[diyorgasms]

Right? Bernie just got some endorsements (which he has been sorely lacking), and all of a sudden this company (the CEO of which is a public Clinton supporter) has a problem that affects the Sanders campaign but not the Clinton campaign, on word from the company that there was a bad actor in the Sanders campaign but not the Clinton campaign.

Sure it's possible that the Sanders campaign did exploit this and the Clinton campaign did not. But I'm skeptical as hell given the political allegiances of the company's leadership.

[morninj]

Having actually used NGP-VAN, I think it's far more likely that this was a bug, not a conspiracy. The VAN is a real clunker in many ways, so it's not surprising that a bug like this would appear; and public exposure of a conspiracy to sabotage Sanders would be so catastrophic to the Clinton campaign that I think it's highly unlikely that NGP-VAN would do it.

[toomuchtodo]

I don't think NGP-VAN is involved. I believe the DNC is using this "crisis" (never let one go to waste, am I right?) in order to discredit Sanders' campaign (as the DNC is cozy with the Clintons).

[vvanders]

Yeah, that seems to be a reasonable conclusion here(esp since Sanders campaign reported a similar breach in other software but we don't see the DNC acting the same).

[scarmig]

As someone who has had... shall we say, intimate interactions with NGP-VAN's code base, the idea being floated by some Sanders supporters that this is a DNC conspiracy and not a bug is hilarious.

[toomuchtodo]

So its Sanders' campaign's fault NGP-VAN's code is shit and released information it shouldn't?

EDIT: Why isn't the DNC taking punitive actions against NGP-VAN? Ahh! Of course. Because they're a tight knit "provider" which is essentially the political tech vendor of the DNC.

[whistlerbrk]

I think the allegation is that the _response_ is an overreaction which when taken with other events, namely the lack of debates, has echoes of a conspiracy. I will say it's a loose usage of the word.

[testuser111]

Who would be better positioned to stage a trap coalesced with a bug for the Sanders campaign than individuals within a company with a track record for bugs?

It sounds like the data director of the Sanders campaign was the only member who could initially access Clinton data--would this not go both ways?

If such extreme bugs were the norm, why would the DNC continue to use such a vendor? The entire platform the DNC depends upon is hindered each time such a bug happens, so it makes no sense from an organizational perspective.

Conspiracy is a strong word, but it seems a bit naive to look at this as either "is a bug" or "isn't a bug".

[diyorgasms]

Oh having used enough "enterprise" software in my day, I have very few doubts that this was a bug. I only have doubts that Sanders' campaign would have discovered this while the Clinton campaign did not. Both have presumably talented people working for them, it strikes me as unlikely that both sides were not a party to malfeasance. As such, it would not surprise me if the company leadership were covering for the Clinton campaign.

[occsceo]

agreed. many of the systems running our campaigns are "clunkers".