Did he think he could just wing-it? He certainly didn't "dazzle" them nor "baffle" them. From the looks of things (and based on the audible gasps, chuckles and other tones of disapproval) it's pretty clear that the attendees were already onto him. They had a good idea that he'd revert to the bulleted talking points from his standard stump speech... and they were right.

I'm also looking to support a candidate with the stamina, alertness and demeanor to be the leader of the free world. There's a delicate BALANCE of traits that are important to me. It's not enough to simply be able to point out problems... anyone can do that... I want someone who can articulate their understanding of the problem, how it came to be, what its real-world impacts are, and what a REAL WORLD solution would be... including how it gets passed, and how it's paid for.

For me, BS just misses the mark on all of those counts. I'll be supporting someone else.

I can assure you that my standards of what passes for acceptable behavior were in place and well established long before anyone ever thought of trying to excuse themselves by characterizing my disapproval as being the result of "Russian manipulation".

Again, I can tell you with great certainty that it's not my responsibility to validate anyone who's imagines that they have been "personally" wronged because their candidate loses an election. Mature and rational people don't need my validation. They can validate themselves, or look elsewhere.

Maybe. And if there is, so what? If there's any manipulating being done here, it's NOT by the Russians.

What we "could" do and what they actually want are two different things entirely. I'm not going to play that game. People generally don't respond well to blackmail and threats. They'll either come around or they won't. Their choice, not mine.

All I'm trying to say is that compared to all the effort and concessions that are needed to convince a mere handful of butthurt voters, we could spend HALF as much time and NO concessions and get a ROOM FULL of voters. I just don't think it's a very smart use of our resources (human and otherwise) to spend an inordinate effort to try and attract one or two unreliable voters.

I believe that the bitter and resentful and vengeful voters that are harangued into tepidly supporting the party are not as valuable to us as the ones who are EXCITED and ENERGIZED about supporting Democrats. Those are the ones who donate, who volunteer, and who "spread the gospel". Those are the voters that I want on my team... not the malcontents who may (or may not) follow through anyway.



PS: And anyone who disagrees with me is probably being influenced and manipulated by the Russians.

... it's also divisive to say that the Democratic party is "an absolute failure" and that the Democrats are "corrupt" and "ideologically bankrupt".

Want to talk about being divisive? How about when someone says that Democrats "don't care about climate change" or that the Democrats are the "party of the elite" and the "party of the one percent"... is that divisive?

It certainly causes division when anyone claims that the Democrats "focus too much" on diversity and it creates distrust when anyone claims that people "aren't racists" just because they refuse to vote for someone because of their skin color. It harmful and divisive for anyone to falsely claim that the Democrats who "are very big into diversity" aren't "particularly sympathetic" to the working class.

That type of hate-speech serves no good purpose. Showing such open contempt and hostility for the Democratic party is a GIFT to the GOP. It does nothing but create hostility, distrust, resentment and division. It serve no good purpose at all.

All I'm trying to say is, when anyone repeatedly smears the Democratic party with that type of negativity it generates apathy. When you have apathy, that discourages voter turnout. When you have low voter turnout that gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

He can't even get AA and POC to attend a rally at a BLACK church in a MAJORITY BLACK city.

His rally in North Charleston, SC had so LITTLE ethnic diversity that it looked like he could have been somewhere Vermont. In fact, based on the statistics, the demographics at that rally was even whiter than Vermont.

It's obvious that the AA and POC community are rejecting BS and the BS campaign. BS just doesn't connect with that community. The BS message just isn't resonating.

All I'm saying is, that without the AA vote, BS doesn't stand a chance.

It's also caused when anyone claims that Democrats are the same as Republicans. Or when anyone claims that the Democratic party is "the party of the elite" or "the party of the one percent". It causes division when anyone claims that Democrats are "ideologically bankrupt" and "corrupt". It causes division when anyone claims that Democrats "don't care about climate change". It causes division when anyone calls the Democratic party an "absolute failure" or that Democrats are "do-nothings". It's causes division when anyone claims that the Democrats "focus too much" on diversity and it creates distrust when anyone claims that people "aren't racists" just because they refuse to vote for someone because of their skin color. It harmful and divisive for anyone to falsely claim that the Democrats who "are very big into diversity" aren't "particularly sympathetic" to the working class.

That type of hate-speech serves no good purpose. Showing such open contempt and hostility for the Democratic party is a GIFT to the GOP.

All I'm trying to say is, when anyone repeatedly smears the Democratic party with that type of negativity it generates apathy. When you have apathy, that discourages voter turnout. When you have low voter turnout that gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

If it comes up in conversation again, I'll refer back to this post along with the link and regs you cited.

Could it be that he (and Jane) and the campaign director/s have ALREADY made a cynical and calculated decision that there would be less damage from NOT releasing them, compared to the damage of actually releasing them as promised?

This is a great big "fuck you" to the American voters and to the other candidates.

It's the political equivalent of "Pleading-the-Fifth" ... and although that's not legal proof of wrongdoing, it certainly does make people wonder what's being hidden.

People deserve to know if the candidate they're thinking of voting for is honest and that he (or she) is not a "tax-cheat". The voters are entitled to know where a candidate's money comes from, how it's being invested, donated, saved. Is the money in a domestic bank or in some off-shore haven? Is the candidate generously giving to his/her favorite charities? If so, what are they? There's MUCH to be learned about a candidate by looking at his or her full and complete tax returns.

Personally, I think it's hypocritical for ANYONE to be lecturing other politicians about how important things like "honesty" and "transparency" are... and then to completely ignore that standard. Any candidate who does that would be revealing his (or her) hypocrisy.

It's my belief that anyone who doesn't release their full and complete tax returns (for at LEAST ten years prior... no "summaries" and no "corrections" or "re-filing'') should be disqualified and ineligible from appearing in any DNC debates.