Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

How deep does this go?!?!?!

The book, “Adolf Hitler: His Life and His Speeches,” was credited to Baron Adolf Victor von Koerber, a German aristocrat and war hero. Scholars have said that Hitler sought Mr. von Koerber out for the biography because he needed a conservative figure without links to the Nazi Party to help legitimize him as a leader.

However, new research says Hitler penned the work himself. This suggests that Hitler had designs on taking power earlier than many historians have previously thought and manipulated public opinion to get there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/w...tten-by-hitler.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

h/t to good nate

 

[Ashodin]

Was Kerry really flopping by that much?

Kerry suuuuuuuuuuuuuuckked and also he had a lot of flipfloppppppppping

 

[BlastProcessing]

Intensive debate prep is literally beyond Trump's comprehension. He simply can't envision anyone working so hard to get better at something.

Debates are like job interviews and this is literally the first job he has ever had to apply for. Everything has been given to him his whole life, this is the first thing he has actually had to earn.

 

[whyamihere]

Was Kerry really flopping by that much?

He was the ANTI of candidates.

 

[NeoXChaos]

https://twitter.com/Hadas_Gold/status/784227694384914433

Wow

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Was Kerry really flopping by that much?

He was way behind before the first debate then it closed up substantially

 

[GutsOfThor]

The 2004 election was my first election(I didn't vote in 2000) and man, I still remember thinking Kerry could pull it off at this point. That loss really hurt....

 

[sazzy]

Joseph Farah, one of the original birthers, has a new theory about who's the 'original birther'....

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

https://twitter.com/Hadas_Gold/status/784227694384914433

Wow

People are starting to lose it more each day.

 

[Bronx-Man]

He was the ANTI of candidates.

I said damn.

 

[Teggy]

https://twitter.com/Hadas_Gold/status/784227694384914433

Wow

That's honestly very tame compared to what is being sent to any journalist with a Jewish sounding name.

Who covered the Trump town hall? Was it on multiple channels?

 

[Jeels]

https://youtu.be/LRASN19QRQc

I really enjoyed this video at the DNC.

Video is celebrating Israel bombing the Gaza strip...

 

[johnsmith]

That's honestly very tame compared to what is being sent to any journalist with a Jewish sounding name.

Who covered the Trump town hall? Was it on multiple channels?

I doubt anybody did. Tonight's all about the hurricane.

 

[Cerium]

Lol David Axelrod thinks that Trump team couldn't get him to prep for debate, and this was the closest they could get him to prep.

Amazing. I remember reading in Game Change 2012 about how Axelrod and the others had to stage an intervention for Obama after the first debate. Of course that only works if you have a candidate willing to play ball. I can only imagine how helpless Trump's staffers feel.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Will someone in the GOP say "The american public has spoken and we need to look at our strategies so that we grow closer to the american electorate"?

Have they ever said something akin recently?

Hannity said the bolded part, but it was super passive aggressive and pissy.

This leads to the big conundrum: the GOP's best chance of taking back the presidency is to go moderate, but their base wants someone who's batshit crazy.

And to that point, they need to moderate further than Romney (who still lost). I could see the GOP getting back to Romney by 2024, but getting further left than him? I don't know that they even have a bench for that in their 5th string (like, they'd have to start fishing for fucking mayors somewhere to find people who aren't deplorable).

This is so incoherent. And this is on friendly turf, right? How the hell is he gonna hold up for the full 90 minutes if he's having to field tougher questions than this?

 

[Box of Kittens]

A friend of mine has a co-worker who refers to this as "the alleged Woody Hayes incident."

 

[RustyNails]

Debates are like job interviews and this is literally the first job he has ever had to apply for. Everything has been given to him his whole life, this is the first thing he has actually had to earn.

That and Trump believes that he's naturally predisposed to be a winner, due to his superior German blood of course.

 

[rokkerkory]

Wow this might be a huge win for the Ds

 

[Box of Kittens]

I'll somewhat defend Kerry as a candidate. He wasn't great, and he certainly needed to respond to the Swift Boat thing better. Ultimately, though, he did about how you'd expect a generic Democrat to do in that election. You'd prefer something better than an average candidate of course, but he was certainly better than Gore.

 

[Cerium]

I took the time to cut some passages out of Game Change 2012 about how Axelrod got Obama to fix his debate performance after the first one.

A little before 9:00 p.m., they returned to the Resort Center. Obama and Kerry grabbed their handheld microphones and took their places—and the president proceeded to deliver the Mock from Hell.

Even before Nasty Obama snarled at Kerry-as-Mitt and Anita Dunn as CNN’s Candy Crowley at the 39:35 mark, Klain was mortified. The president’s emotional flatness from Henderson and Denver was back. He was making no connection with the voter stand-ins asking questions. He was wandering aimlessly, digressing compulsively, not merely chasing rabbits but stalking them to the ends of the earth. His cadences were hesitant and maple-syrupy slow: phrase, pause, phrase, pause, phrase. His answers were verbose and utterly devoid of message.

In Klain’s career as a debate maestro, he had been involved in successes (Kerry over Bush three times in a row) and failures (Gore’s symphony of sighs in 2000). But he had never seen anything like this. After all the happy talk from Obama and his consistent, if small, steps forward, the president was regressing—with forty-eight hours and only one full day of prep between them and Hofstra.

Axelrod and Plouffe thought something more radical was in order. For the past six years, they had watched Obama struggle with his disdain for the theatricality of politics—not just debates, but even the soaring speeches for which he was renowned. Obama’s distrust of emotional string-pulling and resistance to the practical necessities of the sound-bite culture: these were elements of his personality that they accepted, respected, and admired. But they had long harbored foreboding that those proclivities might also be a train wreck in the making. Time and again, Obama had averted the oncoming locomotive. Had embraced showmanship when it was necessary. Had picked his people up and carried them on his back to the promised land. But now, with a crucial debate less than two days away—one that could either put the election in the bag or turn it into a toss-up—Obama was faltering in a way his closest advisers had never witnessed. They needed to figure out what had gone haywire from the inside out. They needed, as someone in the staff room put it, to stage an “intervention.”

The next morning, October 15, Klain stumbled from his room to the Resort Center, eyes puffy and nerves jangled. He’d been up all night hammering together and e-mailing around his debate-on-a-page draft. In Obama’s hold room, the team gathered and laid out their plan for the day. They would screen video for the boss. They would show him transcripts. They would present him with his cheat sheets. They would devote the day to topic-by-topic drills until he had his answers memorized.

Normally, the whole group would now meet with the president to critique the previous night’s mock. Instead, everyone except Axelrod, Klain, and Plouffe cleared the room just before 10:00 a.m. Obama was on his way. The intervention was at hand.

WHERE’S EVERYBODY ELSE?” Obama asked as he ambled in across the speckled green carpet, with Jack Lew at his side. “Where’s the rest of the team?”

We met this morning and decided we should have this smaller meeting first, one of the interventionists said.

Obama, in khakis and rolled-up shirtsleeves, looked nonplussed. Between his conversation with Nesbitt the night before and amorning national security briefing with Lew, he was aware that his people were unhappy with the mock—but not fully clued in to the depth of their concern.

The president settled into a cushy black sofa at one end of the room. On settees to his left were Axelrod, Plouffe, and Lew; to his right, in a blue blazer, was Klain, now caffeinated and coherent.

“We’re here, Mr. President,” Klain began, “because we need to have a serious conversation about why this isn’t working and the fundamental transformation we need to achieve today to avoid a very bad result tomorrow night.” We’re not going to get there by continuing to grind away and marginally improve, Klain went on. This is not about changing the words in your debate book, because the difference between the answers that work and the answers that don’t work is just 15 or 20 percent. This is about style, engagement, speed, presentation, attitude. Candidly, we need to figure out why you’re not rising to and meeting the challenge—why you’re not really doing this, why you’re doing . . . something else.

Obama didn’t flinch. “Guys, I’m struggling,” he said somberly. “Last night wasn’t good, and I know that. Here’s why I think I’m having trouble. I’m having a hard time squaring up what I know I need to do, what you guys are telling me I need to do, with where my mind takes me, which is: I’m a lawyer, and I want to argue things out. I want to peel back layers.”

The ensuing presidential soliloquy went on for ten minutes—an eternity in Obama time. His tone was even and unemotional, but searching, introspective, diagnostic, vulnerable. Psychologically, emotionally, and intellectually, he was placing his cards face up on the table.

You keep telling me I can’t spend too much time defending my record, and that I should talk about my plans, he said. But my plans aren’t anything like the plans I ran on in 2008. I had a universal health care plan then. Now I’ve got . . . what? A manufacturing plan? What am I gonna do on education? What am I gonna do on energy? There’s not much there.

“I can’t tell you that, Okay, I woke up today, I knew I needed to do better, and I’ll do better,” Obama said. “I am wired in a different way than this event requires.”

Obama paused. “I just don’t know if I can do this,” he said.

Obama’s advisers sat silently at first, absorbing the extraordinary moment playing out in front of them. In October of an election year, on the eve of a pivotal debate, the president wasn’t talking about tactics or strategy, about this line or that zinger. He was talking about personal contradictions and ambivalences, about his discomfort with the campaign he was running, about his unease with the requirements of politics writ large, about matters that were fundamental, even existential. We are in uncharted territory here, thought Klain.

More striking was Obama’s candor and self-awareness. The most self-contained president in modern history (and, possibly, the most self-possessed human on the planet) was laying himself bare, deconstructing himself before their eyes—and admitting he was at a loss.

As the meeting wound to a close, the Obamans felt relief mixed with trepidation. Oddly, for Klain, the president’s lack of confidence about his ability to turn himself around was comforting. After all the blithe I-got-its of Henderson, Obama for the first time was acknowledging that a genuine and serious modification of his mind-set was necessary.

Plouffe felt less reassured. “It’s good news/bad news,” he told Favreau afterwards. “The good news is, he recognizes the issue. The bad news is, I don’t know if we can fix it in time.”

 

[BanGy.nz]

He was the ANTI of candidates.

How could you! 😭😭😭

 

[metalslimer]

I'll somewhat defend Kerry as a candidate. He wasn't great, and he certainly needed to respond to the Swift Boat thing better. Ultimately, though, he did about how you'd expect a generic Democrat to do in that election. You'd prefer something better than an average candidate of course, but he was certainly better than Gore.

You know it does amaze me that people think Hilary is a terrible candidate when she is so much better than Gore or Kerry, and at least from what I've read better than Dukakis or Mondale She also was a big force behind getting Bill elected in the first place. I mean it does seem like democrats have fielded some average candidates in the past half century, but she gets compared to Bill and Obama and if that's the standard now I think democrats are going to be looking wistfully back for a long time.

I took the time to cut some passages out of Game Change 2012 about how Axelrod got Obama to fix his debate performance after the first one.

Aka the complete and polar opposite of every Trump meeting with his advisors ever.

 

[Box of Kittens]

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/784216707481079809

Google Consumer Surveys:

Clinton leads Trump in...

NH +25
Wisconsin +15
Virginia +14
Colorado +11
Iowa +9
Michigan +7
Ohio +2
Nevada +2

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/784217905139515393

Google Consumer Surveys

Florida:
Trump 42 (+7)
Clinton 35

North Carolina
Trump 42 (+11)
Clinton 31

Pennsylvania
Clinton 37 (Tie)
Trump 37

LOL. There is no universe in which Clinton is up 9 in Iowa and down 7 in Florida.

I think the 538 bashing can get a bit over the top at times but I can't help but point out that they rate Google Consumer Surveys a B and were, until recently, projecting Trump to earn a record percentage for a Republican candidate in DC based solely on their surveys (with a sample size of 73!)

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Chelsea's great.

 

[digdug2k]

Just thinking, I wonder if American can pick up another Nobel Peace Prize next year if we just don't elect Trump to office. Seems like it would be a fine thank you from the rest of the world for not starting WW3.

 

[Zukkoyaki]

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/784216707481079809



https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/784217905139515393



LOL. There is no universe in which Clinton is up 9 in Iowa and down 7 in Florida.

I think the 538 bashing can get a bit over the top at times but I can't help but point out that they rate Google Consumer Surveys a B and were, until recently, projecting Trump to earn a record percentage for a Republican candidate in DC based solely on their surveys (with a sample size of 73!)

Much like the IPSOS state polls, these aren't real polls. They're just collections of data from their dreadful online robo national poll.

If you look through their results every week there are some real gems like Clinton winning Kansas but losing Oregon.

 

[Bowdz]

Just thinking, I wonder if American can pick up another Nobel Peace Prize next year if we just don't elect Trump to office. Seems like it would be a fine thank you from the rest of the world for not starting WW3.

Lol.

I think the peace prize will come when the right in the country comes back to a sane real estate. Until then, we are one Democratic fuckup or economic downturn away from a less erratic Trump.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

You know it does amaze me that people think Hilary is a terrible candidate when she is so much better than Gore or Kerry, and at least from what I've read better than Dukakis or Mondale She also was a big force behind getting Bill elected in the first place. I mean it does seem like democrats have fielded some average candidates in the past half century, but she gets compared to Bill and Obama and if that's the standard now I think democrats are going to be looking wistfully back for a long time.

Why do people say Kerry was a weak candidate? Just because he lost to Bush in '04? People liked Bush in '04! He was substantially more popular than Obama was eight years earlier. Kerry ran as the head of a badly fractured party against an incumbent benefiting from an improving economy and the afterglow of Iraq and 9/11. He still came within 120,000 votes in Ohio of pulling it off. 2008-vintage Obama may have actually gotten the win but Kerry ran a smart, focused campaign. I'd got so far as to say that outside of Bill Clinton and Obama, Kerry ran the best campaign of any Dem since LBJ.

 

[Box of Kittens]

You know it does amaze me that people think Hilary is a terrible candidate when she is so much better than Gore or Kerry, and at least from what I've read better than Dukakis or Mondale She also was a big force behind getting Bill elected in the first place. I mean it does seem like democrats have fielded some average candidates in the past half century, but she gets compared to Bill and Obama and if that's the standard now I think democrats are going to be looking wistfully back for a long time.

Mondale told the American people in his acceptance speech that he would raise their taxes (there was a bit more nuance to the statement, but still).

Dukakis had basically all of Kerry's weaknesses (particularly when it comes to responding to attacks poorly) but without his strengths. At least Kerry debated well.

You could also throw McGovern on the bad candidate pile. He chose a running mate, Thomas Eagleton, that was such a disaster he had to be dropped from the ticket three days after McGovern said he was behind him "1000 percent." Oh, and years later it came out that during the primaries Eagleton had anonymously bashed McGovern in the press, leading to him being labeled the candidate of "amnesty, abortion, and acid."

Republicans have had their disasters as well. Goldwater is an obvious choice, especially given his tendency to say ridiculous things. Thomas Dewey basically did the equivalent of going into prevent defense at the start of the fourth quarter with a one score lead. Alf Landon more or less didn't run a campaign at all.

Hillary Clinton is far from a perfect candidate, but she's much better than any of these.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Why do people say Kerry was a weak candidate? Just because he lost to Bush in '04? People liked Bush in '04! He was substantially more popular than Obama was eight years earlier. Kerry ran as the head of a badly fractured party against an incumbent benefiting from an improving economy and the afterglow of Iraq and 9/11. He still came within 120,000 votes in Ohio of pulling it off. 2008-vintage Obama may have actually gotten the win but Kerry ran a smart, focused campaign. I'd got so far as to say that outside of Bill Clinton and Obama, Kerry ran the best campaign of any Dem since LBJ.

Because John Kerry has the charisma and enthusiasm of a wet towel.

 

[Cerium]

Kerry was too stiff when he ran. He was actually much looser, more animated, and likable as an Obama surrogate.

 

[PantherLotus]

Why do people say Kerry was a weak candidate? Just because he lost to Bush in '04? People liked Bush in '04! He was substantially more popular than Obama was eight years earlier. Kerry ran as the head of a badly fractured party against an incumbent benefiting from an improving economy and the afterglow of Iraq and 9/11. He still came within 120,000 votes in Ohio of pulling it off. 2008-vintage Obama may have actually gotten the win but Kerry ran a smart, focused campaign. I'd got so far as to say that outside of Bill Clinton and Obama, Kerry ran the best campaign of any Dem since LBJ.

I mean yes I agree Kerry was better than people give him credit for but this last sentence is hilarious. Other than Clinton and Obama since LBJ? So you mean better than Dukakis and Mondale and Carter? Tough company!

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I mean yes I agree Kerry was better than people give him credit for but this last sentence is hilarious. Other than Clinton and Obama since LBJ? So you mean better than Dukakis and Mondale and Carter? Tough company!

What about McGovern.

What about when the DNC fucked over their voters and picked Humphrey and while the Democratic Party was going through a civil war due to the revolt of racist southern Dems (Humphrey would have won if everything wasn't going wrong in 1968, he was a really good politician).

 

[Box of Kittens]

There's also Humphrey. Honestly, given all the things that were working against him, I'd say he ran a decent campaign.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

There's also Humphrey. Honestly, given all the things that were working against him, I'd say he ran a decent campaign.

Humphrey had:

-DNC coup to install him
-Vietnam war
-Assassination of MLK leading to riots that played into Nixon's hands.
-George Wallace running as an extremely strong third-party.


Other than that, he had everything in the world going for him.

 

[PantherLotus]

I'm just saying that coming in 3rd behind Obama and Clinton (I'd tie Kerry with Gore personally) isn't exactly high praise. Just made me giggle is all.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

It's a fucking joke how much Trump's campaign is like George Wallace 1968:

Wallace ran a campaign supporting "law and order" and racial segregation that strongly appealed to rural white Southerners and blue-collar union workers in the North. Wallace was leading the three-way race in the Old Confederacy with 45% of the vote in mid-September. Wallace's appeal to blue-collar workers and union members (who usually voted Democratic) hurt Hubert Humphrey in Northern states like Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, and Wisconsin. A mid-September AFL-CIO internal poll showed that one in three union members supported Wallace, and a Chicago Sun-Times poll showed that Wallace had a plurality of 44% of white steelworkers in Chicago. Both Humphrey and Richard Nixon were able to peel back some Wallace support by November; the unions highlighted the flow of Northern union jobs to Wallace's Alabama, a right-to-work state (although Wallace publicly opposed right-to-work laws), and Nixon persuaded enough Southerners that a "divided vote" would give the election to Humphrey. From October 13–20, Wallace's support fell from 20% to 15% nationally. In the North, the former Wallace vote split evenly between Humphrey and Nixon. In the border South, Wallace defectors were choosing Nixon over Humphrey by three to one.[3]

Wallace's foreign policy positions set him apart from the other candidates in the field. "If the Vietnam War was not winnable within 90 days of his taking office, Wallace pledged an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. . . . Wallace also called foreign-aid money 'poured down a rat hole' and demanded that European and Asian allies pay more for their defense."[4] These stances were overshadowed by Wallace's running mate, retired Air Force general Curtis LeMay, who implied he would use nuclear weapons to win the war.[5]

George Wallace was obviously much more competent than Trump, but Trump is ripping off all of Wallace's shit directly.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

It's a fucking joke how much Trump's campaign is like George Wallace 1968:



George Wallace was obviously much more competent than Trump, but Trump is ripping off all of Wallace's shit directly.

You should watch the PBS special on Wallace. It's fascinating and two hours long.

 

[Pyrokai]

You should watch the PBS special on Wallace. It's fascinating and two hours long.

Where can I find this?

 

[Box of Kittens]

What about McGovern.

If I had to say something positive about the McGovern campaign, it would be that he was the first Democratic candidate to start to appeal to a new coalition once the New Deal coalition was no longer viable. Now the groups he was especially appealing to weren't a large enough share of the electorate to win at the time, and even when he was overperforming with a group he was often still losing them to Nixon, but still there's a reason the chapter in The Emerging Democratic Majority about the composition of what we would now call the Obama coalition was titled "George McGovern's Revenge." He still ran a terrible campaign.

I'm just saying that coming in 3rd behind Obama and Clinton (I'd tie Kerry with Gore personally) isn't exactly high praise. Just made me giggle is all.

I'd put Kerry above Gore in that I think Kerry met expectations overall while Gore underperformed. That is, given the conditions at the time, I think the expectation for 2004 should have been a narrow loss while the expectation for 2000 should have been a decent sized win. Gore wasn't without his strengths, but he also made some very costly errors, most notably running away from Clinton (even if I understand why he did it).

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Oh, and Humphrey had to deal with LBJ refusing to declare to the public that Nixon had committed treason and ruined peace talks with Vietnam to try to win the election.

But Humphrey only lost by .7% against Richard Nixon.

It's really pretty impressive in retrospect.

LBJ not revealing Nixon's treason in 1968 is one of those weird moments like how the Federalists never found out that Thomas Jefferson committed treason before the election of 1800.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

Where can I find this?

I think this is it. It's part one of three.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLkCY0f73iE

George Wallace, PBS The American Experience.

 

[Dominican Power]

Daily Show killed O'Riley's racist Chinatown segment.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

I think this is it. It's part one of three.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLkCY0f73iE

George Wallace, PBS The American Experience.

Settin' the Woods on Fire is also a great documentary about Wallace and how he came to be.

https://vimeo.com/116273297

Oh, and Humphrey had to deal with LBJ refusing to declare to the public that Nixon had committed treason and ruined peace talks with Vietnam to try to win the election.
1800.

LBJ informed Humphrey which was a reasonable action given that it was right before the general election. You can't really praise a candidate who chooses not to use something like that and winds up losing. Humphrey confirmed this in his memoirs:

"I wonder if I should have blown the whistle on Anna Chennault and Nixon. I wish [his italics] I could have been sure. Damn Thieu. Dragging his feet this past weekend hurt us. I wonder if that call did it. If Nixon knew."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968#cite_note-76

 

[Wilsongt]

October surprise...?

A nonpartisan watchdog group Thursday called for a federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee, accusing it of illegally accepting millions of dollars worth of “opposition research” and other assistance from Correct the Record, an outside super-PAC, in violation of U.S. election laws.

The Campaign Legal Center also filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission to initiate probes of Donald Trump’s campaign, and two super-PACs backing it, for similar violations of laws barring “coordination” between political campaigns and outside groups.

But the Campaign Legal Center’s detailed 52-page complaint against Hillary for America and Correct the Record — part of the sprawling political empire run by Clinton backer David Brock — is likely to get special attention, given Clinton’s repeated advocacy of campaign finance reform. She has vowed to “curb the influence of big money in American politics” and to push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United — the controversial ruling that opened the door for groups such as Correct the Record to accept unlimited donations to benefit political candidates.

Correct the Record, which has taken in over $6 million in this campaign from hedge-fund executives, plaintiffs’ lawyers and other wealthy donors, has effectively become a “parallel shadow” arm of the Clinton campaign, said Larry Noble, who served for 13 years as the chief legal counsel for the FEC and is now chief counsel of the Campaign Legal Center. “They’re training people [for the Clinton campaign], they’re doing research for it. They’ve really pushed the envelope in this case, and ripped it open.”

Asked for comment, Clinton campaign spokesman Glen Caplin said the complaint was a “frivolous lawsuit” and had no merit. Brad Woodhouse, president of Correct the Record, also fired back that the issues raised in the complaint were “ridiculous” and similar to those raised in another complaint last year against the group. He said Correct the Record was well within its rights to coordinate its activities with the Clinton campaign, because it restricts itself to communicating through Internet messages and on its website — forms of communication that he said are “free from campaign finance regulation” under FEC rules.

To be sure, Correct the Record is different from many other super-PACs in that it doesn’t run standard “attack ads” on television and radio. Instead, it features as its centerpiece hard-edged political attacks online — such as a recently posted mock-tabloid cover proclaiming the “bromance” between Russian president Vladimir Putin and Trump, complete with big red hearts.

But the Campaign Legal Center details evidence that Correct the Record’s pro-Clinton activities go well beyond Internet political trolling. Citing multiple media reports and campaign filings, the group’s complaint charges that Correct the Record, among other activities, deployed so-called trackers to trail and record rival candidates (such as former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley during the Democratic primaries ); hired a polling firm (which declared Clinton the instant winner after a debate with Bernie Sanders); set up a 30-person “war room” to do “rapid response” to attacks on Clinton during her appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi (including circulating a 140-page “opposition research” book that “impugns the character of Republicans” on the panel; paid $391,000 to an affiliated Brock organization, the Franklin Forum, to conduct media training for Clinton surrogates; committed to spend $1 million to “confront social media users who post unflattering messages” about Clinton; and received a $275,615 direct payment from the Clinton campaign in June 2015 for what was listed as “research.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/watchdog...ign-of-election-law-violations-214054242.html

 

[johnsmith]

October surprise...?



https://www.yahoo.com/news/watchdog...ign-of-election-law-violations-214054242.html

Nothingburger

 

[Roland_Gunner]

October surprise...?


https://www.yahoo.com/news/watchdog...ign-of-election-law-violations-214054242.html

Somehow the five paragraphs you quoted managed to not include this part:

In its separate complaint against the Trump campaign and two pro-Trump super-PACs, Rebuilding America Now and Make America Number One, the Campaign Legal Center charges that they too are violating the law.

 

[GutsOfThor]

October surprise...?



https://www.yahoo.com/news/watchdog...ign-of-election-law-violations-214054242.html

Ahhhh shit.....

 

[B-Dubs]

October surprise...?



https://www.yahoo.com/news/watchdog...ign-of-election-law-violations-214054242.html

Actually so long as any coordinating is done out in the open, like on TV, it's fine. If you go back to when Colbert had a SuperPAC it was shocking to see the shit he could do while not breaking the rules.

 

[Wilsongt]

Somehow the five paragraphs you quoted managed to not include this part:

Who cares about Trump, though? Hillary is the bad one!

Psst. Second paragraph.