# Wasserman Schultz: Toast or not toast? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 25, 2016, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704 "2016-05-25T23:10:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/161 "2016-08-17T19:48:42Z")
[Henry Munoz, DNC Finance Chairman, simultaneously organized fundraisers for Hilary.](http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/impartial-dnc-finance-chief-helps-hillary-clinton-118558) A discussion of how to use Sanders’s religion, or lack of it, to cost him primary votes: > [@](#): > > … Brad Marshall, the chief financial officer of the committee, Paustenbach and Amy Dacey, the committee’s chief executive, discussed how to force Sanders to talk about his religion in states where it would put him at a disadvantage. > > “It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God,” wrote Mr. Marshall. “He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps.” > > To which Dacey responded, “AMEN.” > … [From the New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html?_r=0): > [@](#): > > …Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, abruptly said she was resigning after a trove of leaked emails showed party officials conspiring to sabotage the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. … > > …The breach of the Democratic committee’s emails, made public on Friday by WikiLeaks, offered undeniable evidence of what Mr. Sanders’s supporters had complained about for much of the senator’s contentious primary contest with Mrs. Clinton: that the party was effectively an arm of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. The messages showed members of the committee’s communications team musing about pushing the narrative that the Sanders campaign was inept and trying to raise questions publicly about whether he was an atheist. … ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/162 "2016-08-17T20:01:05Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > [Henry Munoz, DNC Finance Chairman, simultaneously organized fundraisers for Hilary.](http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/impartial-dnc-finance-chief-helps-hillary-clinton-118558) > > A discussion of how to use Sanders’s religion, or lack of it, to cost him primary votes: > > [From the New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html?_r=0): “discussed how” but didnt act on it. "musing about " but never acted. Show me the actual _act._ Not talk, not discussion, not 'musing" but one time when they **acted** against Sanders. I will tell you now- \*there is nothing. \* ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/163 "2016-08-17T20:19:23Z")
“Held Fundraisers …” ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/164 "2016-08-17T20:24:21Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > No, their bylaws explicitly proclaim their neutrality among democratic candidates. They are supposed to assure a level playing field for candidates to compete on. Instead, the leadership of the Committee, not only Schultz, conspired AND acted against Sander’s campaign. You can argue about whether it made any difference or how effective it was, but their is no question they were operating completely contrary to the stated role of the DNC. > > IMO, that’s good enough to call them corrupt. Technically speaking, you may have a point. But considering that it was clear from day one that Bernie Sanders was not running as a true member of the democratic party but as an independent who was using the democratic party’s apparatus to further his causes and his positions, maybe it’s fair to point out that they had a legitimate reason to bend the rules a little to ensure that the wrong candidate didn’t win the nomination. As I’ve said before, Donald Trump is a textbook example of why political parties should leave open the option of torpedoing a candidate who inflict damage to the party’s long-term interests. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/165 "2016-08-17T20:29:22Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Technically speaking, you may have a point. But considering that it was clear from day one that Bernie Sanders was not running as a true member of the democratic party but as an independent who was using the democratic party’s apparatus to further his causes and his positions, maybe it’s fair to point out that they had a legitimate reason to bend the rules a little to ensure that the wrong candidate didn’t win the nomination. As I’ve said before, Donald Trump is a textbook example of why political parties should leave open the option of torpedoing a candidate who inflict damage to the party’s long-term interests. Then I don’t understand your definition of corruption either. What do YOU think Schultz and the DNC did that was corrupt, if violating their own bylaws to favor one candidate over another isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/166 "2016-08-17T20:34:03Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Then I don’t understand your definition of corruption either. What do YOU think Schultz and the DNC did that was corrupt, if violating their own bylaws to favor one candidate over another isn’t it? But they didnt. So far, _you got nuttin._ Yes, they showed some bias, but that’s because they are human. You have failed to show they acting on that bias in any significant way. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/167 "2016-08-17T20:37:11Z")
In politics, talking IS action. Unless they are elected officials enacting legislation, talking is all they do. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/168 "2016-08-17T21:03:41Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > In politics, talking IS action. Unless they are elected officials enacting legislation, talking is all they do. So if particular DNC staffers talk about possibly creating ads to highlight Sanders’ religious views, but _don’t actually create any ads_, the _existence_ of their conversations–not made public until long after the primaries–affects votes? How? By magic? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/169 "2016-08-17T21:07:07Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > So if particular DNC staffers talk about possibly creating ads to highlight Sanders’ religious views, but _don’t actually create any ads_, the _existence_ of their conversations–not made public until long after the primaries–affects votes? > > How? By magic? You know, they even \*discussed \*not inviting a avid Sanders supporter to a meeting. But they did anyway, in the end. The shame! The horror! :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/170 "2016-08-17T21:19:36Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > You know, they even \*discussed \*not inviting a avid Sanders supporter to a meeting. But they did anyway, in the end. The shame! The horror! :dubious: Yeah. These folks are having to work hard to maintain their Outrage. Apparently they find the work worth doing, but you have to wonder. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/171 "2016-08-17T21:21:27Z")
The fundraiser that Munoz helped organize was on June 8th. The primary was effectively over at that point. It had been over since March. Almost everything being pointed to as DNC wrongdoing occurred after Bernie had no chance. The DNC taking small steps to move on to the next phase of the campaign is not them favoring Clinton over Sanders it is their recognition of the fact that democratic primary voters favored Clinton over Sanders. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/172 "2016-08-17T22:22:25Z")
But…but…SANDERS LOST! There MUST have been corruption! /BernItDowner ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2016, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/173 "2016-08-18T02:24:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That is a horrible analogy. > > This is not an innocent group of young children who don’t yet know right from wrong but where it would be patently absurd to suspect them of murder. > > This is a group of political operative that have a demonstrated bias and you are saying that it would be unreasonable to suspect that they acted on that demonstrated bias. … First off you misestimate kids who steal a candy bar. I had done it once myself. I sure as heck knew it was wrong. Who knows what else I was capable of? This is a group of political operative that have a demonstrated bias with no evidence whatsoever that they ever did more than talk amongst themselves about things they _could_ do (but never did). You can suspect anything you want. Suspect and look for evidence. When you find none then acting as if your suspicion is probable truth is silly. Someone has an argument with her husband and you can suspect she has hired a hitman. If the husband however is alive and there is no evidence of her having made that hire, it is silly to keep floating the idea as likely truth, but sure you can suspect. Let’s be very clear: having bias is not only not a crime, not corruption, not evidence of acting on that bias, _it is unavoidable_. Believing that it would not exist is naive. The unseemly part is that they ideally _should_ have identified their bias as an item to be aware of in order to control for it and that they failed to meet that ideal by a wide margin. Nevertheless the only thing we can say they had normal bias, fantasized some about things that we know they did _not_ do, and failed to live up to the ethical standard I would place, which is not a crime. Yes Sanders lost because of bias. Sanders lost because the vast majority of voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses were biased against him. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2016, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/174 "2016-08-21T04:02:21Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > This is a group of political operative that have a demonstrated bias with no evidence whatsoever that they ever did more than talk amongst themselves about things they _could_ do (but never did). You can suspect anything you want. Suspect and look for evidence. When you find none then acting as if your suspicion is probable truth is silly. Someone has an argument with her husband and you can suspect she has hired a hitman. If the husband however is alive and there is no evidence of her having made that hire, it is silly to keep floating the idea as likely truth, but sure you can suspect. Reasonable suspicion not just some random paranoia that comes out of nowhere. > [@](#): > > Let’s be very clear: having bias is not only not a crime, not corruption, not evidence of acting on that bias, _it is unavoidable_. Believing that it would not exist is naive. And judges manage to do it all the time. When they fail we frequently do the trial over again. > [@](#): > > The unseemly part is that they ideally _should_ have identified their bias as an item to be aware of in order to control for it and that they failed to meet that ideal by a wide margin. Nevertheless the only thing we can say they had normal bias, fantasized some about things that we know they did _not_ do, and failed to live up to the ethical standard I would place, which is not a crime. Who said anything about a crime? You can do a lot of shitty things without committing a crime. > [@](#): > > Yes Sanders lost because of bias. Sanders lost because the vast majority of voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses were biased against him. Clinton won the popular vote in the Democratic primary 15 million to 12 million. Thats a majority but the margin is embarassingly thin for someone running against a guy with a face made for radio and a voice made for print. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2016, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/175 "2016-08-21T05:40:52Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And judges manage to do it all the time. When they fail we frequently do the trial over again. Judges have personal biases. This is unavoidable. There’s only a problem when they act on those biases. Members of the DNC have personal biases. This is unavoidable. There’s only a problem when they act on those biases. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2016, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/176 "2016-08-21T05:53:52Z")
Well then yes … you can be paranoid. Staffers having bias is not a rational reason to have reasonable suspicion of corruption. If you think getting 25% more votes is “thin” then I have a job for you at a swim suit store: a lot of folks who will love your feedback! Meanwhile since you bumped this an update on her toasting status: [up 10%](http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-wasserman-schultz-canova-poll-20160820-story.html) in the most recent poll. > [@](#): > > Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has a 10-point lead over challenger Tim Canova … The district is so overwhelmingly Democratic that the winner of the Canova-Wasserman Schultz primary is virtually guaranteed to win the November general election. … Democratic voters in the 23rd District view her positively. She is seen favorably by 58 percent of the Democratic voters in the Sun Sentinel/FAU poll and unfavorably by 35 percent, a net positive of 23 points. … ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/177 "2016-08-24T14:14:11Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Judges have personal biases. This is unavoidable. There’s only a problem when they act on those biases. > > Members of the DNC have personal biases. This is unavoidable. There’s only a problem when they act on those biases. If we discovered a judge sent emails like this the defendant would get a retrial if they wanted one. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/178 "2016-08-24T14:18:42Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Well then yes … you can be paranoid. Staffers having bias is not a rational reason to have reasonable suspicion of corruption. > > If you think getting 25% more votes is “thin” then I have a job for you at a swim suit store: a lot of folks who will love your feedback! I said considering who she is running against, it is embarrassingly thin. You, OTOH, seem to think that 55% constitutes a vast majority. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile since you bumped this an update on her toasting status: [up 10%](http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-wasserman-schultz-canova-poll-20160820-story.html) in the most recent poll. I never said she wouldn’t win or couldn’t win. Just wagging my finger at partisan Democrats who not only don’t think there is nothing wrong with this sort of bias, they think its a good thing. A feature, not a bug. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/179 "2016-08-24T16:29:46Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If we discovered a judge sent emails like this the defendant would get a retrial if they wanted one. I’m willing to believe you. Show, don’t tell. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/180 "2016-08-24T17:08:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If we discovered a judge sent emails like this the defendant would get a retrial if they wanted one. I don’t think that’s a fair comparison though. The DNC doesn’t really decide or direct much in the primaries aside from general rules that were mostly decided before Sanders was even a Democrat. I guess you could point to how strongly they reacted to the data breach early on as a biased move on their part but that initial reaction isn’t indefensible and they did relent. > **[Bernie Sanders drops lawsuit against DNC after data breach](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-drops-lawsuit-against-dnc-after-data-breach/)** > > The DNC had restricted the campaign's access to voter files after a data breach that had given Sanders staffers access to Clinton data > **[Sanders spins the facts when he says campaign did not 'go out and take'...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/dec/22/bernie-s/Sanders-take-Clinton-voter-data/)** > > It might feel like pure inside baseball, but the data breach that gave the Bernie Sanders campaign staff access to some [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704.md?page=10)