas that would have already been implemented as policy in many areas. One of those places was Michigan where Sanders campaigned for Clinton.

After reading about the disinformation tactics used in certain online communities, I hope that newer participants are more careful in 2018 about the sources they rely on. They were badly served and ultimately used by operatives who certainly did not have their interests at heart.

Although Sanders made an effort to sway his faction, he was unsuccessful. Our Revolution has to get out there and actively raise funds and volunteer for special election and midterm candidates. It's not enough to simply endorse.

Given what we learned on election day, I think the value of Sanders's list is overrated. The OFA list was a comprehensive coalition list, whereas the Sanders list is factional. That faction proved it's unreliability in November.

[karynnj]

98. So, the OFA list was adequate for victory and the Sanders list overrated, but it is Sander's fault

she lost.I do not remember the Clinton faction blaming others when Kerry narrowly lost -- just him. Same with the Gore lost - just Gore was blamed.

It also ignores that Clinton did not get as much of the women's vote as Obama did.

[lapucelle]

101. That's not what said, and you're missing my point

I remember the 2000 and 2004 elections quite well.

Ralph Nadar, Jeb Bush, the media, and the Supreme Court were all blamed for Gore's loss.

Swiftboaters were blamed in Kerry's case. Late deciders who wound up voting for Nadar were also blamed.

You probably don't remember the "Clinton faction blaming others" because no such group existed at the time of the elections you reference.

Saying that Sanders failed to turn his voters out is not the same as blaming him for the loss. The discussion concerns reasons why Sanders might be reluctant to give his list to the DNC. My point is that it's the only bargaining chip he has left.

Susan Bordo, a gender and cultural studies theorist, has done some research and analysis on why women voted the way they did in 2016. Her book The Destruction of Hillary Clinton will be coming out later this year. You can read excerpts on line.

[karynnj]

102. Bill Clinton himself blamed Kerry claiming that he was a war hero who did not fight back

... as he,Bill Clinton, always did successfully. Here is one example - vintage 2006 - http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/09/18/the-wanderer-3

The theme was repeated as nauseum on DU that ONLY the Clintons can successfully fight the right wing. PS There was a Clinton faction - even in 2004, when Carville fantasized that the superdelegates could move to a "candidate that could win" -- leaving Kerry ... Remember that it was Carville and Begala who every day spoke of Kerry as anybody but Bush --- in the general election. (That designation makes sense only in the general election and ignores that - just as happened with Bill Clinton -- Democrats unite behind the nominee. )

[lapucelle]

103. Actually Clinton blames Rove and his tactics for the loss

in the article you link to.

In the book they co-authored in 2005. Carville and Begala explicitly lay the blame on the party and on the Ohio voters who broke for Nadar, rather than on the candidate, even going so far as to tell readers:

"You can blame John Kerry if it makes you feel better, but the problem is much bigger..."

[murielm99]

105. Sander's list was overrated?

Did it have a lot of foreign donors?

[Jamaal510]

86. K&R

[Sunlei]

97. Good of Hillary to assist the DNC. This is needed especially at the local levels.

a shame that these lists were probably hacked by Russia and handed to Republicans.

[Gothmog]

100. From the article cited in the OP

These are very valuable names

“Putting the DNC on a strong footing is something that she’s been very focused on since the campaign, when she set out to leave the DNC in the black and did so,” said Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill. “But in addition to a strong financial footing, sharing campaign data and resources is something she views as critical to electing Democrats in 2017, 2018 and beyond. It is an important and unprecedented step toward a strong, unified Democratic Party going forward.”....

Clinton’s email list will allow the party and its state affiliates to more effectively target voters in the lead-up to the 2018 midterms. But the party still does not have the crown jewel of email lists: that collected by Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign, which has the names of millions of individuals who do not associate with the Democratic Party and were brought into the political process largely because of their affinity for the independent Vermont senator.

[liberal N proud]

104. Normal procedure. But if it bothers you, never give your congressman your information

Called our republican representative once and now the GOP call me all the time.

[pnwmom]

107. Why do you think it bothers me? Everyone should do it because we all have the same interest

in electing as many Dems as possible.

[Cha]

106. It's Clear.. Hillary cares deeply about our Planet.. she

is a uniter. Mahalo, pnwmom

[Arazi]

113. Hillary didn't turn her email list over in 2008. Nobody whinged then

She rightfully kept it because she was planning on running again obviously.

I suspect Bernie's keeping his list to keep the door open for 2020 as remote a chance that may be, same as Hillary in 2008.

Besides that, most people on that list will be pissed to be contacted by the DNC imo. The shenanigans they pulled against Bernie by the DNC aren't forgotten by his supporters. Only Bernie can effectively outreach to most of them. In fact I'd say if the DNC used it, they'd only further alienate the many Independents who make up a large proportion of people on the list

[pnwmom]

114. Supposedly by running as a Democrat Bernie would widen the party.

We all can see how well that worked out.

[Arazi]

115. Independents now make up 40%+ of the electorate. Millennials are the largest group now too

At 25% of the population.

We have to reach them and Bernie does a great job with that

[Egnever]

117. Agreed

This is not unusual at all.

And after the treatment he received from the DNC I would have to agree many of the folks on that list would not be pleased if their info was given.