HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » An Explanation of What Be...

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:29 PM

An Explanation of What Bernie Sanders Staffers Actually Did and Why It Matters

...

The brouhaha over this little fiasco has been intense, and made worse by the fact that only a few thousand people in the United States understand anything about the voter tools involved. Few journalists—to say nothing of armchair activists—have enough campaign and field management experience to truly understand what happened. That ignorance has led to wild accusations and silly reporting from all sides, whether from conspiratorially-minded Sanders supporters or schadenfreude-filled Republicans.

...

Even without being to export, however, merely seeing the topline numbers of, say, how many voters the Clinton campaign had managed to bank as “strong yes” votes would be a valuable piece of oppo. While it’s not the dramatic problem that a data export would have been, it’s undeniable that the Sanders campaign gleaned valuable information from the toplines alone. It’s also quite clear that most of the statements the Sanders campaign made as the story progressed—from the claim that the staffers only did it to prove the security breach, or that only one staffer had access—were simply not true. It’s just not clear at this point whether the campaign’s comms people knew the truth and lied, or whether they were not being told the whole truth by the people on the data team who were still making up stories and excuses to cover their tracks. I suspect the latter.

...

This doesn’t mean that Wasserman-Schultz hasn’t, in David Axelrod’s words, been putting her thumb on the scale on behalf of the Clinton campaign. She clearly has been, judging from the intentionally obfuscated debate schedule and from her demeanor and reaction to this recent controversy. The Democratic Party would have been wiser to bring the campaigns together privately and resolve the matter internally. Instead, Wasserman-Schultz chose to take it public to attempt to embarrass the Sanders campaign, and merely managed to embarrass herself and the Party’s data security vulnerabilities in the process.

Still, the Sanders camp’s reactions have been laughable. It was their team that unethically breached Clinton’s data. It was their comms people who spoke falsely about what happened. The Sanders campaign wasn’t honeypotted into doing it—their people did it of their own accord. NGPVAN isn’t set up to benefit Clinton at Sanders’ expense—and if the violation by the campaigns had been reversed, Sanders supporters would have been claiming a conspiracy from sunrise to sundown. What’s very clear is that the Clinton camp did nothing wrong in any of this. Sanders campaign operatives did, and then Wasserman-Schultz compounded it by overreacting. And in the end, the right thing ended up happening: the lead staffer in question was fired, and the campaign got its data access back.

...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_12/an_explanation_of_what_bernie059035.php

______________

Pretty decent analysis, worth reading in it's entirety before passing judgement.

41 replies, 5316 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply An Explanation of What Bernie Sanders Staffers Actually Did and Why It Matters (Original post)
Dem2 Dec 2015 OP
cantbeserious Dec 2015 #1
Blue_Adept Dec 2015 #25
Dr Hobbitstein Dec 2015 #39
Name removed Dec 2015 #2
Matariki Dec 2015 #10
artislife Dec 2015 #21
Hepburn Dec 2015 #3
Dem2 Dec 2015 #4
Hepburn Dec 2015 #5
Dem2 Dec 2015 #6
Hepburn Dec 2015 #7
Trajan Dec 2015 #8
Dem2 Dec 2015 #11
Hepburn Dec 2015 #15
Dem2 Dec 2015 #24
Hepburn Dec 2015 #26
winter is coming Dec 2015 #12
Gregorian Dec 2015 #9
ismnotwasm Dec 2015 #13
Jarqui Dec 2015 #14
Dem2 Dec 2015 #16
Jarqui Dec 2015 #17
Phlem Dec 2015 #27
Dem2 Dec 2015 #29
Phlem Dec 2015 #30
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #34
NuclearDem Dec 2015 #31
Dem2 Dec 2015 #18
Starry Messenger Dec 2015 #19
artislife Dec 2015 #20
Starry Messenger Dec 2015 #22
Dem2 Dec 2015 #23
artislife Dec 2015 #40
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #28
Number23 Dec 2015 #32
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #33
Dem2 Dec 2015 #35
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #36
Dem2 Dec 2015 #37
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #38
Dem2 Dec 2015 #41

Response to Dem2 (Original post)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:33 PM

1. Ever More FUD Promoted By Team HRC

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 05:45 PM

25. You forgot to say "This Citizen"

Time to put some money in the jar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Adept (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:42 PM

39. ROFL!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:52 PM

10. This is bordering on spam

you might not want to keep copying and pasting the same post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 05:04 PM

21. How does one alert MIRT? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Original post)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:33 PM

3. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hepburn (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:42 PM

4. The article is pretty harsh on DWS

How is this spin? Did you read the article or assume based on the headline?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:45 PM

5. I thought that top looked like DWS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hepburn (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:48 PM

6. Lol

She does look pretty hideous to me now.

I literally cringe when I see her on TV. Not her looks, mind you, her demeanor which just makes her accent all the more grating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:49 PM

7. She just spins and spins to me...I cannot trust a word out of her mouth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:51 PM

8. I've decided to rid my feed of mealy mouthed apologia

 

Which means, you gotta go ...

Gone ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:53 PM

11. Huh

That wasn't very nice.

A little neutral analysis and ... really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 04:05 PM

15. Could not figure out if the poster meant you, me or both of us!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hepburn (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 05:44 PM

24. No response to my query

...so I assume I am toast. I don't even recall interacting with said poster.

Oh, well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 05:45 PM

26. I don't recall the poster either!

Maybe just a flame out???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hepburn (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:54 PM

12. +1. And the first hints that DWS may be meeting the underside of a large vehicle. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Original post)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:52 PM

9. Prior episodes without a firewall are an important part of this, I believe.

It's important also to ask what is being asked in the article. But I don't recall any lies from the staff, or did I miss something? I understood this to be a test in order to determine whether the firewall had a reciprocal situation from the other side. I suspend judgment on all of this until we know the truth, or supposed truth. I don't see any clandestine intent anywhere except where everyone can see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Original post)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:57 PM

13. This

It’s also another reminder that armchair activists speculating about news stories would do well to actually get involved in campaign field activities. If you want to be involved in politics, there’s no substitute for actually doing the work to gain a real understanding of how and why campaigns and politicians behave as they do. There would be a lot fewer overwrought conspiracy theories, at the very least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Original post)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 04:04 PM

14. "What’s very clear is that the Clinton camp did nothing wrong in any of this"

Really? Has that been established?

Which campaign got Sanders data last October and before? Don't think we've got to the bottom of that yet. I'd like to see those data audit reports for that activity and under the hood before giving them a pass.

I do not think DWS is 100% at fault for the Democratic Nepotism for Clinton. It takes two and the Clinton campaign or Hillary has worked to corrupt that entity to excessive, over-the-top bias against the Sanders campaign.

The Clinton campaign howling over the data breach was so excessive yesterday that to me it went beyond overstatement to flat out deception. Saw it in 2008. Ditto.

If the Clinton campaign is so innocent and accurate here, why aren't they in court nailing the data thief and by doing so, effectively ending the primary? Because they've been so completely full of shit in this fiasco, it would be too risky and embarrassing for them to get pummeled by a judge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 04:28 PM

16. What has been established?

Which campaign got Sanders data last October and before? Don't think we've got to the bottom of that yet. I'd like to see those data audit reports for that activity and under the hood before giving them a pass.


The article can only speak to the incident in question. It would be absurd to litigate prior issues, that would show bias on the part of the writer.

I do not think DWS is 100% at fault for the Democratic Nepotism for Clinton. It takes two and the Clinton campaign or Hillary has worked to corrupt that entity to excessive, over-the-top bias against the Sanders campaign.


Clearly DWS is tilted toward HRC as noted in the article. If there's evidence that HRC is pulling DWS' strings, I think we'd all like to see it.

The Clinton campaign howling over the data breach was so excessive yesterday that to me it went beyond overstatement to flat out deception. Saw it in 2008. Ditto.


It seems both sides were howling quite loudly yesterday.

If the Clinton campaign is so innocent and accurate here, why aren't they in court nailing the data thief and by doing so, effectively ending the primary? Because they've been so completely full of shit in this fiasco, it would be too risky and embarrassing for them to get pummeled by a judge.


He was fired. Normally this would have been handled behind the scenes as it was previously, and probably would have been in this case if it wasn't for that idiot, DWS. DWS did Clinton NO favors by making this issue public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 04:42 PM

17. "It would be absurd to litigate prior issues, that would show bias on the part of the writer."

I don't think anyone asked that the writer "litigate" the issues.

In the campaign's first press conference on this and in the fired employee's first interview with CNN and since, prior incidents and a claim of data lost to another campaign has been raised. What would be absurd is for the media to overlook that.

When one considers what the campaign did this time, I think it is only fair to consider the context of their actions: that this was not the first time their data had been exposed and in at least one case, they feel that because of an exposure like this, their data was lost to another campaign.

That is a pretty darn good motive to get proof of the scope of the security breach. I don;t think it's unfair to expect the media to provide some reference to the past problems as a frame of reference for their recent actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 05:54 PM

27. This ^^^^^^^^^

"If the Clinton campaign is so innocent and accurate here, why aren't they in court nailing the data thief and by doing so, effectively ending the primary?"

Pretty much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 05:59 PM

29. Taking anything like this to court would be a terrible idea

Win or lose in court, the Democrats would most likely lose in the court of public opinion. They did the right thing in restoring what was only a temporary shut-off anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:00 PM

30. Agreed.

It was about the point that it ended as quick as it started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:24 PM

34. +1. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phlem (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:06 PM

31. Because a lawsuit would drain valuable time and financial resources

 

that the Clinton campaign and the DNC rather need to spend winning elections.

Were they really to expect the perpetrator of this offense to actually sue them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Original post)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 04:50 PM

18. Seems this is the response to this article?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Original post)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 04:52 PM

19. This is pretty much what I figured they were after:

"Even without being to export, however, merely seeing the topline numbers of, say, how many voters the Clinton campaign had managed to bank as “strong yes” votes would be a valuable piece of oppo. While it’s not the dramatic problem that a data export would have been, it’s undeniable that the Sanders campaign gleaned valuable information from the toplines alone."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 04:57 PM

20. Like Hillary's camp in 2008?

 

I just want to understand all so completely.

Also, why isn't all the party upset that this is happening. I would love to hear Martin's take on it, too. There seems to be big issues with the software, what was seen? Names, addresses, credit card info? Did anyone on the Martin or Hillary side see the breach? Why was the code written so, why wasn't it corrected and checked after the initial query made in October. (Believe as you will whether it was the same glitch or not)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to artislife (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 05:13 PM

22. Hillary's campaign staffers stole topline data on voters from a campaign report in 2008?

You have links for that, of course.

I have no idea about Martin's take, I am assuming he'll bring it up tonight in the debate.

The audit that brought this to light only showed one candidate's campaign staffers, Bernie's, improperly accessing data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to artislife (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 05:26 PM

23. "(Believe as you will whether it was the same glitch or not)"

The company claims it wasn't the same system, I would like a link that says otherwise, I don't work on a "belief system" (not religious)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 08:36 PM

40. I just didn't want to put words in your mouth. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Original post)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 05:57 PM

28. I don't understand why a campaign staff worker would do this unless it was to embarrass

Sanders. This is the one who will have the largest scars from this, now Sanders will be ask questions about the breach and it will be on the minds of voters. I would not be trying to prop up this guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Original post)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:18 PM

32. "What’s very clear is that the Clinton camp did nothing wrong in any of this."

It's a shame that there are people who seem to genuinely need to have this explained to them.

The Democratic Party would have been wiser to bring the campaigns together privately and resolve the matter internally. Instead, Wasserman-Schultz chose to take it public to attempt to embarrass the Sanders campaign, and merely managed to embarrass herself and the Party’s data security vulnerabilities in the process.

Still, the Sanders camp’s reactions have been laughable. It was their team that unethically breached Clinton’s data. It was their comms people who spoke falsely about what happened. The Sanders campaign wasn’t honeypotted into doing it—their people did it of their own accord. NGPVAN isn’t set up to benefit Clinton at Sanders’ expense—and if the violation by the campaigns had been reversed, Sanders supporters would have been claiming a conspiracy from sunrise to sundown.


A hell of a lot of truth there. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Original post)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:19 PM

33. Good and balanced piece ...

 

That will receive no love or attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:25 PM

35. Bah, who needs love and attention!

If I wanted that, I'd have simply changed the name in the title to "Hillary Clinton" and viola! instant success.

Oh, wait...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:34 PM

36. LOL ...

 

It seems that way, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:39 PM

37. Seems...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dem2 (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 06:41 PM

38. Ouch. Notice the rec count. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 20, 2015, 03:21 PM

41. I did indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread