DNC: Definitely Not Cool, Democrats in National Clusterf*ck

Alright, so I admit the GOP tends to get most of the attention in this blog....but thats mostly because thats where most of the chaos is playing out in this election cycle....or at least it was.

It seems the Democrats, or at least the Democratic National Committee (the DNC) may be poised to steal the crown from their republican counter parts.

Ok so a lot of the Chaos on the republican side comes from the fact they had 16 guys running for president, half of them are crazy and the RNC wont really step in to stop the crazy people saying they want the primary to play out without interference and to reflect the choices of the people. (the problem being the people in their party are crazy)

The Democrats meanwhile had 5 candidates, all of whom were comparatively sane. Despite that, it seems the DNC, or at least its chairwoman Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, long ago decided who's going to win this primary, no matter what the people want, and keeps interfering to ensure the outcome she wants.

Ok so our story starts much earlier this year in august. At the time the RNC announced a total of 12 debates for their candidates.....the DNC only 6.

This of course led to outcries from the Democrats for more debates. After all debates build recognition and cededing that many extra debates to the GOP meant voters would likely have a much better idea of what the eventual Republican nominee stood for as opposed to the democrats.

And that wasnt the only problem with the debates. See its not unusual for the DNC/RNC to annouce the number of debates early on in the election cycle. But the DNC took the unsual step of also announcing dates for most of theirs, specifically October 13, November 14th, December 19th, and January 17th.

Or to put that another way, Thursday, Saturday, Saturday and Sunday. Thing is, its well known that on Saturday NO ONE is watching TV at all. its the lowest viewership day of the week. (and Sunday is the second lowest night of the week) And one of those saturdays also happens to be the saturday before christmas, A day in which there has NEVER been a debate before, because viewership also drops across the board near Christmas.

And as FOX news was fast to gloat about (correctly in this case), that appears to have been the case, as only a bit under 7 million people watched the Christmas debate. (this in comparison to the 13.5 million that watched the least watched GOP debate)

Oh, the other Saturday debate? 8.5 millon viewers is all. (compared to say the one democratic debate on Thursday, which got 15 million...and is the 4 most watched debate of the 8 so far)

Oh and that upcoming Sunday debate? that would be the sunday of the MLK 3 day weekend...and scheduled to run against an AFC playoff game. So what do you think the chances are anyone is going to be watching that night?

So why would you schedule 3 of your 6 debates on days no one is watching?

Well there are two possible theories.
1) you are absolutely horrible at your job
2) you know the debates usually harm the candidate with the most name recognition, as people change their minds and support lesser known candidates once they realize they agree with them, and you really really really want the candidate with the most name recognition to win.

Or, to put that second one another way, your in the tank for Hilary Clinton.

Now to be fair to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, she claims that, despite being the national campaign co-chair for Hilary Clinton in 2008, she is totally NOT in the tank for her.

In fact, per Mrs Schultz, she consulted with the 4 previous DNC chairs before announcing the debate line up and they all agreed to these dates.

Except that it seems 3 of those 4 DNC chairs cant remember that conversation....and the 4th isnt commenting.

Oh and leaked memos from inside the DNC also seem to show that 80% (or 4 of 5) of the candidates wanted more than 6 debates. The lone holdout who wanted less debates? Hilary Clinton.

And seeing as how 2 of the 6 debates basically wont be seen well

Oh by the way, it might also be worth pointing out that when DNC Vice Chairwoman Tulsi Gabbard backed the movement for more than 6 debates, she found herself dis-invited from the first debate by Congresswoman Shultz's office.

Its also worth noting that Mrs. Gabbard was also complaining that she and the rest of the DNC officers hadnt been consulted on the debate either, a charge again refuted by Mrs. Shultz who claimed that she had in fact consulted them, just as she had consulted the former DNC heads.

And thats not actually sarcasm....it turns out it WAS the same kind of consultation...non-existent. At least according to another DNC Vice Chairman R.T. Rybak who said he hadnt been consulted either....a claim backed up both for him and Mrs. Gabbard by the DNC's chief of staff.

And by the way, the story doesnt stop there....we are just getting started.

Ok so early last week a story broke that a Bernie Sanders campaign staffer had illegally accessed proprietary information of the Hilary Clinton campaign that was stored on the DNC servers.

Now to be fair, this part is indisputably true. Which is why the Sanders campaign when notified of this fired the staffer in question.

But then things got complicated.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz reacted to the "hack" by suspending the Sanders campaign's access to ITS OWN DATA stored on DNC servers.  This data by the way would be Sanders list of voters, volunteers for the campaign, support and doner lists, basically everything a campaign needs to function

Which honestly makes no sense. Schultz tried to defend it, but none of her varied defenses have logic.  For example:

"They are prohibited from accessing another campaign's proprietary information, and we have the ability to suspend that campaign's access to the voter file in order to make sure that we can preserve the integrity of the voter file and ensure that there is confidence in it"

Ok so. if your worried your voter file isnt secure, that would imply ALL of the campaigns can access ALL of the other campaigns information. So shouldnt EVERYONE be suspended from the database until its secure? Not just 1 of 3 campaigns?

Or this one:

"Over the course of approximately 45 minutes, staffers of the Bernie Sanders campaign inappropriately accessed voter targeting data belonging to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Once the DNC became aware that the Sanders campaign had inappropriately and systematically accessed Clinton campaign data, and in doing so violated the agreement that all the presidential campaigns have signed with the DNC, as the agreement provides, we directed NGP VAN [the vendor that supplies access to the database] to suspend the Sanders campaign's access to the system until the DNC is provided with a full accounting of whether or not this information was used and the way in which it was disposed."

Ok, so on its face this one doesnt look as bad, until you know FACTS try to get involved.

Ok so to be fair to the DNC there some evidence that implied multiple staffers took advantage of the breech, although so far no one seems to be able to link anything back to anyone other than the dude who was fired. And the guy who was fired claims all he did with the information was forward it to the vendor to alert them to the size of the potential breech......a claim that as of yet can not disproved or supported.

Although its worth mentioning the DNC also claims it was the Vendor that was made aware of the breech first. Admittedly this could be due to an internal check, so it doesnt inherently support sanders.

However its worth noting the Sanders campaign didnt actually hack anything despite the implications. The vendor (by their own admission) dropped the firewall while attempting to update the system. Which at least suggests a lower likelyhood of an internal check catching the breech since that would have triggered when they first dropped the firewall.

Also this means that the DNC gets some of the blame here for failing to keep the information secure. Which goes back to that first quote, if they believe they cant keep the information secure (and evidence shows they cant) shouldnt they be suspending EVERYONE until they can?

But real the problem comes at the end, where Wasserman Schultz references the agreement where they can terminate campaign access. It reads like this

"Either party may terminate this Agreement in the event that the other party breaches this Agreement; the non-breaching party sends written notice to the breaching party describing the breach; and the breaching party does not cure the breach to the satisfaction of the non-breaching party within ten (10) calendar days following its receipt of such notice."
Problem is, the Sanders campaign was suspended the same day the DNC was notified of the breech....not at the end of the 10 days they are given to resolve the problem to the DNC's satisfaction.

Which it should be pointed out, Sanders fired the one name the DNC gave them as responsible for the breeches...so clearly they were attempting satisfactory resolutions.

Oh and remember the part where I said the Vendor dropped the firewalls and therefore its arguably the DNC's fault for not keeping the data secure? yea well the agreement backs me up

"This Agreement requires the DNC to "use security measures, with respect to the Campaign Data, that are consistent with good practices in the data processing industry."

Which is why a couple days later the DNC reversed itself and restored Sanders access to his own data....just not fast enough prevent Bernie Sanders from suing the DNC in court for banning them illegally.

And even thats not the end of the story, See Sanders campaign manager claimed the day they were banned that this wasnt the first time this happened

“On more than one occasion they [the DNC] have dropped the firewall between the data of the competing Democratic campaigns. This is dangerous incompetence. It was our campaign months ago that alerted the DNC to the fact that the campaign data was being made available to other campaigns,”
Now I know what your thinking, "funny I havnt heard of anyone else getting suspended", and youd be right.

Now according to the DNC this is because no previous breeches ever happened.

According to the vendor on december 19th however

"Late last night we were directed by our client the DNC to restore the Sanders campaign's full access to VoteBuilder. NGP VAN staff worked through the night to ensure Sanders campaign staff were up and running by early this morning.

For clarification, NGP VAN played no part in the October data issue that has been mentioned.

We look forward to working closely with the DNC and our partners on the important next steps that will ensure Democratic success around the country in November.
Everyone see that? that would be the vendor claiming that yes the firewalls HAVE come down before...but that time wasnt their fault.

Which means the Sanders campaign is telling the truth that this isnt the first time.

So why wasnt the other campaign, whoever it was (strongly implied by the Sanders campaign to be Clinton), punished? In fact, by all accounts the DNC did NOTHING at the time.

Furthermore the DNC and the Clinton Campaign have been claiming that the Sanders Campaign downloaded and saved all of her records, hence the justification for banning them in the first place As Debbie Wasserman Schultz put it:


"Staff on the sanders campaign not only viewed the Clinton campaign's proprietary data, but from what we're being told, downloaded it, exported it and downloaded it,"
problem is, that doesnt appear to have been possible at least according to the vendor:

"On Wednesday morning, there was a release of VAN code. Unfortunately, it contained a bug. For a brief window, the voter data that is always searchable across campaigns in VoteBuilder included client scores it should not have, on a specific part of the VAN system. So for voters that a user already had access to, that user was able to search by and view (but not export or save or act on) some attributes that came from another campaign"

In otherwords the Sanders campaign couldnt have saved anything....and only could see Clintons information on voters they themselves also had information on.  Which is not even remotely what the DNC is accusing them of.

But then again, when youve already decided who you want to win your parties nomination, and burying the debates isnt stopping other candidates from gaining momentum, I suppose selectively and illegal enforcing agreements, possbily ignoring wrongdoing of your preferred candidate and accusing that other candidate repeatedly of things he didnt actually do to make him look worse, is totally justified. Amirite? Debbie Wasserman Schultz seems to think so.

The final GOP debate of 2015. Or how to end the year on a bad note.

Alright so dont have a good intro this time around.....this debate was basically just across the board bad. I actually dont think ANYONE came out looking better than they did going in. So this is more a ranking of worst to least bad.

Now the rules for those just joining us:

The way this works, I'm going to start with the Candidate I think has the bleakest future and move up. However after each number showing the candidates present prospects, I will also list a second number in () after the name, which is the "number" based on the polls going into the debate. So for example #1 Clinton, (8) would mean the candidate (Clinton in this fictional case) who currently looks the best, came in to the debate with the worst support in the polls.

Also like last time there will be a 3rd number following the second, this is where I placed the candidates standing in my evaluation of the last debate. So using Clinton again #1 Clinton (8/6) would mean I think Clinton did the best, came into the debate in 10th, but I had thought should have been entering at 8th in my previous analysis.


9) Donald Trump (1/7)

Holy fuck, what a disaster for Trump. This is one of the few times that if you listened to the debate on the radio, you probibly think Trump did much better than he did.......because you couldnt see the 5000 expressions of irritation and annoyance (or outright stupidity) on his face. If it wasnt already a known fact, this debate established Trump is a glass cannon.....he can dish it out, but man can he NOT take it. (all pictures are from the debate, although admittedly Im focusing on the stupid ones not the angry one)

Grumpy Trumpy

And it turns out, he has no freaking clue what the internet actually is or how it works.

For example when asked about his comments about wanting to close down the internet he started with:

"Well, look, this is so easy to answer. ISIS is recruiting through the Internet. ISIS is using the Internet better than we are using the Internet, andit was our idea. What I wanted to do is I wanted to get our brilliant people from Silicon Valley and other places and figure out a way that ISIS cannot do what they're doing"

Of course unless you close down the internet for everyone (which he says he didnt mean to suggest) those people in Silicon Valley are going to tell him the internet doesnt work that way......you cant just close off certain people.

He continued

"But we should be using our brilliant people, our most brilliant minds to figure a way that ISIS cannot use the Internet. And then on second, we should be able to penetrate the Internet and find out exactly where ISIS is and everything about ISIS. And we can do that if we use our good people."

I wonder where Trump thinks our intelligence about ISIS is coming from right now?

"WOLF BLITZER: Let me follow up, Mr. Trump.

So, are you open to closing parts of the Internet?

TRUMP: I would certainly be open to closing areas where we are at war with somebody. I sure as hell don't want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our Internet. Yes, sir, I am.

So maybe by parts trump means Websites, which would at least suggest he realize the internet doesnt have a physical location.....but then this happens a bit later

" So, they can kill us, but we can't kill them? That's what you're saying. And as far as the Internet is concerned, we're not talking about closing the Internet. I'm talking about parts of Syria, parts of Iraq, where ISIS is, spotting it.

Now, you could close it. What I like even better than that is getting our smartest and getting our best to infiltrate their Internet, so that we know exactly where they're going, exactly where they're going to be. I like that better."

So Trump clearly thinks we have "our" internet and they have "their internet" and that "their internet" is located in Iran and Syria. Right......except thats not even remotely close to how the internet works.

By the way, it appears the audience realized this cause Trump actually got booed for this....which led to him yelling at the audience for booing him

"But we have to -- who would be -- I just can't imagine somebody booing. These are people that want to kill us, folks, and you're -- you're objecting to us infiltrating their conversations? I don't think so. I don't think so."

Though to be fair, Trump has a point here....the GOP audience has supported very other non nonsensical thing he's ever said, so I dont know why they would draw the line at incorrect comments about what the internet is and how it works.

Internet? dur

Then we leave the stupid moments behind and reach the awkward moments....like this
"I do want a wall. Walls do work, you just have to speak to the folks in Israel. Walls work if they're properly constructed." Which is a little awkward given that Trump just cancelled his trip to Israel after Prime Minister Netanyahu called Trumps ideas stupid (paraphrasing).

Israel? Psss

Or this

"DANA BASH: Mr. Trump, just this weekend you said Senator Cruz is not qualified to be president because he doesn't have the right temperament and acted like a maniac when he arrived in the Senate. But last month you said you were open to naming Senator Cruz as your running mate.

TRUMP: I did.
BASH: So why would you be willing to put somebody who's a maniac one heartbeat away from the presidency?

TRUMP: Let me just say that I have gotten to know him over the last three or four days. He has a wonderful temperament."
Which is awkward cause if you follow the timeline this means Trump both declared Cruz qualified to be vice president and a maniac before he ever knew the guy....meaning both comments were made in equal ignorance. Not sure that really helps....

Change a position? Who me?

Also Trump pledged not to run as a 3rd party candidate.....again. Cause he made the same pledge right after the first debate (in which he had refused to make the pledge)....before reversing himself after the 4th debate. But this time, I'm sure he means it......maybe....sorta.

Dude who knows the future? Amirite?

8) John Kasich (8/2)

John Kasich was basically the forgotten man in this debate. He was never attacked by any candidate, and never attacked another candidate. Which might be classy, but also likely resulted in his having the least amount of time to speak of any candidate.....at 9 minutes. And nothing he said in those 9 minutes was remotely memorable.

7) Ben Carson (2/8)

On the one hand, this was Carson's strongest debate performance....it actually sounded like he had some idea of what he was talking about. On the other hand it was pretty clear he was sticking to the few pieces of information and trivia he had actually memorized, and otherwise still doesnt really know anything. Which is probibly why, like Kasich, he never attacked or was attacked by anyone

And when the moderator tried to get him involved in a disagreement between Rubio and Paul over NSA data collection he refused to take a side......presumably because he didnt actually know anything about the issue. or as he put it "I think you have to ask them about that. I don't want to get in between them. Let them fight."

Also when doing a break down on topics during the debate, its worth noting Carson said not a word on privacy and security or immigration, and spent less than a minute on foreign policy.  Because I guess those issues arnt that important?


And then there was the really awkward and rushed second of silence.....just saying in the future, thats one of those things that shouldnt be done under a timer

6) Carly Fiorina (6/4)

Another candidate who neglected to attack anyone...and also got no damn speaking time. (9 minutes 30 seconds). Of course there is some question as to what she used that speaking time for, as per CNN's breakdown she only spoke on 3 of the 6 debate topics....and only one of those 3 for longer than one minute.(privacy and security 3 minutes 3 seconds). Which kinda makes her a literal single issue candidate in this debate. I only rank her higher than Kasich (who actually covered more issues) because I remember her actually being at the debate, whereas I easily forgot Kasich was there. Ditto that justification for putting her above Carson, I at least remember her taking, more than I can say for him.

5) Ted Cruz (3/6)

So honestly Ted Cruz is only this high because he controlled the debate.  He got far and away the most speaking time, and contributed the most or second most to 4 of the 6 debate topics.

Problem is, much of what he said was a disaster. For example he disagrees with Donald Trump on banning muslims but fell into the im a nazi but not as much of one thing saying  "Well, listen, Hugh, everyone understands why Donald has suggested what he has." and "I understand why Donald made that proposal. I introduced legislation in the Senate that I believe is more narrowly focused at the actual threat[...]" deflected multiple attempts to get him to give specific differences between his plan and trumps by blaming Obama....and also FDR's Grandfather.

Then there was his attempts to dodge questions about his claim he wants to carpet bomb ISIS, which lead to exchanges like this:

"WOLF BLITZER: To be clear, Senator Cruz, would you carpet bomb Raqqa, the ISIS capital, where there are a lot of civilians, yes or no?"

CRUZ: "You would carpet bomb where ISIS is, not a city, but the location of the troops. You use air power directed -- and you have embedded special forces to direction the air power. But the object isn't to level a city. The object is to kill the ISIS terrorists."

Right....except the Troops are located IN a city....which apprently Ted Cruz wants to not bomb except when bombing, but he doesnt want to bomb unless bombing.....

And that wasnt the only time something like that happened. Marco Rubio accused Cruz of voting against the National Defense Authorization Act....to which Cruz said this;
Well, you know, Marco has continued these attacks, and he knows they're not true. Yes, it is true that I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act, because when I campaigned in Texas I told voters in Texas that I would oppose the federal government having the authority to detain U.S. citizens permanently with no due process.

So Rubio is lying because you actually did what he said you did? Huh?

Then there was Cruz's attempt to do the obligatory Reagan reference, except he even managed to bollox that.

"You know, there was a time for choosing as Reagan put it. Where there was a battle over amnesty and some chose, like Senator Rubio to stand with Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer and support a massive amnesty plan."

See the thing is, Reagan ALSO supported that massive amnesty plan....so yea not really the best example.

Although it was the best example for Cruz's debate performance....he talked ALOT, and no matter your position on an issue, he likely agreed with you....and then disagreed with you, then agreed with you, then tried to make it look like you agreed with him.

And I gotta be honest, if this is the best Cruz can do....well I hope he doesnt get comfortable near the top of the polls cause after this performance I doubt he has the skills to stay there.

3) Marco Rubio (4/3)

Rubio gets a boost here from the fact that he was clearly the one Ted Cruz (who again dominated the talking time) was trying to take down....and yet Rubio "won" most of the exchanges.

Heck even the one time Rand Paul tried to take him on, Rubio won with a compartively great line of
"I want to thank Rand for another 30 seconds" after Paul mentioned him....and Rubio then used those 30 seconds to ignore Paul.

And he gave a really good anwser on if we should keep bombing ISIS and how to fight them.

Well, let me begin by saying that we have to understand who ISIS is. ISIS is a radical Sunni group. They cannot just be defeated through air strikes. Air strikes are a key component of defeating them, but they must be defeated on the ground by a ground force. And that ground force must be primarily made up of Sunni Arabs themselves, Sunni Arabs that reject them ideologically and confront them militarily.

Which was not to say his debate preformance was steller, it really wasnt. He managed to articulate plenty of really stupid things....although as sound bites they likely sound good in the primary...but I suspect should he make it to the general election he's going to have to walk alot of it back.

For example when describing ISIS he said:

"But this is what's important to do is we must deal frontally with this threat of radical Islamists, especially from ISIS. This is the most sophisticated terror group that has ever threatened the world or the United States of America."

Yea, ISIS is the most sophisticated threat we've faced Not Nazi Germany (then again given current republican policies, this makes sense). Not Al Qadea (who actually DID 9/11). Not China (all the hacking). Hell not even the USSR, who you know had NUKES. No its ISIS, who compared to any of the groups I named (and a lot more) hasnt really done shit to us....

Then he got around to American's who join ISIS

Yes, let me -- three points of distinction. The first is, if you're an American citizen and you decide to join up with ISIS, we're not going to read you your Miranda rights. You're going to be treated as an enemy combatant, a member of an army attacking this country.

Because you know, FUCK the Constitution. President Rubio is only going to apply that when convenient. Otherwise they can just claim your ISIS...and without your rights, they probably dont have to prove it.

Or when addressing his flip flop on Immigration between 2013 and now:

"Yeah, a couple points. In 2013 we had never faced a crisis like the Syrian refugee crisis now. Up until that point, a refugee meant someone fleeing oppression, fleeing Communism like it is in my community."

2 problems here. First WE HAD faced those kinds of problems before. Off the top of my head, the Irish during the famine and the Jews during WWII (but then again ISIS is worse than Nazi's per ruibo)

Second problem is the bigger one. As it sounds like Rubio is fine with different rules for people allegedly like him...but fuck everyone else. Not a great position. And I say allegedly like him, because Rubio's family ARNT  Cuban refugees. His parents voluntarily immigrated here during the reign of Batista....before Castro came to power.  And Rubio KNOWS this....but I'm sure misrepresenting himself wont fuck him with the Cuban vote in Florida...

Oh, speaking of refugees, how many of them is Rubio willing to kill/damn if needed? Well let him tell you.

"If we allow 9,999 Syrian refugees into the United States, and all of them are good people, but we allow one person in who's an ISIS killer -- we just get one person wrong, we've got a serious problem.

And there is not a single person in the national defense apparatus of this country that can guarantee you are going to be 100 percent right. And that's why as president, I'll take this very seriously."

Cause hey if 1 out of 1000 people is bad....fuck em all.

Finally there was this, in Rubio's closing statement

"For over 200 years this has been a special country. A unique place where anyone from anywhere can achieve anything. "

Heres the problem....assuming we accept his premise HE'S THE ONE WHO WANTS TO CHANGE THAT BY KEEPING PEOPLE OUT, that was literally his main debate topic for the debate.

3) Rand Paul (9/1)
The problem for Rand Paul is that he was basically irrelevant. He tried to attack other candidates.....and they brushed him off and ignored him.

That said He did a good job of explaining why US intervention in the middle east was a mistake, and he did a good job of explaining why a no fly zone in Syria would likely start world war III...its just that no body gave a shit. And some of the blame here goes to the moderators, who after Paul spoke would ask follow up questions to other candidates....but without mentioning anything Paul had said that might change the framing of the question. I think everyone knew that with Rand's poll numbers being what they were, they would never actually see him again anyways....and treated him like that.

Thought I dont want to say it was all good for Paul.  He also had his awkward I'm a Nazi but not as much as other people moment on his bill to ban immigration.....which was "more focused" (read less extreme) than the Rubio Cruz and Trump plans he attacked, and well his explanation on that really did seem to be "this is an unamerican idea....except when I do it cause logic"

2) Chris Christie (7/did not participate in the last debate)
I dont actually have much to say here for Christie, except that he made an impression, he DID come across as very strong and very forceful....and also puffed the fuck out of his executive expericence.

Granted he also repeated his lie about being named chief federal prosecutor in New Jersey the day before 9/11.

And wants to launch the world headline into World War III by shooting down russian planes.

But he was at least honest and clear about what he wanted. So he gets high marks for that. Unlike the other candidates you know what a bad deal your getting with Christie upfront and he's not shy about it. So he gets this spot due only to clarity and presence...not content. But he WILL be talked about after the debate....and he wasnt even in the last one, so thats got to be a "win"

1) Jeb Bush (5/5)
Winner by Default is really the only thing I can say about Bush. Like Christie, he mostly got this spot by standing firm....and finally punching back on Donald Trump. In fact he was responsible for most of the Trump angry faces though out the night.

Though to be fair, like a couple of other candidates he did have a reasonable explanation for what he wanted to do with ISIS (fight them in syria not here) and why banning Muslims here actually strengthens ISIS.

Well except for one possible issue:
"We need to get the lawyers off the back of the warfighters. Right now under President Obama, we've created this -- this standard that is so high that it's impossible to be successful in fighting ISIS."

Not really sure what he means here.....except maybe as a reference to Obama's justice department banning the use of torture. Which presumably means he wants to bring it back.....cause that worked so well under his brother.

And then there was one really awkward moment when Bush was asked what made him qualified to be commander in chief and he said
"Because I -- first of all, I know what I don't know. I know what I don't know."

Which made me think of this

Again, referencing some of the most infamous parts of his brothers presidency doesnt seem like a great idea.

And then the potentially stupidest thing Bush said: 

"I completely agree with Chris. And this administration has been so lax. Think about it. Hillary Clinton is using a private server for -- where classified information go by. This is a -- this is a serious administration?"

I get it. You want to take the easy pot shot at Hilary Clinton. Heres the problem....Bush got caught doing the same damn thing. Well not exactly, Bush did something WORSE. See Hillary turned her emails over to a government investigator who redacted anything secret.

Bush turned the government emails HE did from his personal account over to the public by posting them on his website. And forgot to redact them. Including up-words of 13,000 social security numbers of Floridians, with all other identification included.  Or as identity thieves called it "Christmas come early".

Just saying the response add from Hilary if these two do make the general writes itself....and not favorably for Bush,

But again at the end of the day most of Bushes fuck ups wont hurt him too badly in the primary and require analysis or a second look to realize how dumb/bad they are. Which means he did better than anyone else, making him again the winner by default, even if his performance really wasnt that good.

So yea, there you have it, my review of the 5th and final debate of the year. The GOP must be SO proud of their candidates........

Decoding the Repbulican's Trump memo

Alright so earlier this week a 7 page memo was accidentally leaked from the NRSC, the National Republican Senatorial Committee. (think of it as a Senate only version of the RNC, their main job is to get republicans elected to the senate. Now of course, no one wants to read a boring memo....so I've taken it upon myself to translate it for you in to snarky English.

So the memo started like this:

The place is Cleveland, Ohio. The date is July 21, 2016 and Donald Trump has just accepted the nomination of the Republican Party to be its nominee for President of the United States.

Yep thats right, the entire point of this memo was what the GOP should do should Donald Trump actually win the nomination.

They continue:

Not since liberal Republican businessman Wendell Willkie won the GOP nomination in 1940, had another dark horse candidate stood as its nominee for President. And, Willkie and Trump have a lot in common. Both were seen as fresh-faced outsiders. Each had the backing or received the promotion of major news media outlets, and both we’re outside of the established political order. Willkie would go on to lose to wartime President Franklin Roosevelt, but this time it’s harder to predict an outcome because of the volatility of the electorate.

Actually I have to disagree. I'm pretty sure no one actually thinks Trump has a chance......and that conclusion is drawn entirely from whats in your own memo.

Trump has risen because voters see him as authentic, independent, direct, firm, --- and believe he can’t be bought. These are the same character traits our candidates should be advancing in 2016. That’s Trump lesson #1. We should prepare for 2016, by understanding the environment and recognizing the Trump phenomenon.

So being like Trump is a good thing it seems. thats what all republican candidates need to be like. 

The following are a series of recommendations to consider if Donald Trump is the GOP nominee in 2016:
Trump is a Misguided Missile.
Let’s face facts. Trump says what’s on his mind and that’s a problem. Our candidates will have to spend full time defending him or condemning him if that continues. And, that’s a place we never, ever want to be. It is certain that all GOP candidates will be tied in some way to our nominee, but we need not be tied to him so closely that we have to engage in permanent cleanup or distancing maneuvers.

Wait what? you literally just said your candidates need to be embracing Trumps characteristics......and in the very next paragraph you said hes a major problem.......because he's authentic....which your candidates should be according to the previous paragraph.

And I would also like to comment on the end of that paragraph too. It seems the advice thats giving other republicans is basically "lets stick our fingers in our ears and pretend Trump's not the candidate, so we dont have to seen with him, be associated with him, have to clarify for him, touch him, or even get a faint wiff of his shampoo. 

Run Your Own Race. 

You’re running for the U.S. Senate so focus on that. Don’t get drawn into every Trump statement and every Trump dust-up. Keep the focus on your own campaign and the voters back home.

Again, STAY AWAY FROM TRUMP HE'S FUCKING CRAZY....but you know embrace his personality too.....

Show your Independence.

As we know, Trump is subject to farcical fits. You can still obey the “run your own campaign” edict, while still taking Trump to task on outrageous statements where the media won’t let you off the hook. Choose opportunities to take the moral high ground while exerting your independence.

Just in case you didnt understand us the first two times....this man is a ranging lunatic, and for the love of God please call him on his bullshit if the media asks you about him....PLEASE....but again, be more like him as we mentioned at the beginning.

Remember the Basics. 

Every campaign is about telling voters who you are, what you want to do, and why you’re the best choice for the job. Turn your biography into a compelling narrative that shows you’re one of them. Promote a new vision (what you want to do) and own the future. Stake out new issue turf or reframe issues so it has a new look to it. This allows you to separate from the national debate, promote issues you care about in a new manner, and it’s harder for opponents to knock since you’re offering a future vision.

Pay close attention to the end there. SEPARATE YOURSELF FROM THE NATIONAL DEBATE. Because that's going to be controlled by Trump....and hes Batshit psycho. And if your not careful your opponents will smear you with his crazy juice.

Change the Look. 

It’s time to change the way you and your campaign are presented. Lose the suit and visit people in their homes and places of work. Hold sessions where you listen to people and capture audio and video of them discussing their real world problems. People talk about problems, not issues. So, focus on the problems and offer your solutions. Avoid Washingtonspeak (legislation, bills, insider talk) in favor of Main Street common sense. And, tell your communications and media teams to up the vibe and change the look. Voters are on to you when you do the standard walk and talk through a business, school, or factory. Try a new look and have business owners, constituents, family members, and workers talk about  you.

Ok, in fairness, this one has nothing to do with Trump. But I'm glad the GOP has finally addressed the core problem they have...their candidate just look too damn stuffy.

Look at this guy. No suit, Clearly listening and not talking. Nontraditional venue. Dude has winning presidential candidate written all over him

Have them talk about a problem you solved, a solution you came up with, or the life-changing moment you delivered on. Feature them in your issue phase while you assume the role of a citizen-servant. This also protects you from opposition attacks since real world people are talking about real world things you did for them. How can someone challenge that? To accomplish the above, each campaign must line up the citizen narrators or storytellers now. Review your constituent files and find the old letters thanking you for solving a problem. Next, get permission to use their story in your campaign. Vet each person so they can handle the scrutiny. Populate your web content with stories instead of typical issue jargon. instead of a webpage heading that says “JOBS” feature a working person talking about the importance of having a job, getting a better job, or working one job instead of two to make ends meet. Then, have them talk about your first job, the lessons you learned, and why better jobs at higher wages can make all the difference for our working families. When you change
the look of your campaign, you distance yourself from the national narrative and the Trump entertainment.

Note again, LET THE OTHER PEOPLE TALK AND NOT US. Cause we are all idiots and will all say something stupid. So really the less we are involved in our own campaigns, the better really, Ideally we wouldnt even run you guys for office at all, just pick you after an election but it turns out you cant leave the candidate names blank on the ballot....so work with us people NO OPINIONS of your own for the love of God. Trumps already fucking us with that one. And speaking of Trump, once again for the love of everything, STAY AWAY FROM TRUMP HES NUTS.

"Special Note: Consider doing some of the jobs the workers do in the machine shops, small businesses, and factories you visit. Have the employee show you what they do and then try to do it. This changes the visual narrative so it’s more personal and engaging."


Because there is no way this could possibly go wrong.....just ask Bush 41 about his trip to the supermarket. 

Understand the Changing Environment and Recalibrate Now. 

The Trump phenomenon exists because Washington politicians promise change, but don’t deliver. Your job is to deliver. In the past two cycles it was easy to say, “Washington’s broken” but in 2016, you need to demonstrate that you’ll rip up the rotten roots and begin anew. To get on the reformist wave, advance clear-cut reforms that change the way Washington works. The best way to do this is to highlight reforms that you have previously advanced, or discuss reforms that are working in your state. You can also feature stories of reformers who have changed things for the better. This gives people hope, and it shows you offering a positive future vision.

I dont think I have a joke for this one. Cause basically they are telling the Republicans to stop doing nothing as they have done for the last 6 years.....and I actually with this one. Its time for Republicans to do something, stand for something, and have positions. (oh wait I forgot having positions on issues was a no-no earlier...my bad)

Special Note: Consider visuals that communicate change and reform. Feature candidates working on an old engine and note how sometimes you have to do a complete overhaul to get things working. Consider featuring a candidate in a field ripping up a rotten tree stump so the field can be cleared and planting can be done. Have a constituent or citizen talking about the candidate cleaning up the mess in Washington as the candidate participates in a street cleaning & beautification campaign. 

Post a reform tab on your website and feature stories of real world reforms that can change Washington. Be sure to feature reformers in your videos, on your YouTube channel, and in social media. Promote tweets that push reforms or condemn Washington’s dysfunction. The time to build the case against Washington (even if you are part of it) is now, not in the final three months of the election.

Again, please try to at least ACT like your normal people. And again let actually normal people do the thinking and talking....we suck at it.

Finally, call on citizens to post their own reform recommendations and then select the best of the lot. This “bottom up” method allows you to say that the reforms are from regular citizens. Post the best ideas, promote discussions on your social platforms, and discuss them on your YouTube channel, talk radio, podcasts, and TV appearances.

Again, let other people come up with opinions and positions for you. See this way we will have ideas and they wont be batshit stupid cause we had nothing to do with it. 

(Actually, that IS kinda brilliant...)

Special Note: Always bring the campaign back home to real people and their daily struggle. The Trump show may be going on, but back home our families are in a fight for their livelihoods. Keep your narrative on them, not the national scene. Tell stories of citizens overcoming obstacles and succeeding. Sell optimism. Promote hope. Story-based messaging allows you to plough new ground and own the field.

Again, because this point clearly can not be restated enough. STAY. AWAY. FROM. THE. CRAZY. MAN!

Trump Can Hit the Right Chord. 

We may not like it, but Trump has connected with voters on issues like trade with China and America’s broken borders. When Trump was criticized on building a wall to stop immigration, he noted how Israel successfully built walls that were cost effective and did the job. Trump will continue to advance those messages, but you don’t have to go along with hismore extreme positioning.

You remember all those times we said Trump was crazy? we uh may have been exaggerating.

Instead, you should stake out turf in the same issue zone and offer your own ideas. Target China on industrial espionage.  Hit China on its cyber war against the U.S. government. Focus on China breaking existing trade rules and using Chinese government intervention to create an unfair advantage. On immigration, select areas where reform can be done and should be done. One example is better tracking of those who violate their tourist visa. Governor Christie recently noted that 40% of those in our country illegally overstayed their visas. This is a highly correctable matter and a reform that should be promoted. Select some commonsense and doable reforms.

Oh i get it now. So you should talk about the same things Trump's taking about....but you know, dont lie about them.......seems fair.

Although this might be a bad time to point out that Governor Christies solution to people overstaying their visas was to assign them all a number that they would be forced to wear for tracking purposes.....

I assume they will look something like this?

Trump and Women.
Houston, we have a problem:
Donald Trump has said some wacky things about women. Candidates shouldn’t go near this ground other than to say that your wife or daughter is offended by what Trump said. We do not want to reengage the “war on women” fight so isolate Trump on this issue by offering a quick condemnation of it.

We of course cant say that WE are offended....that might offend the sexist white male bigots who plan on voting for us. We cant loose that vote. So we wont object just note that our female family members do (for what little their opinion is)

Also I wonder what a female candidate is supposed to say?

Oh wait, I forgot, this is the REPUBLICAN party.......they dont really want to have any of those kinds of candidates. They would prefer those people stayed in the kitchen when not popping out babies,

Trump Rises Because People Understand Him. 

Trump is saying that the Emperor has no clothes and he challenges our politically correct times. Our candidates shouldn’t miss this point. Don’t insult key voter cohorts by ignoring that America has significant problems and that Trump is offering some basic solutions. Understand the populist points Trump makes and ride that wave.

Again, remember Trump is crazy, we want nothing to do with him, he's bad, he makes shit up.....but his solutions....that you should avoid at all costs.....make sense.

We Can’t Afford to Depress the GOP Vote. 

Spending full time attacking our own nominee will ensure that the GOP vote is depressed. That will only serve to topple GOP candidates at every level. Maintain the right amount of independence, but avoid piling on the nominee.
Remember, call Trump out on his crazy.....but not too much....after all we need the wackjobs who believe him and agree with him to actually win.......

Covering the Trump Bet. 

Conventional wisdom has counted Trump out on several occasions. But, Trump continues to rise and the criticisms seem to make him stronger. Trump has been gaining Democrat adherents and he’s solidifying GOP cohorts who feel they’ve been totally ignored by the Washington Ruling Class.

See the real secret to Trumps support is that hes winning over DEMOCRATS. They are the ones who are going to make him win the REPUBLICAN nomination, not us republicans. We are totally blameless for bringing the Trump down upon us. we need fix nothing and really....can we just move on now?

It’s not a bet most would place now, but it could happen. That’s why it’s important for our candidates to run their own races, limit the Trump criticisms (other than obvious free kicks), and grab onto the best elements of the antiWashington populist agenda. This memo is written under the assumption that Donald Trump wins the nomination. We don’t have a crystal ball, but in 1940, few were predicting that an Indiana businessman with New York connections would win the Republican nomination for President of the United States.

See run your own race....that way no matter if Trump wins or loses we can disown him....or felate him....depending. Point is this could happen so you need to be prepared to disown/embrace/disown Trump....and you cant show any confusion on this point, so I hope everyone understands now....


So yea, that wraps up the memo.....and I have to say, as much as I disagree with the Republicans I feel sorry for their Senate candidates, who are probably setting consumption records for Aspirin to deal with the headaches they have making sense of when to disown or not disown the crazy and sane Donald Trump...