Niko House outed Diana Rogalle as the person behind the claim that Ryan Hughes received Clinton Super Pac money. I first reported this story on March 25th. For that reason, I now have chosen to write about the information I obtained regarding Ms. Rogalle’s role in this matter.
Let me be clear. My March 25th story that alleged Ryan Hughes, Bernie Sanders’ state director for his campaign in Michigan, took money from Super Pacs associated with Hillary Clinton, was based for the most part on Mark Craig’s statements to me. This follow-up report, which names Diana Rogalle, a prominent Democratic consultant and fundraiser, as Mark Craig’s source for that claim is, in like manner, also primarily based on statements made by Mr. Craig, as supplemented by my own independent online and offline research.
With that disclaimer, let’s proceed, beginning with Mark Craig’s account of his relationship with Diana Rogalle, and what led her to reveal she’d made payments to Ryan Hughes on behalf of entities supporting Hillary.
Mark Craig and Diana Rogalle
Mr Craig is a life-long resident of Flint, Michigan, His family has a long history of political activity supporting Democrats and liberal causes. For example, Lois Craig, Mark’s mother, and a Flint native, worked for then Speaker of the House, Bobby Crim in the seventies. She was the driving force behind creating he Crim Festival of Races, a fundraising event that raised millions over the years for the Special Olympics. Mark Craig’s father, Robert P. Craig, was also active in Michigan Democratic politics as a fundraiser.
Mark Craig met Diana Rogalle, a University of Michigan graduate interested in politics when they worked together on several political campaigns in Michigan during the nineties. They eventually became close friends and maintained their friendship over the years, even after Diana became one of the most successful and influential fundraisers for the Democratic Party.
In February of this year, Mr Craig and Dianna Rogalle met up in Florida. In a casual conversation with her, Mark brought up his concerns regarding Ryan Hughes. According to Mark, Diana responded by saying that Ryan Hughes was one of the people to whom she was directed to make payments on behalf of several Clinton Super Pacs for which she worked. He said she referred to Mr. Hughes as one of her “spies” and implied Hughes received somewhere in the range of $5000 to $7,500 per month.
Who is Diana Rogalle?
Diana Rogalle is a long time Democratic political operative and fundraiser for Democratic candidates and liberal non-profit organizations such as Planned Parenthood.
She served as the finance director for Priorities USA Action Pac, which supported President Obama in 2012. Priorities USA action moved to support Hillary beginning in January 2014 at the latest. The only candidate Priorities USA Action supports in the 2016 election cycle is Hillary Clinton, and it’s made expenditures on her behalf in the amount of $5,648,679 (as of February 29, 2016).
Diana Rogalle’s bio from Priorities USA Action’s January 23, 2014 press release, reads as follows:
Diana Rogalle, Finance Director
Diana Rogalle has been a leading Democratic political fundraiser and operative for close to twenty years. Consulting on federal and non-federal races across the nation, Ms. Rogalle has played a key role in Democratic campaigns during each of the past ten consecutive election cycles. Her relationships extend across America’s financial, entertainment, business, activist, and philanthropic communities, and her management expertise has earned her a reputation among the most elite in her field.
In March 2005, Ms. Rogalle formed The Ashmead Group based in Washington, DC. The Ashmead Group is a boutique political and non-profit fundraising consulting firm dedicated to providing the highest level of service to donors, candidates, advocacy organizations and businesses.
Clients of the Ashmead Group have included Priorities USA Action; campaigns for US Senators Max Baucus, Mark Udall, Ron Wyden, Maria Cantwell, Debbie Stabenow and Jeff Merkley, as well as a number of current and former governors; advocacy organizations including the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood and the National Resources Defense Council; and not for profit organizations including Ford’s Theater, Make It Right, Generation Rescue and the Alliance for Climate Change.
Ms. Rogalle’s experience before founding the Ashmead Group includes leading the fundraising efforts for Victory Campaign 2004 – the joint fundraising committee of America Coming Together and The Media Fund; National Finance Director for the Wes Clark for President Campaign; and four years as the Finance Director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Ms. Rogalle earned her B.A. in political science and communications from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor in 1990. She lives with her husband and son in Washington, DC.
Ms. Rogalle also worked for Priorities USA when it supported President Obama in 2012, and was chief fundraiser for Americans Coming Together (ACT), in 2004.
In February, Priorities USA hired Diana Rogalle, who was chief fund-raiser for America Coming Together, which spent $200 million on behalf of Democrats in 2004.
Diana Rogalle supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, and she, individually, and through The Ashmead Group, donated to Hillary’s campaign.
The Ashmead Group
Diane Rogalle is the founder and President of The Ashmead Group. In the 2014 election cycle alone, The Ashmead Group received payments from Priorities USA, as shown in filings with the Federal Election Commission, of $127,124 . This sum was in addition to her salary as Priorities USA Finance Director during 2014 and 2015.
In the 2016 election cycle, Ashmead has been paid $51,938 (as of Feb 29th) by Priorities USA Pac.
Ashmead’s address (as listed in this document filed with the FEC; see, Page 45) is: 122 C Street NW, Suite 505, Washington DC, 20002-2109
When Did I learn of Diana Rogalle?
Mark Craig did not initially identify Ms. Rogalle to me as his source, though I asked him to contact her and obtain permission to tell me her name. The next day on March 23rd, after Marks says he spoke the her, Mark informed me Diana Rogalle was his source on Ryan Hughes. That was also the day I first learned of the existence The Ashmead Gruop. Mark indicated that she wished to remain anonymous and was not yet willing to speak to me directly. I asked him to keep trying to get her to change her mind so we could cite her as an anonymous source.
Last week, Mark let me know that Diana was no longer returning his phone calls. On Friday, April 1st, a friend of Diana contacted Mark by phone and said she did not want to talk to him anymore.
At that point, I made my first attempt to contact Ms. Rogalle myself, either through email or phone. However, The Ashmead Group’s website with its contact page link is no longer available online. If you try to reach Ashmead’s site, you get a page that says:
The connection has timed out
The server at www.ashmeadgroup.com is taking too long to respond.
The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy.
Try again in a few moments.
By using The Wayback Machine, an internet archive database, I was able to find an archived image of the home page of The Ashmead Group, dated May 17, 2014. Here’s a screenshot:
The phone number for The Ashmead Group is (202) 465-4622. I called that number Friday, April 1st and Saturday, but on each attempt no one picked up and it just rolled into a generic voicemail box that did not identify the company’s name. I left voicemail messages asking Diana Rogalle to please contact me. I have yet to receive any response.
Attempts to contact Ryan Hughes
The only phone number I ever had for Ryan Hughes is the number Mark Craig gave me for the cell phone Hughes used while he worked for Bernie in Michigan: (617) 428-5681. When I called that number, I received a message that it had been “disconnected or was no longer in service.”
I’ve emailed two women working for Bernie Sanders campaign. They were refereed to me as individuals who knew senior people in Bernie’s campaign. One woman worked for Bernie as a field operative. On the phone she told me she knew Becky Bond, a senior adviser. The other woman is a volunteer in Pennsylvania who told me she had contacts among Sanders’ senior staff. I asked both to pass along all the information I sent them about Mark Craig and Ryan Hughes (and other matters not relevant here).
I only withheld the following from them: that Mark had named Diana Rogalle as his source. At that time, Mark still wanted me to keep her name private while he continued to try to get her to go on the record about the Sanders’ field operatives, including Hughes, who allegedly received Clinton PAC money from her.
I also gave them Mark Craig’s contact info. I did not receive any response from anyone on Bernie’s national staff, nor did I hear from Ryan Hughes.
On Friday, in an attempt to reach Hughes (now Bernie’s state director for the campaign in Pennsylvania), I called all of Bernie’s Pennsylvania field offices for which telephone numbers are publicly available.
I left a message with the Lehigh office to pass along to Hughes my desire to speak to him. A volunteer at a Pittsburgh field office put me in touch with Gregory Minchak, Regional Press Secretary for Bernie Sanders’ campaign. I spoke to him on Friday, reiterating my desire to speak to Ryan Hughes.
Mr. Minchak gave me no official comment on behalf of the campaign. Per his request, however, I sent him all the information I previously shared with the two other Sanders’ campaign workers. I informed him that the name of Mark Craig’s source would very likely be made public in the near future, and asked him to reach out to Mr. Hughes and request that he call me. Mr. Minchak made no promises. I hope to receive a response from him or some other senior official in the campaign at some point.
To my knowledge, Ryan Hughes has made no public statement refuting the allegations against him. However, last week I learned that Bill Taylor, a volunteer activist and organizer for Bernie Sanders in the Philadelphia area, did attempt to speak to Hughes about the controversy. On March 27, 2016, Taylor confronted Ryan Hughes about the allegations he took Clinton PAC money. Taylor’s description of that encounter describes his encounter with Ryan Hughes is related in this video he made and posted on Facebook.
I contacted Taylor by phone. He claims that Ryan Hughes refused to answer any questions regarding the claim he received money from PACS supporting Clinton. Hughes, for whatever reason, did not deny the allegations when Taylor raised the issue. Instead, Taylor says Hughes made every effort to evade him and avoided answering Taylor’s questions.
Final thoughts
I deeply regret that I have been unable to speak with either Diana Rogalle or Ryan Hughes, the two people who could provide some clarity about this matter. They could either confirm or deny Mr. Craig’s claims if they chose to do so. Ms. Rogalle has not responded to the voicemail messages I left for her, and her firm’s website has apparently been taken down. It appears she has chosen not to comment about Ryan Hughes and the money he allegedly received from Clinton PACs.
Ryan Hughes knows or should have reason to know of Mark Craig’s allegations regarding him since my initial story was published on March 25th. I’ve yet to see any public statement from him about those allegations.
I can’t say with 100% certainty the accusations against Mr. Hughes are true. It’s possible that Craig made these claims to disrupt Bernie’s campaign. However, I’ve seen nothing to make me think that is the case. To the extent possible, I’ve attempted to confirm every piece of information about Ryan Hughes and Diana Rogalle I received from Mark Craig. Much of what he told me has been verified through independent publicly available online sources. In the case of Mr. Hughes and his conduct as Michigan’s state director, I’ve had conversations with volunteers worked for him that support what Mark Craig told me.
Some might claim that if Mr. Hughes received funds from Clinton Super Pacs, those expenditures would appear in the mandatory disclosure forms all PACs are required to file with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). However, that is not necessarily the case.
If the payments to Hughes and others were made by consulting firms, such as The Ashmead Group, who billed the PACs and were reimbursed for them, these payments would not show up in any document filed with the FEC. This is because companies that receive payments from political action committees,such as Priorities USA, are not required under Federal law to disclose any information to the FEC with respect to PAC expenditures they received.
The particulars of this story do not provide definitive proof that Ryan Hughes did indeed receive monies from Diana Rogalle, funds that originated from Super Pacs or other groups supporting Hillary Clinton. They are sufficient, however, to create suspicion in the minds of reasonable people that the story very well might be true.
Similar fact patterns that involve inexplicable actions taken by paid staffers in other states, combined with connections between those staffers and the Clintons, their associates and or affiliated organizations, are leading many Bernie volunteers to suspect the infiltration of Bernie’s campaign by Clinton operatives.
For myself, regarding this story, I would like to hear from Ryan Hughes and Diana Rogalle. So far, however, neither of them has addressed the claims made by Mark Craig publicly, at least to my knowledge. By remaining silent, they give the appearance of having something to hide.
In any event, I’d love to hear from either Diana or Ryan to get their side of this story.
This is what journalism is supposed to be. Thanks for all the details.
No, this is absolutely not what journalism is supposed to be. There’s one second hand source, and the story makes no sense: Bernie’s most successful state campaign director is actually a mole, because one of Hillary’s advisors dimed him out because…? And Bernie’s campaign was too stupid to realize he’s a mole, and got him to direct PA because…?
This is the idiocy that makes me embarrassed to be a progressive.
Good thing Woodward and Bernstein didn’t use your standards, say in June 1972 eh?
Right — because that’s all Woodward and Bernstein had.
Why don’t you do a quick Google search on Watergate?
Don’t need to my 11 grade US history teacher made sure we knew every day of it what the heck it was all about.
I lived thru it ……
Sorta my introduction how the US Government works, and doesn’t work properly sometimes.
Then you’ve obviously forgotten…well, absolutely everything about Watergate.
No
ah, yes, nothing to see here, move along; these are not the operatives you are looking for …
I would like to know why a Sri Lankan lobbyist would give a quarter million to the DNC, which deposited most of it in a Hillary PAC just so he could give ten thousand to the Democrats in Montana. I’m going to need some charts and graphs to understand this fully.
huh? Where are you getting this from?
The money trail between the Hillary Victory Fund, state DEM parties, and DNC is convoluted and most of it does seem to end up either directly or indirectly supporting HRC. Of course, the money is all donated by her base.
Aren’t foreign donations illegal? wasn’t this the problem with Johnny Huang?
Yes and yes. Don’t know what Bob’s referring to.
sounds interesting
Thank you for keeping on the story. Good hunting…
Thanks.
Unfortunately, as a single person working without the resources of a major investigative reporting unit for a major media outlet, I have probably gone as far with this story as I can.
Since fraud is suspected, shouldn’t this be reported to the appropriate state and federal authorities (the PA and MI Attorneys General, the PA and MI Secs/Depts of State, the FEC, and others)?
Oh, and the FBI (Election Crimes Division or similar).
yes, thanks Steven, good work
I know the Sanders’ campaign is very busy, but one would think that they would want to put this allegation to bed one way or the other.
Esp since that dude may still be operating in the Pennsylvania campaign.
OTOH — all the prior HRC associated ratf**king of the Sanders campaign that his team or others have attempted to expose has been successfully used by HRC’s team to smear Sanders. So, maybe the cost of keeping Ryan around is less than the potential huge negatives that could result getting rid of him.
Not as a State director in charge of running Bernie’s PA campaign, though.
That’s problematical. The complaints from staff/volunteers in MI and PA should at a minimum call into question Ryan’s competence.
He is the State directer in PA for Bernie, and I have been hearing some bad stories about his job performance from PA volunteers I know.
Fire him. Surely it’s employment at will.
Whoever hired him must like him.
How high do you think this goes? Surely if these allegations are true, crimes are being committed. Can you speculate as to why nothing is seemingly being done about this by the campaign? Shouldn’t this in the very least be reported to the FEC? I honestly don’t understand how this can continue without any formal action being taken. Do you have any advice for us here? Is there anything we here can do? Thanks.
You need someone with investigative authority to subpoena records, but that is unlikely to happen.
Absent that you would need a team of investigative journalists with the resources to devote all their time and efforts looking into this matter.
I am hoping that the Sanders campaign will do some internal vetting of past hires, but I’m not holding my breath.
yes
I have been in contact with one of their Regional Press Secretaries re: this story. So, they are aware.
Okay — now a suggestion, drop it. Something smells in this, but after much thought, have concluded that it’s highly unlikely that it’s what House and Craig have concluded. Clinton was expected to win MI by 20+ points and lost it by 1.5 points. And we’re supposed to believe that Sanders’ win would have been larger if not for Ryan as his MI campaign director?
Marie, What made me believe this stuff is that it not the only one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuEMOKSaTk0
In business, we referred to this as “when the suits take over.” They do tend to stifle enthusiasm, innovation, and momentum and hate DIY to get it done quickly.
Here’s list of Sanders’ staffers. Most appear to me to be clean. Might have questions about a few of them, but on first pass through, can’t see that they are in such powerful positions that they could shut down all field volunteer reports of problems from getting heard by the top people.
Sanders had a huge number of grassroots organizing groups throughout the country in place by last August. Yet, it appears that the effective link between those groups and campaign central wasn’t established. Entirely possible that there’s not a pro in the country that had ever taken on such an assignment and no pro with the vision to see what needed to be done. Then when some in-state directors were hired, their response to most anything was no.
The unavailable, late production, and bad voter lists seems to have originated after the NH primary. Suggests to me that the DNC database “stunt” could have sabotaged Bernie’s data. And the one guy that might have been able to figure it out was the one he fired. hmm.
What about Joe Caiazzo as Political partner with the Truman National Security Project? Looks like a lot of the Clinton gang.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Truman_National_Security_Project
Here is a good summary of this entire mess. I’ve seen most of these things from other sources.
http://wcmcoop.com/2016/04/01/saboteurs-of-sanders-campaign-lead-to-clinton-national-security-think-
tank/
I said a few looked questionable and Caizzo would be one of those. Do I suspect that there are dirty tricks afoot? Yes. However, trawling through questionable instances that can as easily be described as incompetence as malice isn’t generally a way to hit pay dirt. The three areas where this is being alleged are western MA, MI, and NC. Sanders won in western MA and MI and he did much better in NC than reasonable projections suggested that he would. Where he did worse than I would have expected was in the Boston metro. Bill’s Boston stunts on election day weren’t robust enough to make that big a difference in Boston.
Be-Wary of anything Diana Rogalle says. She’s the actor named so far that I would place firmly in the HRC camp beginning in ’04. But also be mindful of the fact that the campaign operative field is small and incestuous. That operatives, by necessity, are like hired guns because the work is intermittent. Thus, their resumes aren’t as telling as we on the outside may think they are. Add in that it’s a big prize to be on a winning campaign. That’s how an operative moves up in the industry.
There was an anectodal report that briefly flickered on a blog but didn’t get any follow up attention. It was from one of the caucuses and the report was of a Sanders leader and contingent that quickly realigned to HRC. An act of commission. Perhaps someone should go back to find out if it were true and if there is no good reason why it should have happened.
Check out where Sanders has done well and who were the directors in those instances. IMO we can see team HRC dirty tricks at the NV caucuses and convention, but they were done by HRC operatives and not a HRC mole in Sanders campaign.
One thing that hobbles a campaign like Sanders is that the early money is never large enough to hit the ground running soon enough. So much of that early money and hiring focus by the campaign has to go into IA and NH that there aren’t enough resources left to get a jump on what is required for the states to follow. The campaign was late in getting to NV and SC. Appears that they got a good team in NV, but the SC team (even factoring in that it was a really tough nut) appears to have been crappy.
I would say a lot of the clear as day ratfucking already done by DWS was not very effective making only marginal difference. Again, the troubling part of all this activity is the lack of judgment on the part of Hillary turning the dogs loose not weighing the amount of gain against the potential damage to the Democratic Party, the most obvious case being the debates by handing the narrative to the Republicans allowing them to get stronger while depressing Democratic enthusiasm.
I still think team Hillary is doing everything she can think of to slow Bernie’s movement down but the movement is just too strong. This is a bottom up effort that by definition would limit the power of those on top meaning the success in those states could be in spite of the best efforts of Hillary’s operatives to slow it down.
If you are saying there is not a proper connection between the volunteers and the top of the campaign, I agree with you. I think the best solution for Bernie is to do the same sort of thing that unions do in this kind of situation, simply install a committee of volunteer representatives at the very top of the campaign. The very existence of this small group would go a long way to remove the feeling among the volunteers that they are powerless so they don’t quit in frustration. This might also instill a bit of fear into any ratfucking operative that their actions will be exposed in real time to the very top, changing some attitudes for the better. This would also allow good ideas a direct path to the top that would strengthen the campaign. This is the kind of thing I meant by Bernie dealing with this situation.
Always something new to learn in every POTUS election cycle.
Have to divide the HRC/DWS efforts into what was planned (using what they had learned from ’08) and what was ad hoc. The planned components worked very well indeed. Limiting the debates was a twofer. Minimized the chance for her to flub and/or leave droppings for the GOP nominee in the general election and denied any challenger opportunities to increases his/her name ID. As she possessed 100% name ID and was confident that she could recapture the enthusiasm that existed for her in ’08 plus the enthusiasm for Obama during the general election, her presence on the campaign trail during the primary season would generate all the enthusiasm she needed.
They were ready for MOM’s challenge — and had that one down with “Black voters don’t like him.” Compared to her expected strongest ’08 challenger, Edwards, MOM would be easy to knock out. He was actually rather good in the debates (even if he lacks that that je ne sais quoi that announces “winner”) and he was the reason for the truncated debate schedule. They were adept enough to shift what they had in the can to use against MOM to Sanders one the 6/30/15 FEC filings were available and it was apparent that Sanders was good to go for another three months. Unlike MOM who raised little money.
What was more difficult for them was how to counterpunch Sanders. HRC prepares for, and actually relishes, an attack machine opponent which is likely what she would have gotten from MOM. She struggled with that in ’08 because Obama didn’t give her much to work with and Sanders gave her practically nothing. Sanders vaulting to the lead in NH in September along with his third quarter fundraising seems to have caused some panic in her operation. If not for her rebound from the Benghazi hearings, the trends for both would have continued. Instead Sanders flatlined for two months. When he again began to make gains is when the ad hoc stuff came into play. Agree that it wasn’t effective, but it didn’t negatively impact HRC either. In large measure because the MSM didn’t focus on it.
WRT the Sanders campaign, they really did flub on not optimally converting/integrating all that initial grassroots manpower and enthusiasm. Those enthusiastic volunteers have languished until the actual primary nears in their states. It explains why he has made such large gains right before individual caucus/primary dates. The closest any POTUS candidate in the past has come to having such an early advantage and made use of it was Ron Paul in ’12. However, what he had was a pittance compared to what coalesced for Sanders. Who could possibly have had the foresight to recognize that a separate HQ team that was quasi-independent and had the ear of Sanders and Weaver was needed to be a contact point for those grassroots groups? To facilitate integrating the efforts of those groups into the formal operations once an in-state or in-area staffer was hired. Without cutting off their access to the preexisting HQ contact team. Now we know how it should have been done, but that could easily be lost by the time another Sanders (right or good enough person at the right time) appears.
Such a HQ contact team could still be put in place at this late date because it’s easy to directly inform the troops. The work for those on such a team would be daunting because the campaign is now stuck with volunteers that are untrained and therefore, easily confused as to what’s acceptable, accepted, and what’s “hinky.” From these stories of perceived ratf**king, what does seem to be missing is effective and complete communication from the staffers to the volunteers and no evidence that the staffer is reporting to higher-ups and looks like some pissant dictator.
Because the volunteers that are untrained and therefore, easily confused as to what’s acceptable, accepted, and what’s “hinky” is the exactly the reason such a HQ volunteer team is so needed. I believe you’re the one who said Bernie’s team is quite busy now. This HQ team could offload that burden on staff by having experienced people vet these claims then prepare a presentation along with recommendations for action if any. This team by necessity would have access to the people who vetted these people for the jobs they hold.
“From these stories of perceived ratf**king, what does seem to be missing is effective and complete communication from the staffers to the volunteers and no evidence that the staffer is reporting to higher-ups and looks like some pissant dictator.”
It’s not that the staffer is not reporting to higher ups, it’s that the higher ups aren’t returning calls nor should they. The HQ team would be the instant solution for that because they could return the calls. The most important thing here is keeping that volunteer enthusiasm at a high level.
There exists a very important point of leverage for the Sanders campaign. Jobs like this are few and far between so getting fired for engaging in a bit of ratfucking could be a permanent career ender, same as being caught stealing. Who would ever trust you after that? In the case of Ryan Hughes, the best course of action might be for the HQ team to just ask him, in writing with his written signed response; did you accept payment from Diane Rogalle or The Ashmead Group? This could also contain an agreement that a false statement in that matter would subject Mr. Hughes to returning all the salary already paid to him along with termination of employment. If he’s guilty, he can simply resign in indignation for being asked such a question or he could take his chances that Diana Rogalle won’t rat him out. If he’s innocent then just say no and sign the thing. In that case he would still have been put in notice that acting like a pissant dictator is not going to cut it.
My wording about staffer communications was awkward. Meant that the volunteers sense that what the staffer says to them, originates with the staffer and only the staffer and volunteers are aware of it. Thus, when the volunteers sense that the staffer’s orders, directions, etc. are weird, counterproductive, etc., they’re left to wonder “does Bernie know about this?” Too much of what has been described is based on oral and not written communications. That’s fine for ordinary and small stuff. Large stuff and disputes should always be in written form and include a cc to higher ups and any others with a need to know. Nothing elaborate — merely a few sentence acknowledgement or confirmation.
An example from the video you linked to:
Volunteer to director: “Our group recommends opening an office in X because we’ve grown too large and need a single location from which to operate out of.”
Director to volunteer: “Nothing in the budget for an office in X. Can you come up with an alternative solution.”
Volunteer: “We’ve found a cheap office location, and our group can cover the cost.”
Director: “That would put the campaign in violation of required accounting processes. It’s why all Sanders for President offices must be rented by the campaign and cash contributions must flow through the campaign coffers. I understand the frustration you and your fellow volunteers are experiencing due to logistical impediments. Could you detail the problems you’re experiencing and ideas for how this office can assist in correcting or minimizing these difficulties.”
—
How many similar communications from different states would a HQ coordinator have to read before recognizing this operational deficit and that it was dragging down the campaign at the street level?
As for challenging a paid director based on allegations from a couple of volunteers, I don’t think that’s a good idea. I’ve been in the position of being a hairsbreadth away from being fired based on a false accusation. The whole to-do consumed almost an entire day for a Sr VP down through a receptionist — eight people in total. The operation, and the industry as well, were too small for me not to accept the apologies, which were authentic, offered at the end of the day. However, I would never again have willingly worked with any of those that went after me that day.
What I think is an extremely good idea is to take those couple of volunteers seriously. Those volunteers should have had an avenue to express what they thought was wrong. My experience in management taught me it was important to remember that every person working on our project had a brain, a most valuable resource. I soon began to realize that important innovations most often came from people other than management. It is a truly a brain dead manager who does not understand this. One of our most respected senior directors used to tell us he had an open door policy to anyone, but don’t come in with a problem unless you have an answer and he meant it. We were successful because of that policy.
If there had been open door access to the top through a HQ volunteer team those videos we have been discussing would never have been made. It is quite possible that a clarification of policy and/or a pep talk from a HQ volunteer team member was all that was needed. The result could have been increased moral with the volunteers back on the job. What we got instead was a viral video not shedding a good light on the person trying out for the biggest management position of all.
I think it is a very serious allegation that a senior campaign director has been accused of receiving money from the opposition. Something like this must be examined very carefully then a decision made about the potential truth of it. If not true that person deserves an apology. If it turns out to be inconclusive but might be true the decisions this person makes needs to be reviewed on an ongoing basis. If it does appear to be true then the kind of confrontation I described would be appropriate. The point I was trying to make is that no organization is helpless to deal with something like this. If team Clinton did initiate something like this the public has a right to know and know before that person enters the White House, somewhat of a moral issue. What we have now is nothing.
Assuming Booman’s calculation is correct, Sanders needs 60% of the remaining primaries’ vote, all they opposition must do is depress the vote – e.g. WI 57%, not over 60%.
By that way, thanks for the help with the trolls.
Nothing will ever be good enough for Martin. Any way you look at it, WI was a win of landslide proportions, once again, way beyond the expectations of any of the polls or pundits. Hillary piled up a pledged delegate lead in early voting even though Bernie was winning Election Day voting in some delegate rich conservative red states that will never vote Democratic in the general. Unless there was voter suppression and/or outright establishment voter fraud, Hillary has lost all the Blue States that matter.
Bernie has closed the gap to the point where Hillary will not have enough delegates for the nomination without using super delegates meaning the super delegates will decide the nomination.
Because Hillary keeps saying stupid things like doubting Bernie is really a Democrat, she is further alienating Bernie supporters who are already fed up with her unbelievable level of corruption and sellout to Big Money. It is now becoming clear that she will pivot even further to the right attempting to make up for the loss of Bernie Democrats with so called moderate Republicans. Good luck with that. If you combine the wishes of Blue State Democrats, the fact she does not poll well with Independents, has lost the youth vote, Republicans hate her even more than they hate Obama, her much too high and rising unfavorable ratings and the likelihood she will face someone other than Trump or Cruz in the general, she is going to lose an otherwise winnable election.
There will be no escaping the fact that the Democratic Establishment will be directly responsible for this loss. The only question after that is; can the Democratic Party survive something like this? All we can hope for is that cooler heads will prevail.
don’t agree with you on this, Marie. there are more primaries to come
Right, Ryan needs to be fired now so that Bernie can avoid…uh, winning more upset primaries like in Michigan.
Interesting, we’ll have to see where it goes. I still can’t wrap my head around the idea that someone at the Superpac would just casually mention that they’re dropping very large amounts of cash into the bank account of one of Bernie’s senior campaign officials. That still seems implausible to me. And, frankly, if you really wanted to screw up Bernie’s campaign, it would almost be better to falsely implicate this Ryan Hughes guy – whom I assume to have been a key player in Bernie’s unlikely Michigan victory – in a fake bribery scandal so as to remove him from the field of play. But, maybe more information will come out that resolves this one way or the other.
Talk to volunteers at Flint MI about what they thought of him.
Another thing I noticed, Steven. In Niko House’s allegations against Aisha Dew in NC, he also implicated Robert Dempsey, and warned that Dempsey had moved on to another state, wasn’t sure which.
In fact, Dempsey is now Sanders state director in Wisconsin. The Sanders campaign seems to be doing all right in Wisconsin.
Maybe he could be doing better.
Or maybe it’s a nonsensical conspiracy theory unsupported by plausibility or evidence.
Either way!
Do you ever tire of marginalizing and trivializing allegations of criminal behavior. It’s exhausting, no?
Do you ever tire of carrying water for Karl Rove? It’s exhausting, no?
I can’t marginalize these “allegations” because they’re not even marginal.
You know who agrees with me? Bernie’s campaign.
On the eve of the primary I thought it would be prudent to understate it. (I don’t want to jinx it.) So I repeat, they seem to be doing pretty well. You can check it.
I and Niko do not work together. I do not know his info re: Dempsey and I haven’t had anyone contact me with any info to suggest he is a bad apple.
As for WI, Bernie was always going to win there imo. The big states, NY and PA are where he needs to pull off victories, hopefully victories of more then 10% points.
I still have hope it can be done. but it’s a hard hill to climb.
The things you’re describing are crimes whether this is true or a ruse.
well, looks like b/c of long time friendship between diana R and Mark Craig, and presumably Diana R knowing it’s a problem. she told him;
She told her friend words to the effect, “By the way, I’m bribing one of the major leaders on your team”? And then it turn out to be the worst investment ever because Sanders actually won? There’s a lot that doesn’t seem to make sense on the surface.
No, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Huh. Small world. I worked for Becky Bond for several years when she was based in San Francisco as Working Assets’ Political Director. So now she’s a “senior advisor” for Sanders’ campaign? Good for her. I doubt she’d return my call these days.
She is, in my experience, a walking embodiment of the truism that politics is a snake pit. It’s good to know, I guess, that the Sanders campaign also has people experienced in ratfucking.
Hi Geov. Small world indeed.
That’s a factor in why principled insurgent and late entrant campaigns have so much difficulty. All the better talent has already been scooped up and what’s leftover are either the dregs that other candidates didn’t want or those with talent and principles (but the numbers in the category are very small).
With his phenomenal (and expected) fundraising, Sanders unfortunately had to go with some leftovers. (He did, however, get the best TV/video advert team of any of the candidates.)
You write:
Don’t hold your breath.
Stonewalling is mother’s milk to these types.
AG
I’m not.
Steven D, this is truly explosive information, even worse than her (bribing?) buying the loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties. I think the reason those involved are behaving as they are is because they know just how explosive it is. And by explosive I mean explosive enough to derail the entire Clinton campaign. What you describe here is ratfucking on a level not seen since Nixon and it’s coming from INSIDE the Democratic Party.
The very last thing we need to do is to elect a Democratic President with the morals of Nixon along with the political vision of a Margaret Thatcher. If she still gets the nomination with these issues unresolved, the question then becomes; is Hillary more dangerous than any Republican nominee they could possibly choose? Unfortunately, this would then be a decision each of us will be facing at the ballot box.
Doing nothing about this is not an option for the Bernie campaign. Either these top Bernie officials mentioned are Hillary operatives or they’re not. There are a lot of ways for Bernie to deal with this because, after all, they’re employees serving at his pleasure. If Bernie can’t or won’t deal with this, how does he expect us to believe he can lead the much needed political revolution?
1. Getting your operative, maybe more than one, inside your opponent’s campaign in key campaign leadership positions to frustrate a successful grassroots organization is certainly on par with and perhaps even more clever than all the ratfucking ever attempted by Nixon. You’re clearly the one who knows nothing about politics, let alone history.
2. You know, that’s what they said about Stalin. If only he had known he would never have let all those terrible things happen.
3. You may be right about this being stupid, that is, on Hillary’s part because it may not have been all that effective, at least not yet, since once the light was turned on they’re running around like cockroaches. If this goes unaddressed it can be dangerous for Bernie’s campaign because with something like this going on, it could kill the enthusiasm of his volunteers, the life blood of his campaign.
Let me spell out for you the real damage this could cause Hillary. This is one of those instances where the voters will decide if it’s true or not. The Clinton Machine will be totally unable to control the spread of something like this because it will literally burn through social media (no pun intended). If people get angry enough, instead of just sitting out the general election, they will instead vote Republican. That should be serious enough for you, unless you’re a Republican troll.
Stalin?
Right.
Here’s the obvious problem: There’s. No. Evidence.
Here’s the other obvious problem: This. Makes. No. Sense.
You honestly believe that someone working for a Hillary superpac would dime out one of her own sources who might be committing a felony, thereby seriously damaging her own career and ending Murphy’s? Why? That’s insane.
And the mole just happens to be Bernie’s most effective director?
And no one on Bernie’s campaign can figure this out?
This is Breitbart stuff.
I must try to remember to not feed the trolls.
ah yes, “there is no evidence” and a few ad hominems – are those the latest talking points after electability?
I’m not trolling. I get really annoyed when liberals peddle the same conspiracy theory BS as conservatives.
And this is exactly the same. Your entire argument is “Hillary is evil, so we don’t need evidence.” It’s the same as Benghazi, the Rose Law Firm, Travelgate, Filegate, Vince Foster, etc., etc.
oh my! troll working overtime. Austin, I replied so you don’t have to
Wow, tripping on poison.
If i was American i would vote Bernie, he is less to the right than any other candidate for my taste, and i get that people want to fight for him.
But this discussion seems to have a ridiculous contempt for any kind of standard of how to deal with truth. It is helping no one in my opinion.
If you thought that Mrs. Clinton has “the political vision of a Margaret Thatcher”, that would indicate that you really didn’t know ANY history, AT ALL. Of course you don’t think that (no one could think that, no matter what kind of lies they had been told); you’re just dropping a name that you’ve read somewhere, of a successful female politician. But there is no commonality whatever; the comparison is too bizarre to even be offensive.
Frank unfortunately I have run across other commenters on this site who hold the same ignorant opinion re. Clinton and Thatcher. Frankly it’s exhausting and dispiriting to have to argue against such a twisted view of fairly recent history.
Three men make a tiger.
.
That’s about the size of it, looks like.
Someone posted this interesting link on Billy Taylor’s Facebook page, in response to his video:
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-how-to-hack-an-election/
Last paragraph of the article:
“Last year, based on anonymous sources, the Colombian media reported that Rendón was working for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Rendón calls the reports untrue. The campaign did approach him, he says, but he turned them down because he dislikes Trump. ‘To my knowledge we are not familiar with this individual,’ says Trump’s spokeswoman, Hope Hicks. ‘I have never heard of him, and the same goes for other senior staff members.’ But Rendón says he’s in talks with another leading U.S. presidential campaign–he wouldn’t say whichto begin working for it once the primaries wrap up and the general election begins.”
Wonder if that anonymous source confused JJ Rendon with the Rendon Group. The former would mean something to those in Colombia and the latter nothing. The latter, if true, would be veery interesting.
Steven, note that HRC campaign only has to depress the Sanders wins by a couple % points to win the nomination; hence such dirty tricks can be effective in stopping Sanders
Wisconsin, for example, the split was 48 38;