The Kingfish posted:

I meant they should use it to keep constant low-level investigations going.

punk rebel ecks posted:

So just how much influence did Russia have on this election?

quote:

Labor Secretary Thomas E. Perez has told three senior Democrats that he intends to run for chairman of the Democratic National Committee, challenging the front-running candidate, Representative Keith Ellison, and inserting an ally of President Obama into the contest to rebuild a bruised party.

Mr. Perez, who had also been considering a run for Maryland governor, is expected to reveal his plan to seek the D.N.C. chairmanship this week, according to Democratic officials briefed on his decision who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. He did not respond to inquiries about his decision-making.

While Mr. Obama may not offer a formal endorsement of his labor secretary’s candidacy, Mr. Perez will effectively have the imprimatur of the president who appointed him to his cabinet. Mr. Perez’s entry into the race could start a proxy battle between Democrats loyal to the Mr. Obama and those from the more liberal wing of the party represented by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is backing Mr. Ellison, a Minnesota progressive, for party chairman.

[...]

While he has served in positions in state and federal government, Mr. Perez, 55, has scant experience with electoral politics, having served just four years on the Montgomery County Council in Maryland. The state party chiefs and other committee members who make up the voting members of the two national parties at times prefer candidates to come from their own ranks when they do not control the White House.

[...]

But Mr. Perez’s bid will also test how willing Democrats are to risk angering Mr. Sanders’s legions of grass-roots supporters — and whether they will bow to Mr. Obama in the final weeks of his presidency.

Fidel Cuckstro posted:

That seems like a bad idea. Like I know you don't mean this at the exclusion of all else, but even in a greater context, I don't think the Dem base would take that seriously. And Trump blithely dismissing this stuff will be the even more cool, relatable version of Hillary looking annoyed with Trey Gowdy.


Dems' eyes should be on Paul Ryan. This entire idea that people are painting him as the 'good sensible Republican' when they need to have the knives out for him as he plans to dismantle entitlement programs further- that's a narrative you can win against a snot-eating dork like Ryan, and it's the right thing to do for people.

Baloogan posted:

Grand Prize Winner posted:

OK so I'm dredging this up from 7 pages ago, from Baloogan of all people (love you man, you're first in line when it's for jello shots), but what the hell is the X axis here??

FuriousxGeorge posted:

Team of rivals!

I'm starting to think Democrats may need to stop taking inspiration from Abe Lincoln.

punk rebel ecks posted:

So just how much influence did Russia have on this election?

Montasque posted:

Brock says the HRC campaign had no persuasion script for campaign canvassers... That they had deep analytics but no real outreach.

Also he says HRC is not going to retire, and that she's more popular than Bernie, and she won the popular vote!

Montasque posted:

Reasons why Hillary lost:
...
The Hillary campaign didn't compete in Wisconsin.
...
- Too much analytics.

quote:

- Brock says the way Trump played PUSSYGATE was perfect. He went right after the Clintons. Brock says his sister bought the "Locker room-talk" line and voted Trump.

Zikan posted:

also lol if you think the remnants of the dem establishment would give up to sanders without a fight, even if it's a mildly progressive candidate instead of a third way centrist

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/politics/thomas-perez-democratic-national-committee.html


thanks obama

blamegame posted:

i can't get over how they're trying to sell this story now, when its so far gone. 'hey guys, here's a bunch of old news, still backed by your favorite people in the world, the cia"

breaking: trump said months ago it was cool how putin murkd journalists

quote:

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

Baloogan posted:

wasted a bunch of liberal cuck money

FuriousxGeorge posted:

Said it before and will say it again, people like Olbermann and Moore were broken clocks during the Bush administration. The signs that they are smart and perceptive and fun to watch but also flawed in their thinking were always there. But like, at the time the people who were supposed to be guiding lights for opposition to the Republicans were...doing poo poo like voting for the Iraq War. There was nobody else for anyone not lost in the 9/11 era hysteria to turn to. I'll always respect them for standing up against Bush, but I'm not going to listen to much of what they say going forward. Though Moore of course was ahead of the curve on how real Trump's chances were. Trust Moore when it comes to the rust belt at least.

punk rebel ecks posted:

Tell me more.

Montasque posted:

Lots of stuff there. Brock puts a lot on Sanders. Says CTR was only 15 kids...

mugrim posted:

So he paid "kids" 80k to post online?

Nichael posted:

I think Moore really re-established his credibility in 2016. We went from making fun of him in July to saying how prescient he was in November. I have to give him that.

docbeard posted:

Moore, okay. But I'm choosing to believe that anything Scott Adams was right about was just a coincidence.

Baloogan posted:

dilbro has more insight than u do lamo lam bo