sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Imagine how well the country would be doing without the DNC rigging the 2016 primary and pushing Biden to 2020.


Everyone who pushed for Hilary to be the only real D running should be put in stocks. In the 20th and 21st century, it was the smallest pool in a primary, including the party that had an incumbent.

And no one cares.

Biden was a ******* lock in 2016. This election just makes it all the more obvious and irritating. If the parties didn't have absolute control we should abolish private party organization.

---

Was he pushed aside or did he decide not to run due to personal reasons (Beau's death)?

---

I'll start with: it doesnt matter now, but its a lesson we should all watch for in the future:

No idea, but only one democrat and an independent ran against Clinton. So my money is on he was pushed aside.

If there was evidence that it was an actual primary, I'd be more inclined to believe it was his choice.

When I say it was the smallest pool, I am not being hyperbolic. Obama had more democratic challengers in 2012. 5 candidates in multiple states.4 with delegates. In 2016 only 1 didnt withdraw before the primary, and the only challenger was an independent named Bernie Sanders. It was unprecedented.

But, maybe he had additional reasons to not run, after the most popular 8 years in office in the modern era.

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Imagine how well the country would be doing without the DNC rigging the 2016 primary and pushing Biden to 2020.


Everyone who pushed for Hilary to be the only real D running should be put in stocks. In the 20th and 21st century, it was the smallest pool in a primary, including the party that had an incumbent.

And no one cares.

Biden was a ******* lock in 2016. This election just makes it all the more obvious and irritating. If the parties didn't have absolute control we should abolish private party organization.

---

Was he pushed aside or did he decide not to run due to personal reasons (Beau's death)?

---

I'll start with: it doesnt matter now, but its a lesson we should all watch for in the future:

No idea, but only one democrat and an independent ran against Clinton. So my money is on he was pushed aside.

If there was evidence that it was an actual primary, I'd be more inclined to believe it was his choice.

When I say it was the smallest pool, I am not being hyperbolic. Obama had more democratic challengers in 2012. 5 candidates in multiple states.4 with delegates. In 2016 only 1 didnt withdraw before the primary, and the only challenger was an independent named Bernie Sanders. It was unprecedented.

But, maybe he had additional reasons to not run, after the most popular 8 years in office in the modern era.

---

I'm pretty sure Biden has said he decided not to run. I'm kind of doubtful Hillary is powerful enough to push an 8-year VP out of the race.

okaydo said:

---

---

Whoever is writing this script is terrible and needs to find another line of work.

chazzed said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

I don't get it.

---

Every once in a while, Trump would strike a serioous tone, like in State of the Union speeches, and commentators would say, "Wow, he's really changed and become presidential." And as soon as they say that, Trump would go back to being Trump.

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Imagine how well the country would be doing without the DNC rigging the 2016 primary and pushing Biden to 2020.


Everyone who pushed for Hilary to be the only real D running should be put in stocks. In the 20th and 21st century, it was the smallest pool in a primary, including the party that had an incumbent.

And no one cares.

Biden was a ******* lock in 2016. This election just makes it all the more obvious and irritating. If the parties didn't have absolute control we should abolish private party organization.

---

Was he pushed aside or did he decide not to run due to personal reasons (Beau's death)?

---

I'll start with: it doesnt matter now, but its a lesson we should all watch for in the future:

No idea, but only one democrat and an independent ran against Clinton. So my money is on he was pushed aside.

If there was evidence that it was an actual primary, I'd be more inclined to believe it was his choice.

When I say it was the smallest pool, I am not being hyperbolic. Obama had more democratic challengers in 2012. 5 candidates in multiple states.4 with delegates. In 2016 only 1 didnt withdraw before the primary, and the only challenger was an independent named Bernie Sanders. It was unprecedented.

But, maybe he had additional reasons to not run, after the most popular 8 years in office in the modern era.

---

I'm pretty sure Biden has said he decided not to run. I'm kind of doubtful Hillary is powerful enough to push an 8-year VP out of the race.

---

I dont know how it happened, but I am not implying Clinton put in the fix, I am implying the DNC did.

I am curious, your explanation explains Biden. What about the other missing Democrats? Dont take my word for it: Look at EVERY presidential race. Not even incumbents were given such an unobstructed path. Incumbents typically win as a formality, but are opposed by members in their own party. This lack of opposition isnt a conspiracy theory. Its fact. How you explain that fact is debatable.

So, my theory is that, given the totality of evidence, it is more likely that it was arranged than it was personal choice by any candidate. Maybe Biden found a convenient excuse in his sons death; we know he would need one to explain why a VP of a popular president wouldnt run... but practically no other Democrat did, either?

If you dont find that odd, I think your critical thinking skills are suspect.

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Imagine how well the country would be doing without the DNC rigging the 2016 primary and pushing Biden to 2020.


Everyone who pushed for Hilary to be the only real D running should be put in stocks. In the 20th and 21st century, it was the smallest pool in a primary, including the party that had an incumbent.

And no one cares.

Biden was a ******* lock in 2016. This election just makes it all the more obvious and irritating. If the parties didn't have absolute control we should abolish private party organization.

---

Was he pushed aside or did he decide not to run due to personal reasons (Beau's death)?

---

I'll start with: it doesnt matter now, but its a lesson we should all watch for in the future:

No idea, but only one democrat and an independent ran against Clinton. So my money is on he was pushed aside.

If there was evidence that it was an actual primary, I'd be more inclined to believe it was his choice.

When I say it was the smallest pool, I am not being hyperbolic. Obama had more democratic challengers in 2012. 5 candidates in multiple states.4 with delegates. In 2016 only 1 didnt withdraw before the primary, and the only challenger was an independent named Bernie Sanders. It was unprecedented.

But, maybe he had additional reasons to not run, after the most popular 8 years in office in the modern era.

---

I'm pretty sure Biden has said he decided not to run. I'm kind of doubtful Hillary is powerful enough to push an 8-year VP out of the race.

---

I dont know how it happened, but I am not implying Clinton put in the fix, I am implying the DNC did.

I am curious, your explanation explains Biden. What about the other missing Democrats? Dont take my word for it: Look at EVERY presidential race. Not even incumbents were given such an unobstructed path. Incumbents typically win as a formality, but are opposed by members in their own party. This lack of opposition isnt a conspiracy theory. Its fact. How you explain that fact is debatable.

So, my theory is that, given the totality of evidence, it is more likely that it was arranged than it was personal choice by any candidate. Maybe Biden found a convenient excuse in his sons death; we know he would need one to explain why a VP of a popular president wouldnt run... but practically no other Democrat did, either?

If you dont find that odd, I think your critical thinking skills are suspect.

---

Oh, I think they definitely tried to discourage other Democrats from running. I'm just doubtful that had much impact on Biden.

okaydo said:

---

chazzed said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

I don't get it.

---

Every once in a while, Trump would strike a serioous tone, like in State of the Union speeches, and commentators would say, "Wow, he's really changed and become presidential." And as soon as they say that, Trump would go back to being Trump.

---

Gracias.

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Imagine how well the country would be doing without the DNC rigging the 2016 primary and pushing Biden to 2020.


Everyone who pushed for Hilary to be the only real D running should be put in stocks. In the 20th and 21st century, it was the smallest pool in a primary, including the party that had an incumbent.

And no one cares.

Biden was a ******* lock in 2016. This election just makes it all the more obvious and irritating. If the parties didn't have absolute control we should abolish private party organization.

---

Was he pushed aside or did he decide not to run due to personal reasons (Beau's death)?

---

I'll start with: it doesnt matter now, but its a lesson we should all watch for in the future:

No idea, but only one democrat and an independent ran against Clinton. So my money is on he was pushed aside.

If there was evidence that it was an actual primary, I'd be more inclined to believe it was his choice.

When I say it was the smallest pool, I am not being hyperbolic. Obama had more democratic challengers in 2012. 5 candidates in multiple states.4 with delegates. In 2016 only 1 didnt withdraw before the primary, and the only challenger was an independent named Bernie Sanders. It was unprecedented.

But, maybe he had additional reasons to not run, after the most popular 8 years in office in the modern era.

---

I'm pretty sure Biden has said he decided not to run. I'm kind of doubtful Hillary is powerful enough to push an 8-year VP out of the race.

---

I dont know how it happened, but I am not implying Clinton put in the fix, I am implying the DNC did.

I am curious, your explanation explains Biden. What about the other missing Democrats? Dont take my word for it: Look at EVERY presidential race. Not even incumbents were given such an unobstructed path. Incumbents typically win as a formality, but are opposed by members in their own party. This lack of opposition isnt a conspiracy theory. Its fact. How you explain that fact is debatable.

So, my theory is that, given the totality of evidence, it is more likely that it was arranged than it was personal choice by any candidate. Maybe Biden found a convenient excuse in his sons death; we know he would need one to explain why a VP of a popular president wouldnt run... but practically no other Democrat did, either?

If you dont find that odd, I think your critical thinking skills are suspect.

---

Oh, I think they definitely tried to discourage other Democrats from running. I'm just doubtful that had much impact on Biden.

---

Joe Biden announces he will not run for president in 2016

Vice-president Joe Biden ended months of speculation on Wednesday about whether he would run for president, appearing in a hastily announced White House address to say that his window of opportunity to "mount a winning campaign for the nomination" had closed.

Biden cast the decision in personal terms, saying that his family had only recently regained its feet after the death of his eldest son, Beau, from cancer in May.

"As my family and I have worked through the grieving process," he said, "I've said all along that it may very well be that that process, by the time we get through it, closes the window on mounting a realistic campaign for president.

"I've concluded it has closed."

The announcement marked a major shift in the presidential race, removing a potential threat to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who had been polling ahead of a hypothetical Biden candidacy but who was sure to lose support should the vice-president jump in.

She seems preoccupied with one word in that incantation. Here is a clue:




*If you are requesting other worldly assistance for tRump, isn't it more appropriate to be summoning some sort of demon?

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Imagine how well the country would be doing without the DNC rigging the 2016 primary and pushing Biden to 2020.


Everyone who pushed for Hilary to be the only real D running should be put in stocks. In the 20th and 21st century, it was the smallest pool in a primary, including the party that had an incumbent.

And no one cares.

Biden was a ******* lock in 2016. This election just makes it all the more obvious and irritating. If the parties didn't have absolute control we should abolish private party organization.

---

Was he pushed aside or did he decide not to run due to personal reasons (Beau's death)?

---

I'll start with: it doesnt matter now, but its a lesson we should all watch for in the future:

No idea, but only one democrat and an independent ran against Clinton. So my money is on he was pushed aside.

If there was evidence that it was an actual primary, I'd be more inclined to believe it was his choice.

When I say it was the smallest pool, I am not being hyperbolic. Obama had more democratic challengers in 2012. 5 candidates in multiple states.4 with delegates. In 2016 only 1 didnt withdraw before the primary, and the only challenger was an independent named Bernie Sanders. It was unprecedented.

But, maybe he had additional reasons to not run, after the most popular 8 years in office in the modern era.

---

I'm pretty sure Biden has said he decided not to run. I'm kind of doubtful Hillary is powerful enough to push an 8-year VP out of the race.

---

I dont know how it happened, but I am not implying Clinton put in the fix, I am implying the DNC did.

I am curious, your explanation explains Biden. What about the other missing Democrats? Dont take my word for it: Look at EVERY presidential race. Not even incumbents were given such an unobstructed path. Incumbents typically win as a formality, but are opposed by members in their own party. This lack of opposition isnt a conspiracy theory. Its fact. How you explain that fact is debatable.

So, my theory is that, given the totality of evidence, it is more likely that it was arranged than it was personal choice by any candidate. Maybe Biden found a convenient excuse in his sons death; we know he would need one to explain why a VP of a popular president wouldnt run... but practically no other Democrat did, either?

If you dont find that odd, I think your critical thinking skills are suspect.

---

It's not unprecedented, particularly for incumbents. Don't know why you said that. Bill Clinton had no challengers in 1996. Per Wikipedia, the highest profile Dem that ran against him was a former mayor of Buffalo who dropped out after New Hampshire. The 3rd highest vote getter was Uncommitted. In 2004 Bush ran unopposed. He got 98% of the vote, 2nd place was Uncommitted, and the 2nd highest placing human got 0.1%.

Hillary faced 4 senators or governors plus assorted others. She got 55% which is a lot but nowhere near unopposed like Bill and Bush.

What Hillary faced was actually more than what Gore faced the last time the D's had a popular 2 term incumbent leave office. Gore only faced Bill Bradley.

I don't know if anything nefarious happened. But if it did, it seems like it was not a new nefarious thing. More likely, politicians don't like getting trounced and most decided they had no real shot.

boredom said:

---

I don't know if anything nefarious happened. But if it did, it seems like it was not a new nefarious thing. More likely, politicians don't like getting trounced and most decided they had no real shot.

---

And Bernie just didn't give a damn about getting trounced, so he said "what the hell" and found some unexpected popularity.

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Imagine how well the country would be doing without the DNC rigging the 2016 primary and pushing Biden to 2020.


Everyone who pushed for Hilary to be the only real D running should be put in stocks. In the 20th and 21st century, it was the smallest pool in a primary, including the party that had an incumbent.

And no one cares.

Biden was a ******* lock in 2016. This election just makes it all the more obvious and irritating. If the parties didn't have absolute control we should abolish private party organization.

---

Was he pushed aside or did he decide not to run due to personal reasons (Beau's death)?

---

I'll start with: it doesnt matter now, but its a lesson we should all watch for in the future:

No idea, but only one democrat and an independent ran against Clinton. So my money is on he was pushed aside.

If there was evidence that it was an actual primary, I'd be more inclined to believe it was his choice.

When I say it was the smallest pool, I am not being hyperbolic. Obama had more democratic challengers in 2012. 5 candidates in multiple states.4 with delegates. In 2016 only 1 didnt withdraw before the primary, and the only challenger was an independent named Bernie Sanders. It was unprecedented.

But, maybe he had additional reasons to not run, after the most popular 8 years in office in the modern era.

---

I'm pretty sure Biden has said he decided not to run. I'm kind of doubtful Hillary is powerful enough to push an 8-year VP out of the race.

---

I dont know how it happened, but I am not implying Clinton put in the fix, I am implying the DNC did.

I am curious, your explanation explains Biden. What about the other missing Democrats? Dont take my word for it: Look at EVERY presidential race. Not even incumbents were given such an unobstructed path. Incumbents typically win as a formality, but are opposed by members in their own party. This lack of opposition isnt a conspiracy theory. Its fact. How you explain that fact is debatable.

So, my theory is that, given the totality of evidence, it is more likely that it was arranged than it was personal choice by any candidate. Maybe Biden found a convenient excuse in his sons death; we know he would need one to explain why a VP of a popular president wouldnt run... but practically no other Democrat did, either?

If you dont find that odd, I think your critical thinking skills are suspect.

---

Yes, in retrospect, she should have had more challengers. But I think her being the nominee was inevitable. She was once hugely popular (and so was Bill Clinton!). She seemed so formidable.

I have no idea if Biden was pushed aside or not, but it just didn't seem like his time. I think the Dems had to go through with a Hillary nomination. Get it out of the system. Hindsight is 20/20, but I don't see it happening any other way. And I think she would've beaten Biden.

I believe Obama made Biden the VP because he was so much older and was done with running for president. Kind of like a Dick Cheney* figure. So they wouldn't have to be vying with each other. So Biden wouldn't be trying to show himself off for a potential presidential run. Remember, this was back in the day when it was kind of unthinkable that somebody over 70 would be elected president for the first time. It's now happened twice. (Hillary was 69 on election day, same age as Reagan.)

(*Cheney is less than 2 years older than Biden, by the way.)

Remember Bill Clinton in 2012 at the Democratic Convention? He was a rock star. Now he and Hillary are afterthoughts among Dems.

And here's proof of Hillary being hugely popular before Benghazi.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/154742/hillary-clinton-maintains-near-record-high-favorability.aspx

sycasey said:

---

boredom said:

---

I don't know if anything nefarious happened. But if it did, it seems like it was not a new nefarious thing. More likely, politicians don't like getting trounced and most decided they had no real shot.

---

And Bernie just didn't give a damn about getting trounced, so he said "what the hell" and found some unexpected popularity.

---

My feeling is that Bernie didn't care about winning the nomination, at least not at first. He wanted to pull the party to the left. He allegedly wanted someone to primary Obama in 2012, presumably for that same reason. I would guess he was surprised at how well he did and how much of a platform he got (on the flip side, I think he overestimated how much of his 2016 support was for him and his policies vs for "not Hillary" when he ran in 2020). Supposedly, he tried to talk Warren into running against Hillary and when she passed Bernie decided to run. Those who want to win don't try to talk higher profile candidates in their own lane into running.

Bernie also seems like kind of an outsider in the senators club so he probably didn't care about not winning favor with a president Hillary or establishment Ds.

boredom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

boredom said:

---

I don't know if anything nefarious happened. But if it did, it seems like it was not a new nefarious thing. More likely, politicians don't like getting trounced and most decided they had no real shot.

---

And Bernie just didn't give a damn about getting trounced, so he said "what the hell" and found some unexpected popularity.

---

My feeling is that Bernie didn't care about winning the nomination, at least not at first. He wanted to pull the party to the left. He allegedly wanted someone to primary Obama in 2012, presumably for that same reason. I would guess he was surprised at how well he did and how much of a platform he got (on the flip side, I think he overestimated how much of his 2016 support was for him and his policies vs for "not Hillary" when he ran in 2020). Supposedly, he tried to talk Warren into running against Hillary and when she passed Bernie decided to run. Those who want to win don't try to talk higher profile candidates in their own lane into running.

Bernie also seems like kind of an outsider in the senators club so he probably didn't care about not winning favor with a president Hillary or establishment Ds.

---

Yup, I think he got into it so he could talk about his pet issues on the stump (income inequality, etc.), and then it turned out those ideas had a lot more popularity than expected. And then, yeah, it also turned out that some significant fraction of that popularity was about him not being Hillary (especially in midwestern states).

Still, Sanders definitely accomplished his goal of getting the party to move left. Yes, I realize Biden is the moderate choice, but the platform he was running on was way more progressive than what he ran on earlier in his career.

sycasey said:

---

Yup, I think he got into it so he could talk about his pet issues on the stump (income inequality, etc.), and then it turned out those ideas had a lot more popularity than expected. And then, yeah, it also turned out that some significant fraction of that popularity was about him not being Hillary (especially in midwestern states).

Still, Sanders definitely accomplished his goal of getting the party to move left. Yes, I realize Biden is the moderate choice, but the platform he was running on was way more progressive than what he ran on earlier in his career.

---

I think party platforms are not terribly meaningful. They seem like they're mostly for party insiders. Trump didn't even bother with one this year and no one really cared (having no platform was arguably the most honest thing Trump has done this year).

We'll see how much of that Biden actually tries for, especially considering he likely has a tiny House majority and a Senate minority in a super polarized era. Probably a lot of crazy Trump tweets too. I don't know that Biden is going to govern meaningfully to the left of what he would've governed as without Bernie's 2016 run. I think Bernie and AOC and etc give Biden cover by being able to point at something and saying "I'm not extreme, I oppose X [e.g. Medicare for all]". But his actual healthcare proposal was Obamacare + public option which is what they tried for in 2009.

What specifically do you expect he'll try to do that he and Obama wouldn't have liked to do 5 years ago because the party is more to the left?

boredom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Yup, I think he got into it so he could talk about his pet issues on the stump (income inequality, etc.), and then it turned out those ideas had a lot more popularity than expected. And then, yeah, it also turned out that some significant fraction of that popularity was about him not being Hillary (especially in midwestern states).

Still, Sanders definitely accomplished his goal of getting the party to move left. Yes, I realize Biden is the moderate choice, but the platform he was running on was way more progressive than what he ran on earlier in his career.

---

I think party platforms are not terribly meaningful. They seem like they're mostly for party insiders. Trump didn't even bother with one this year and no one really cared (having no platform was arguably the most honest thing Trump has done this year).

We'll see how much of that Biden actually tries for, especially considering he likely has a tiny House majority and a Senate minority in a super polarized era. Probably a lot of crazy Trump tweets too. I don't know that Biden is going to govern meaningfully to the left of what he would've governed as without Bernie's 2016 run. I think Bernie and AOC and etc give Biden cover by being able to point at something and saying "I'm not extreme, I oppose X [e.g. Medicare for all]". But his actual healthcare proposal was Obamacare + public option which is what they tried for in 2009.

What specifically do you expect he'll try to do that he and Obama wouldn't have liked to do 5 years ago because the party is more to the left?

---

I honestly have no idea what he'll try because he's in a totally different situation than Obama was (divided Congress rather than big majorities). I just think having more progressive policies in your campaign platform means something versus not having them; you think it's electorally smart to do so.

Arizona lead down to 15,000 as-of a few minutes ago. Down another 4k since yesterday. Not beingbreported by cnn. Hopefully not too many more votes to count.

oskidunker said:

---

Arizona lead down to 15,000 as-of a few minutes ago. Down another 4k since yesterday. Not beingbreported by cnn. Hopefully not too many more votes to count.

---

I couldn't figure out why Fox News and then the AP called Arizona so early, before North Carolina and even Alaska (I had called Alaska back in August.). AP election expert had been talking a week ago about how they never call a state unless they're sure. Then, when it became obvious that it was far from a certainty, they both stuck to their guns, instead of "uncalling" it.

CNN looked good for not calling it last week.

oskidunker said:

---

Arizona lead down to 15,000 as-of a few minutes ago. Down another 4k since yesterday. Not beingbreported by cnn. Hopefully not too many more votes to count.

---

Wouldn't read too much into this, as the only drops so far today were from VERY red counties. Should be another drop from the big one (Maricopa) coming up. If that goes heavily against Biden then you can wonder if it's flipping, but the latest drops from there haven't been doing that.

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Imagine how well the country would be doing without the DNC rigging the 2016 primary and pushing Biden to 2020.


Everyone who pushed for Hilary to be the only real D running should be put in stocks. In the 20th and 21st century, it was the smallest pool in a primary, including the party that had an incumbent.

And no one cares.

Biden was a ******* lock in 2016. This election just makes it all the more obvious and irritating. If the parties didn't have absolute control we should abolish private party organization.

---

Was he pushed aside or did he decide not to run due to personal reasons (Beau's death)?

---

I'll start with: it doesnt matter now, but its a lesson we should all watch for in the future:

No idea, but only one democrat and an independent ran against Clinton. So my money is on he was pushed aside.

If there was evidence that it was an actual primary, I'd be more inclined to believe it was his choice.

When I say it was the smallest pool, I am not being hyperbolic. Obama had more democratic challengers in 2012. 5 candidates in multiple states.4 with delegates. In 2016 only 1 didnt withdraw before the primary, and the only challenger was an independent named Bernie Sanders. It was unprecedented.

But, maybe he had additional reasons to not run, after the most popular 8 years in office in the modern era.

---

I'm pretty sure Biden has said he decided not to run. I'm kind of doubtful Hillary is powerful enough to push an 8-year VP out of the race.

---

I dont know how it happened, but I am not implying Clinton put in the fix, I am implying the DNC did.

I am curious, your explanation explains Biden. What about the other missing Democrats? Dont take my word for it: Look at EVERY presidential race. Not even incumbents were given such an unobstructed path. Incumbents typically win as a formality, but are opposed by members in their own party. This lack of opposition isnt a conspiracy theory. Its fact. How you explain that fact is debatable.

So, my theory is that, given the totality of evidence, it is more likely that it was arranged than it was personal choice by any candidate. Maybe Biden found a convenient excuse in his sons death; we know he would need one to explain why a VP of a popular president wouldnt run... but practically no other Democrat did, either?

If you dont find that odd, I think your critical thinking skills are suspect.

---

There's an explanation for that but the Democratic apologists on this site pretend it doesn't exist.
Hillary essentially bought the Democratic Party

In an excerpt from "Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House" that was provided to Politico, Brazile explains how she was tasked with investigating the DNC after hacked emails suggested the Clinton campaign fixed the nomination.

"By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart," Brazile wrote, referring to Clinton's main opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Brazile described an agreement between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and Clinton's joint fundraising committee that said the campaign would "control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised." The arrangement was made to financially help the party, which was in significant debt following the 2012 reelection campaign of former President Barack Obama, she added.

"The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house," Brazile wrote.
Brazile noted that the agreement was signed in August of 2015, effectively giving Clinton control of the party almost one year before she secured the nomination.

"The funding arrangement ... was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical," Brazile wrote.
"If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

Brazile's revelations add to criticism from supporters of Sanders, who ran an unsuccessful insurgent campaign against Clinton in the Democratic primary.

Brazil also criticized Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who helmed the DNC as chairwoman before Brazile assumed the role of interim chair, as "not a very good manager" who was not "very interested in controlling the party."

"The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama's consultants were being financed by the DNC, too," Brazile wrote

Are you wondering how Donald Trump can insist he won the US election?



https://mol.im/a/8931249