The DNC Email Leaks

Morat20 in reply to Jaybird says:

While I’m no fan of DWS, I’m kinda of curious — there were what, a handful of emails out of 20,000 selectively leaked that seemed to inspire some outrage?

And not a one of those seemed to progress into any action. (If it had, I didn’t hear about it).

So like…where’s the beef, as it were? I’m hearing lots about the DNC being in the tank for Clinton, but all I’m seeing as evidence are what, two emails that didn’t get acted on. Two emails AFTER Clinton had, effectively, won and AFTER Sanders had gone full “The DNC is rigged against me”.

And then a lot of hypothesizing about field clearing, debate schedules, and the like with exactly zero evidence of anything nefarious despite the big email dump.

So I get wanting DWS out of a job because she certainly hasn’t been a great head of the DNC, but I don’t get the ceremonial scalping and 30-second hate here.Report

Morat20 in reply to Jaybird says:

I’m curious — why do you routinely do stuff like that? You mentioned an email, I went into depth on what I learned about it (which was rather difficult, as it was reported via the Daily Caller and they didn’t actually give the full email, just selective quotes.)

You then ask a question you know the answer to, rather than respond in any relevant fashion. You didn’t dispute facts, offer an alternative opinion, or in anyway advance the conversation.

It’s not trolling exactly, but it’s not an attempt at conversation or communication either. It’s not an attempt to be funny, or to make a point, or anything.

And you do it a lot.

Why? I mean, what’s your goal there? Not here, about DWS and Clinton, but in general. This isn’t a verbal tic you only unleash when Clinton is the subject.Report

Morat20 in reply to Jaybird says:

Let me sum up why DWS resigned:

1) She was on her way out, to be replaced by a Clinton pick.
2) She’s gotten a lot of flack for the 2014 losses.
3) The Sanders supporters hate her, as she’s been a convenient scapegoat for the fact that Sanders lost. And by “scapegoat” I mean they blame her personally for things the DNC doesn’t actually control (like the dates of the primaries — States set that, the rules of primaries — like who can vote and when they have to register, and even the way the primaries are organized — again, the State parties handle that). So whether she is the devil incarnate or not, in the tank for HRC or not, she HAS been accused of a number of things she literally couldn’t have had control over.

So you have a figure loathed by a small, but loud, minority and blamed — both justly and injustly — for a variety of things, some of which she might actually be responsible for. She’s in the last days of her job anyways, she’s not popular with multiple major party figures, and her performance hasn’t been great (even if you can argue anyone’s would have sucked in 2014).

So she was given an ‘honorary’ position as a face-saving gesture, and shown the door a few months early.

Which is, bluntly, about the most common move in both business and politics when someone gets too unpopular and has too little support. It’s the political equivalent of a golden parachute for a CEO that saw some nasty losses and some bad PR.

“Resign for ‘family reasons’ or be fired”. Call her the fall guy — perhaps for her sins, perhaps for imaginary ones. Doesn’t matter. Nobody goes to the mat for a CEO whose retirement is only a few months away.

Would you be happier if I didn’t ask these kinds of questions?

I’d be happier if I thought you cared about the answers, actually. Or any sort of back and forth.

You ask, I answer, and instead of engaging in my response you ask another question, often of only barest relevance to my answer. The Socratic method is useful at times, but not the way you’re applying it.Report

Morat20 in reply to Jaybird says:

From what’s trickling out, the issue was apparently DWS was…very dense.

Admittedly, a lot of people are throwing her under the bus, but it’s being leaked everywhere that major players (Obama and Clinton both) wanted to toss her as much as a year ago, but decided the optics would be worse at the time.

As for Doom and Gloom — or not doom and gloom — everyone is trying to forecast the future and read tea leaves on the actions of what are, bluntly, the most heavily invested partisans that exist. (Nobody else goes to a convention).

I’m not particularly doom and gloom for a few reasons — mostly boiled down to “I’ve seen this crap before (PUMA’s in 2007, the 1992 convention)”, the polls showing Sanders supporters more behind Clinton than Clinton supporters were behind Obama at this point, etc.

And frankly, 8 years of Obama have pretty much made me immune to the weekly noise doomcasting. I think social media and people clustering in echo-chambers has really magnified the worst of the “horse race” mentality of elections. Our elections last MONTHS, but people obsess over daily or weekly fluctuations as if they’re the one key thing that’ll win or lose the campaign, despite the fact that tomorrow it’ll be a different thing.

But hey, if you want horse race news — at least the DNC convention has gotten ex-Presidents, ex-Presidential candidates, and the big name politicians to attend rather than be strangely busy. And also the runner-up to endorse.

However messy the convention is (and watching Sanders get booed by his own supporters was really a mixed emotion moment — I mean he saddled that horse himself, but I still felt bad for him), they’re almost always this messy. And compared to the CF of the GOP convention, at least the Dems managed a VP roll-out without stepping on their own wang.Report