How was the DNC impartial to either candidate pre statistical DNC primary lock up?

[uponit7771]

How was the DNC impartial to either candidate pre statistical DNC primary lock up?


Read 10 post asking people how was the DNC impartial with either no response or some anecdotal non reality answer.


Also, in answer can we please offer some empirical proof and not just claims?


Thx in advance

[Scuba]

1. Are you suggesting it would be OK to be partial after the "pre statistical" lock up?

That's not what the DNC's own rules say.

[uponit7771]

2. No but can understand if a candidate has an insurmountable lead then an organization moves on to the

... next steps.

Either way... many post about impartiality without any proof of it happening

[Squinch]

3. Two low level DNC people shot the shit about getting him out of the way after Sanders lost.

In two emails out of 20000.

Let's all go poison ourselves in protest.

[Scuba]

4. That isn't quite the whole story.

[Squinch]

5. Yes it is.

[Scuba]

6. I wish you were right. You're not.

[Squinch]

7. Yes. I am right. And clearly you're not happy that's all it was.

[Scuba]

8. Yeah, that's it. All this commotion over one unhappy Bernie supporter.

[Squinch]

9. No. It's about a lot of people who used to be in the Bernie camp, but who are now acting

in direct opposition to what Bernie is telling them to do, and who have fallen for a Putin/Trump shenanigan like a bunch of old men on a banana peel.

[Scuba]

12. And it has nothing to do - nothing! - with the DNC's bad behavior. Nothing!!!!

You run with that.

[Squinch]

14. Two emails out of 20,000, low level DNC workers shooting the shit after Sanders lost.

[MyNameGoesHere]

16. No it's more like 6 or 7

You do read other the world is unfair posts right?

[Scuba]

17. The seven of us sure have a lot of swing ...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-24/dnc-chair-debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-as-tensions-threaten-to-roil-convention

PHILADELPHIA -- On the eve of her party's national convention, Democratic Party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced she would resign her post later this week, in what is the culmination of deep-seated animosity towards her among progressives who are threatening to shred the unity presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is seeking to showcase here.

...

The publication of 20,000 DNC emails by Wikileaks over the weekend made it immediately clear that Schultz's five-year tenure was in peril. The Wikileaks publication exposed what many Sanders supporters had feared all along: That the party apparatus was working to tilt the primary scales in favor of Clinton.

[uponit7771]

13. Can you offer proof and not just a claim? tia

[Scuba]

15. Read the emails. They're pretty damning.

[Squinch]

19. Why don't you post those pretty damning emails.

[Scuba]

20. Here ya go. Knock yourself out.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/



It's pretty telling when the DNC staffers constantly use "we" when referring to Hillary's campaign and "they" when referring to Bernie's campaign, but there's more if you like to abuse yourself.

[Squinch]

21. No. That's ALL the emails. Give us the damaging ones. If they are so damaging they should

be very easy for you to post on their own.

Personally, I've already spent a lot of time looking for the damaging emails in that list and haven't found them. So why don't you show us what it is that has you so upset.

[Scuba]

22. Try this on for size ...

http://usuncut.com/politics/dnc-leaks-9-emails/

[Squinch]

24. And which of those damaged Bernie's chances? There is absolutely nothing there.

And this is the best you could find. Even you must see by now that you have been spinning about nothing, and you are being used as a tool.

1,2,3,5,6, 7 and 8 were written after Bernie had no mathematical path to victory.

2: After he lost, Debbie said something "curt" about Bernie. Cry me a river.

3, first of all took place after Bernie had lost, and second dealt with how to counter the specious accusations about the victory fund. Those accusations were quickly proven to be lies, and needed to be counteracted so as not to give assistance to the Trump campaign.

4 has nothing to do with Bernie. It shows that a media outlet allowed the DNC to vet its stories. Good job DNC! They got at least one media outlet to help Democrats. I wish they had gotten more.

6 has nothing to do with Bernie. It talks about a spat between DWS and Mika.

9 is making up a conspiracy from nothing and gives no date for the email.

THERE IS NOTHING THERE.

So again: this whole drama mongering episode is nothing but a bunch of people who SAY they are Bernie supporters, but who are acting in direct opposition to Bernie and who are falling for a Putin/Trump scam like a bunch of idiots.

[Scuba]

25. So Debbie resigned over nothing? Seems unlikely, but you're entitled to interpret as you see fit.

[Squinch]

27. Which email do you have a problem with? Which email hurt Bernie? Point to one.

DWS resigned because, like you, people who SAY they support Bernie, but who are acting in direct opposition to Bernie's stated wishes are making an issue out of this non-issue that has been fed to them by the Trump campaign.

Though it is a complete non- issue, that doesn't stop it from being red meat to the media which wants a horse race and will do anything to get it.

Hillary sees this and knows she has to do something to counteract the feeding frenzy that people like you have conveniently handed to the Trump campaign on a silver platter.

That is why DWS resigned.

[Scuba]

28. So Debbie resigned over a "non-issue." Got it.

[Squinch]

31. Yes. Because people like you were used as tools to help Trump's campaign, and it worked, and

the media needed a sacrifice.

Again, if I am wrong, point to ONE email that hurt Bernie.

[Scuba]

34. So it's not the people who did wrong, but those who cared? Man, that's fucked up.

[Squinch]

37. Scuba, you know there is nothing there. If you didn't know that, you would have been able

to provide even just one email that was damaging to Bernie. There are none.

[Scuba]

39. There's a clear pattern of bias. Take off the blinders and you can see it too.

[Squinch]

41. Where? Where do you see this clear pattern of bias? Which email shows any effort on the

part of the DNC, before Bernie lost, that was partial to Hillary?

There can't be a clear pattern of bias if no email shows bias.

[Scuba]

43. The "before Bernie lost" part is irrelevant.

[ismnotwasm]

30. She resigned

Because this election is Full of conspiracy theorists and people of bad faith who subsequently promoted one molehill after the other as the Mountains of Doom, and dealt with Constant harassment that was taking away from the actual election.


Those emails, in context while indiscreet---I guess, show no active bias.

[Scuba]

33. Sadly, they show a great deal of bias.

The constant use of "we" when referring to Hillary's campaign and "they" when referring to Bernie's campaign is very telling.

[Squinch]

38. But in 20,000 emails, which show a whole lot of campaign activity, there are NONE which

show the DNC working against Bernie's campaign.

[Scuba]

40. The show that the DNC fed negative info on Bernie to reporters while feeding them ....

... positive info about Hillary. That's bias, and they're supposed to be impartial.

[Squinch]

42. Show us the email that shows that? There are no emails that show that.

In the list you gave me, there are two emails dealing with the press. Both emails take place after Bernie lost. One of them has no mention of Bernie and just says that Politico had agreed to run its stories past the DNC. That's a good thing.

The other one shows a spat between DWS and Mika, which runs counter to your argument.

Show us one email that shows that the DNC worked with the press against Bernie.

[Scuba]

44. There's no one so blind as he who refuses to see.

[Squinch]

45. That is very true. And it is very sad that some of those are so readily played by their opponents.

[bettyellen]

50. So.... No damning emails. We got it.

[uponit7771]

53. +1

[LionsTigersRedWings]

56. It's a good thing that Politico runs their stories past the DNC first?

Don't they have their own editors to check out stories, not the DNC?

[treestar]

47. +1

And they are enabling the right wing media in going along with the drama.

[alfie]

10. Timing of the debates. nt

[uponit7771]

11. Link and quote? tia

[alfie]

18. It was discussed a lot last fall when they were announced.

Scheduled on Saturday nights (very low viewership), right before Christmas, against major sports events, etc. Surely you remember???

[uponit7771]

48. Please show anything in the emails that relates to bias in scheduling the debates. The whole point..

... here is people are making shit up in regards to bias and it doesn't matter how many times I asked.

[alfie]

55. Your OP does not mention emails.

You just asked about DNC prejudice. Lots of discussion here on DU last fall and onwards into the winter about the poor timing of the debates that drew fewer viewers, therefore an advantage for the well known Hillary vs the less well known candidates.

[uponit7771]

58. OK, emails ... tablets... toilet paper it doesn't matter the media it matters the provable bias and

... not peoples claims... which is all the bias mess is about.

The debate schedule is more proof of a claim than empirical information.... we didn't have 1243 candidates this year and we knew where these guys stood.

Sanders didn't need more advertisment he outspent her nearly 2 to 1...

Again... how about proof and not just claims which is what most of this email mess is about

[Ken Burch]

23. I'm asking this out of sincere, respectful confusion re; your thread title...could you clarify...

...did you mean to write "impartial" or "partial" there?

The accusation is that the DNC was partial towards HRC, not that they were impartial(or neutral)between the candidates.

I think if you changed it to "partial" you'd be closer to asking the question it appears you meant to ask.

If you're looking for proof of partiality in action, you're asking a fair question.

[MohRokTah]

26. Why are you still fighting the last Democratic primary?

[Squinch]

29. This isn't that. This email non-issue is all over the news. It's legitimate to point out that

this email non-issue is based on nothing. There are no emails that show any impartiality before Bernie lost.

[ismnotwasm]

32. It's so much bullshit

When you actually read them--it's like the ultimate WTF moment

[Squinch]

36. Upthread, Scuba gave his best effort at providing damaging emails. There's absolutely nothing there.

No one can give me even ONE email that could be construed as damaging to Bernie's campaign.

[uponit7771]

49. The claims of bias being shown via the emails is today

[book_worm]

35. Why don't we just drop it all together and move on

We got an election to win.

[treestar]

46. True the claims are made in a conclusory way

The claimants want their conclusion accepted.

[Darb]

51. I"LL CUT MY NOSE OFF. I SWEAR, I WILL CUT MY NOSE OFF!

GIVE ME WHAT I WANT OR I PROMISE YOU, I WILL CUT MY NOSE OFF!

[uponit7771]

52. +1

[Darb]

54. Looks like it's gonna be a bloodbath in Philly, noses everywhere,

blood spewing forth like Monty Python's Holy Grail.