Sanders/Clinton Data Breech battle

[*bfine32*]

http://news.yahoo.com/sanders-takes-democratic-officials-court-data-breach-fight-001415412--finance.html

Must admit, I haven't paid a lot of attention to this story, but from what I can surmise is that the Clinton campaign had access to voter data that the Sander's campaign did not. So Sander's team breached the Clinton data. Apparently the DNC was aware that Clinton had access to data that Sanders did not.

My question are: Am I close on my synopsis and if what are other's views on this?

If my interpretation is correct it is obvious that the DNC is in bed with Clinton.

[JustWinBaby]

No, just high tech Democrats striking again. The data was not secure and a staffer of Bernie's accessed Clinton's. They each have their data on some sort of DNC server.

So basically Bernie's staffer stole Clinton proprietary voter data. Then the DNC blocked Bernie from accessing his data as punishment. He sued. They gave him back access.

To take the claim that the DNC is in bed with Hillary seriously, you'd have to think Bernie Sanders ever actually had a chance.

[StLucieBengal]

I know the RNC shares their contacts with candidates if they reciprocate once the campaign is over. Not sure how the Dems do it.... But to think the DNC isn't in cahoots to make sure Hillary wins is a joke. Ghee purposely put every debate on a weekend or during a major sporting event. To guaruntee no one sees any of their nutty policies.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-19-2015, 07:50 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I know the RNC shares their contacts with candidates if they reciprocate once the campaign is over.   Not sure how the Dems do it....   But to think the DNC isn't in cahoots to make sure Hillary wins is a joke.    Ghee purposely put every debate on a weekend or during a major sporting event.   To guaruntee no one sees any of their nutty policies.

There hasn't been a serious challenger that was ever going to mount a real threat to Hillary.  The debate schedule is mainly to insulate Hillary from losing momentum going into the general.

You could even argue Sanders is in there to help triangulate policy that appeals to the left/base while not being rejected by moderates and independents.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-19-2015, 08:51 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: There hasn't been a serious challenger that was ever going to mount a real threat to Hillary.  The debate schedule is mainly to insulate Hillary from losing momentum going into the general.

You could even argue Sanders is in there to help triangulate policy that appeals to the left/base while not being rejected by moderates and independents.

They are ensuring moderates and independents don't watch by putting it on during football and other sporting events.   Then she can moderate he views to run a game in the general.

No matter how badly the political class wants either bush or Clinton.... No way it happens. People are too fed up.

[Benton]

(12-19-2015, 08:51 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: There hasn't been a serious challenger that was ever going to mount a real threat to Hillary.  The debate schedule is mainly to insulate Hillary from losing momentum going into the general.

You could even argue Sanders is in there to help triangulate policy that appeals to the left/base while not being rejected by moderates and independents.

I disagree.

sanders is mounting a pretty good campaign and he's got a chance. The dems dont want that as he can't raise the kind of cash Clinton can to take on whoever the GOP puts up. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to see sanders earn the nomination. I don't see him winning the election though (against anyone outside trump).

if you're basing it off polling, don't. Polling has been a flawed science since the 90s. And internet sampling has only made it worse as bots can really skew some of that data.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-19-2015, 09:40 PM)Benton Wrote: I disagree.

sanders is mounting a pretty good campaign and he's got a chance. The dems dont want that as he can't raise the kind of cash Clinton can to take on whoever the GOP puts up. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to see sanders earn the nomination. I don't see him winning the election though (against anyone outside trump).

if you're basing it off polling, don't. Polling has been a flawed science since the 90s. And internet sampling has only made it worse as bots can really skew some of that data.

Sanders would beat a progressive GOP candidate.

He wouldn't beat Cruz. I actually don't see Hillary beating Cruz either.

[Benton]

(12-19-2015, 09:47 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Sanders would beat a progressive GOP candidate.  

He wouldn't beat Cruz.   I actually don't see Hillary beating Cruz either.

hmm. I consider Cruz a progressive GOP candidate. Rand is about the only real conservative, although fiornia could be for all I know. I admit, I don't know much about her policy. But she doesn't stand a chance.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-19-2015, 10:23 PM)Benton Wrote: hmm. I consider Cruz a progressive GOP candidate. Rand is about the only real conservative, although fiornia could be for all I know. I admit, I don't know much about her policy. But she doesn't stand a chance.

Cruz is a poser no matter where you think he actually lays on the spectrum.

And Rand is a libertarian.  It's interesting that someone would consider that to be "conservative".  It's an interesting observation on the political ruling class and its media bed-mates that the majority of America is likely libertarian and doesn't know it and doesn't vote for libertarians.

[CKwi88]

(12-19-2015, 10:34 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Cruz is a poser no matter where you think he actually lays on the spectrum.

And Rand is a libertarian.  It's interesting that someone would consider that to be "conservative".  It's an interesting observation on the political ruling class and its media bed-mates that the majority of America is likely libertarian and doesn't know it and doesn't vote for libertarians.

The most libertarian thing about Rand Paul is his last name. 







RE: Sanders. 


I think that Sander's campaign is rather admirable. Sure he has little chance of winning, and the deck is certainly stacked against him, but I think he (much like Trump) has given people a voice for people who are sick of the same ol same ol two party system. 

I'd echo Bryan Cranston's sentiments on Trump's run 

Quote:“There’s something so refreshing about shaking up that world that is all about being handled, and here comes this loose cannon who has terrible ideas and would be a horrible president, but there’s something great about his ‘I-don’t-give-a-sh-t’ attitude that really kind of keeps others honest.”

Sanders is kinda the Democrat equivalent to Trump, just with at least a sliver of credibility as a candidate and without the blatant racism and bigotry. And in a sense, both are at the very least making people aware to alternatives, which is a step our country needs to make. Having our country ran by two political ideologies is pathetic. 

[StLucieBengal]

(12-19-2015, 10:23 PM)Benton Wrote: hmm. I consider Cruz a progressive GOP candidate. Rand is about the only real conservative, although fiornia could be for all I know. I admit, I don't know much about her policy. But she doesn't stand a chance.

What in his policy makes him a progressive in your opinion?

I think Rand and Cruz are really the only non progressives.   Fiorina is a big gov progressive.

And I do agree Rand is more of a conservative libertarian. The progressives slap him wth the libertarian tag to marginalized him.

[BmorePat87]

(12-19-2015, 02:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/sanders-takes-democratic-officials-court-data-breach-fight-001415412--finance.html

Must admit, I haven't paid a lot of attention to this story, but from what I can surmise is that the Clinton campaign had access to voter data that the Sander's campaign did not. So Sander's team breached  the Clinton data. Apparently the DNC was aware that Clinton had access to data that Sanders did not.

My question are: Am I close on my synopsis and if what are other's views on this?

If my interpretation is correct it is obvious that the DNC is in bed with Clinton.

the DNC gathers voter data and both campaigns have access to the basic information of these voters.

They then use this information to take their own notes on the voter. So Hillary might call GMdino and find out they're on the fence about who to vote for and their biggest issue is healthcare. They're going to target this voter. They may then find out that Bfine is a huge Bernie fan, so they'll make note of that. 

Bernie's campaign will do the same thing.

What happened was there was an error and Bernie's campaign had access to the Hillary data. They could then use this data to find out who has been contacted by her, who they identified as being on the fence, who supports issues he is stronger on. A huge strategic advantage. 

Bernie's campaign says they alerted the DNC on this. 4 of his staffer donwloaded some info. They fired them. Now the DNC is restricting their access to the data and they're calling foul. It will be a huge Clinton advantage if only she has access.

[Benton]

(12-19-2015, 10:34 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Cruz is a poser no matter where you think he actually lays on the spectrum.

And Rand is a libertarian.  It's interesting that someone would consider that to be "conservative".  It's an interesting observation on the political ruling class and its media bed-mates that the majority of America is likely libertarian and doesn't know it and doesn't vote for libertarians.

most conservative might have been a better way to phrase that, but I'll stick with it. What he's advocated is more conservative than the rest of the field.

[Benton]

(12-19-2015, 11:47 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What in his policy makes him a progressive in your opinion?

I think Rand and Cruz are really the only non progressives.   Fiorina is a big gov progressive.

And I do agree Rand is more of a conservative libertarian.  The progressives slap him wth the libertarian tag to marginalized him.

doesn't like the scotus when it doesn't rule in rino favor. Advocated denying first amendment rights (albeit to the klan, but that doesn't matter). Supports government sanctions on marriage. Wants a lot more foreign involvement.

he's another guy pandering to the moral majority without any real interest in addressing long-term issues.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-20-2015, 01:10 AM)Benton Wrote: most conservative might have been a better way to phrase that, but I'll stick with it. What he's advocated is more conservative than the rest of the field.

He's a rather textbook libertarian - smaller govt, more privacy and free choice, fiscally conservative.  The vast majority of Americans are strongly in favor of all those things, yet they vote for something else.

In this day and age, "conservative" is a derisive term, so I found tagging Paul with that to be interesting.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-20-2015, 01:20 AM)Benton Wrote: doesn't like the scotus when it doesn't rule in rino favor. Advocated denying first amendment rights (albeit to the klan, but that doesn't matter). Supports government sanctions on marriage. Wants a lot more foreign involvement.

he's another guy pandering to the moral majority without any real interest in addressing long-term issues.

Wasn't he one of the ones who was against lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court? That cuts both ways

And on marriage. He was for it to be set at the state level . While I don't think we should have any government marriage. This is the best of bad scenarios.

Where did he restrict 1st amendment? I would like to find more on this.

foreign involvement . He has been falling back to more of a rand position as he has gained ground. This is better than rubio and Christie's position of fighting everyone.

Cruz isn't my ideal candidate. But labeling him a progressive is interesting.

[CKwi88]

(12-20-2015, 01:20 AM)Benton Wrote: doesn't like the scotus when it doesn't rule in rino favor. Advocated denying first amendment rights (albeit to the klan, but that doesn't matter). Supports government sanctions on marriage. Wants a lot more foreign involvement.

he's another guy pandering to the moral majority without any real interest in addressing long-term issues.

Only in America can you promote denying people the freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful assembly, and due process, be "offended" by same sex marriage, and propose a $75 billion dollar increase to the defense budget and get labeled as a guy who wants a smaller government and more free choice for people. 

Paul rode the coattails of his father's libertarian push, got to the Senate and realized that he either has to fall in line with the party or find himself out of Congress. He's obviously chosen the former. 

[Benton]

(12-20-2015, 10:31 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Wasn't he one of the ones who was against lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court?  That cuts both ways

And on marriage.   He was for it to be set at the state level .  While I don't think we should have any government marriage.   This is the best of bad scenarios.  

Where did he restrict 1st amendment?  I would like to find more on this.  

foreign involvement .  He has been falling back to more of a rand position as he has gained ground.   This is better than rubio and Christie's position of fighting everyone.  

Cruz isn't my ideal candidate.  But labeling him a progressive is interesting.

he wanted to prevent the KKK from taking part in roadside cleanup to keep them off highway signs.

[fredtoast]

(12-20-2015, 05:11 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The vast majority of Americans are strongly in favor of all those things, yet they vote for something else.

I disagree.  Many citizens realize that without government regulation they would be oppressed and exploited by the wealthy power elite.

Very few people trust the corporations with all the power to do what is best for them.

People know a little more history than you think.

[Rotobeast]

(12-20-2015, 12:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I disagree.  Many citizens realize that without government regulation they would be oppressed and exploited by the wealthy power elite.

Very few people trust the corporations with all the power to do what is best for them.

People know a little more history than you think.