They did not break in to get it. The security failure had one of them

discover they could see Clinton's data.

Their IT guy, who they fired, claims he attempted to get evidence of the breach - because he felt the Sanders data was equally exposed but he had to use other campaign data to prove it. I think the data logs of their activity back him up on that. And the software vendor says they didn't export any of these "lists" they generated - which backs up the IT guy's claims.

The problem is that last October, another two breaches occurred. The Sanders campaign manager feels "very confident" that the Sanders data was compromised at that time. They told the DNC about it and the DNC got the security hole plugged. But the DNC handled the rest very differently than this time - they largely appear to have ignored going beyond closing the security hole.

DWS called for an independent audit of this breach which the Sanders campaign welcomed and encouraged during their first press conference on this. But the Sanders campaign want this audit to extend back to when they feel their data was compromised - and DWS behaved very differently - no independent audit, no media leak, no suspension of a campaign access to the system.

If they do not get agreement from the DNC to do an independent audit of the breaches last October, then they'll take the issue to court.

Bernie and his people do not appear to have lied to anyone. And now, they're going to try get to the bottom of this mess whether the DNC or Clinton campaign like it or not. I find it vary hard to blame them. It could get rather embarrassing for the DNC or the Clinton campaign.

To me, this kind of video is what she's going to face in the general election

There's no point trying to keep our heads in the sand on this and pretend it's not there. If she wins the primary, and she's the favorite to do so, Democrats are going to have to find a way to combat this stuff or they'll be on the losing end. Those are the harsh realities.

If you want to be a fan of hers, that's your right. Go to one of her rallies or read one of her books or look at some complimentary videos of her, etc. Don't bother with this thread.

If you want to help her win the presidency, then roll up your sleeves and weigh in on how to combat these types of attacks effectively. The Kochs will have them running around the clock.

I think Trump "schlonged" himself more than anyone else with those ignorant

and deplorable remarks.

He's zooming in on appealing only to the uneducated, white supremacists demographic.

That's kind of tame in comparison to what I expect is coming in the general

from the GOP.

They're probably going to have so many hit pieces on her, the GOP strategic argument of the day will be which ones to run in the Koch financed airwaves. They'll stagger out of those meetings wobbled with the overwhelming reaction of the hit job their folks are going to do to her. I think these animals will be like a pack of unconscionable rabid dogs ripping her reputation apart. I fear they'll set unfavorability and untrustworthy records for a presidential candidate.

And those videos will revive the Republicans disdain for her and inspire them to make sure they vote to see she doesn't get in. And they suck the wind out of the Democrats enthusiasm - many will stay away in spite of "the Supreme Court" argument.

How do you defend those things? Many of them, you really can't because they're true - Hillary's own words destroying Hillary. The Clinton campaign will never catch their breath and get the proper attention to and enthusiasm for the things Democrats would like to do because they'll be back on their heels, defending against the onslaught of this stuff.

That's the biggest fear I have with her candidacy. I'm told that because I have those feelings that I must be right leaning or not a Democrat and I should shut up. But that's not true. It's the opposite. I want a Democrat to win the White House to protect the work we've done. I do not want to lose.

I look at Bernie Sanders and he's 180 degrees away from this. He's been a consistent straight shooter his whole life. He comes without 20 plus years of scandals baggage. They'll attack him for being a socialist commie. But when Bernie describes what he wants, I don't think folks are going to accept the socialist commie label. A number of them will sit up and say "single payer is not a terrible thing to want - even if I disagree. Improved social security wouldn't kill us - that's not the end of the world for my Mom & Dad. Helping the poor and needy is not a horrific thing to do .... this socialism thing Bernie wants is common sense type stuff - not stuff I should be afraid of" He's not traditional Washington - he's honest - maybe he should have a chance. We've seen some of that from people's reactions to him already.

I thought the George W Bush years were very embarrassing for the party

Cowboy foreign policy, advocating torture (as a post WWII baby, I never thought I'd see an American administration defend torture)

Because I do not see them quite the same as you.

William Safire was a Nixon speech writer - but had his phone tapped by Dick Nixon. He won a Pulizer prize and sat on their board deciding who should win a Pulitzer for about a decade - he wasn't a complete hack as a writer. He was a libertarian and he was a conservative - but he worked at the New York Times. Maybe he had some things in common with David Brooks - who is NOT a liberal Democrat and I also often disagree with .. but sometimes I can agree with. Safire in my mind was not not a pure hard right wing nut. I do not have him in the same place as Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, etc - mindless extremists on the right or the Tea Party, Birthers or Freepers. He was definitely conservative - particularly in foreign policy and on the right on many things but not purely and mindlessly so.

Safire got sucked into supporting the Iraq war but so did the woman you support for leader of the Democratic Party and Joe Biden, who I like very much as I like John Kerry and Harry Reid - who also supported the Iraq war.

In his final years as a columnist, he ripped the second Bush administration for being against his libertarian views. Like probably you and definitely me, he was against the Patriot Act. So again, he wasn't blindly all in for Republicans and constantly giving them a free pass for everything they wanted.

You can broad brush him all you want. I often disagreed with him but I have a different view of how he was not extreme on the right. He was fed up with George HW Bush and voted for Bill Clinton. That's hardly a pure right wing guy. And part of what drove him away from Clinton was Hillary and her lying. He gets some sympathy from me there.

I looked at some of the Edison stuff on what they did for exit polling

and they claimed it was very good in 2008 and 2012 for predicting results. Their 1st year, 2004, they had some issues.

In 2008, apparently about 1/3 elected early or via mail. So they made a special effort to get data for those in proportion to the exit polls near the voting stations by telephoning about 15,000 of them randomly selected.

Year after year, they seem to get a similar number 14-16% in these exit polls for 65 & over. I have to give those results some weight.

I also saw that a fairly large number of polls have impediments to 65 & over - most that have at least one health condition. Maybe that's part of it.

Interesting move.

They may have the Clinton campaign and the DNC between a rock and a hard place.

Campaign manager Weaver said he was "very confident" Sanders data was compromised last October. If he's that confident, he's probably got something to back that up. They've been calling for this complete audit since the first Sanders press conference. If he's wrong, do the audit, clean result, no harm, no foul.

If the Clinton campaign compromised Sanders data last October, they can't be too excited to have an audit in case they get caught. They need to delay, delay and delay some more if they're guilty.

OTH, if the Clinton campaign refuses, it's going to look bad. And it isn't really the Clinton campaign's call. This is in theory a DNC problem as the security is their responsibility and the contract is between the DNC & Sanders though we know now that Hillary effectively owns the DNC. So it will look even worse if the DNC don't go along - as doing more of Clinton's bidding. The DNC would be caught as hypocrites - pushing for an audit for the recent event but avoiding an audit of the prior beaches to protect Hillary.

Sanders campaign is positioned well. If the Clinton campaign and DNC don't go along, they just broaden their lawsuit and haul these people before a judge and discovery. Given the timing and what is at stake, they could probably get an expedited court date. Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign has to endure another media frenzy around what Sanders is going for.

I don't think the Sanders campaign has much to lose much here. You can't blame then for checking.

My guess would be the Clinton campaign has to go along at the outset. And then they try to drag it out without the supervision of a judge. Hopefully, Sanders gets a firm commitment on the timing and if they delay, he promptly takes it to the judge.

If they catch Hillary's campaign taking Sanders data last October, I think that would be just brutal for her chances.

15-16% is how much of the electorate 65 & over voters

made up in the 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

42% of the electorate in any election in US history was not made up of 65 and over - not even close. That's just absurd.

They didn't even bump it the oldest group from 60 & Over to 65 & over until about 1984 or 1988. Life expectancy in the US for men was below 70 until 1979 - so you know, there weren't nearly as many folks that old around.

Those lists never got exported out of the VAN system