Donor disparity. 4,000,000 vs. 800,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-democratic-establishment-fears-bernie-sanders/2016/02/19/2323482e-d70c-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html

Why does the Democratic establishment so dislike Bernie Sanders? Consider this statistic:

Hillary Clinton has raised $26 million for the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic parties so far this campaign. And Sanders? $1,000.

That’s no typo. Clinton is doing more to boost the party’s 2016 prospects than Sanders by the proportion of 26,000 to 1. (Or greater: That $1,000 “raised” by Sanders was technically provided by the DNC to open a joint fundraising account.)

Let's be clear here. The money Clinton has "raised" is largely money from corporate interests. So now these interests have Clinton's ear, the DNC's ear, and other democratic candidates' ears. Yeah, yeah, their politics is not influenced by this money, it's just used to defeat Republicans, I know, I know...

I know and you know that this is utter nonsense. Or should I say udder... because they are all guzzling from the same teets.

Understandably, Dems need to be able to complete against GOPpers in their respective elections. But buying into the corrupt system isn't actually helping American politics. It's making it worse and corrupt all around. Clinton says she wants to get rid of moneyed influence in politics... but not HER politics. So she's a dead end on that issue. Sanders is walking the walk. And I really, really hope you press whoever the next president is to push for national corporate finance reform. It's important. I'd say it's one of the MOST important issues we're facing today, and thank god someone's come along to make it one of his (so happens it's a man--but we can hold Clinton's feet to the fire too) to priorities.

What happens when Bernie's ideologically pure donors are tapped out and his revolution is still an unfufilled vision? Well, assuming that Hillary had t betrothed herself to these corporations, we could all take solace under a Trump or Cruz administration that now good it was to feel the Bern while he fought the good fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I Googled "Hillary" and "dnc joint fundraising negotiations".

Try it.

LOL. Love it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Superdelegates will be more concerned with who earns the most votes and who has the longer history of providing support to the Democratic Party and its candidates as a whole. Nice attempt at concern trolling though.

Sanders has spent more than four decades in public life publicly biting the partisan hand he now wants to feed him. Screw him. He should have run as an independant. officially he is still an independent senator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-democratic-establishment-fears-bernie-sanders/2016/02/19/2323482e-d70c-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html

Why does the Democratic establishment so dislike Bernie Sanders? Consider this statistic:

Hillary Clinton has raised $26 million for the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic parties so far this campaign. And Sanders? $1,000.

That’s no typo. Clinton is doing more to boost the party’s 2016 prospects than Sanders by the proportion of 26,000 to 1. (Or greater: That $1,000 “raised” by Sanders was technically provided by the DNC to open a joint fundraising account.)

Let's be clear here. The money Clinton has "raised" is largely money from corporate interests. So now these interests have Clinton's ear, the DNC's ear, and other democratic candidates' ears. Yeah, yeah, their politics is not influenced by this money, it's just used to defeat Republicans, I know, I know...

I know and you know that this is utter nonsense. Or should I say udder... because they are all guzzling from the same teets.

Understandably, Dems need to be able to complete against GOPpers in their respective elections. But buying into the corrupt system isn't actually helping American politics. It's making it worse and corrupt all around. Clinton says she wants to get rid of moneyed influence in politics... but not HER politics. So she's a dead end on that issue. Sanders is walking the walk. And I really, really hope you press whoever the next president is to push for national corporate finance reform. It's important. I'd say it's one of the MOST important issues we're facing today, and thank god someone's come along to make it one of his (so happens it's a man--but we can hold Clinton's feet to the fire too) to priorities.

What happens when Bernie's ideologically pure donors are tapped out and his revolution is still an unfufilled vision? Well, assuming that Hillary had t betrothed herself to these corporations, we could all take solace under a Trump or Cruz administration that now good it was to feel the Bern while he fought the good fight.

One the far right corporate party or the center right corporate party will win. Those of us on the left will be disappointed either way.

Of course, from what I've read from HRC fans online, we are all a bunch of sexist trolls, so it seems unlikely they want us under their tent anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "corporate interests." The money Hillary raises for the Democratic Party is raised from individuals, not from corporations. The Hillary victory fund is not a super PAC.

The Hillary Victory Fund can collect $700,000 from a single donor compared to an individual maximum limit of only $2,700.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Superdelegates will be more concerned with who earns the most votes and who has the longer history of providing support to the Democratic Party and its candidates as a whole. Nice attempt at concern trolling though.

To win Dems will need to keep Sanders folks on board. You disagree with that premise?

False. That's Donald Trump's job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "corporate interests." The money Hillary raises for the Democratic Party is raised from individuals, not from corporations. The Hillary victory fund is not a super PAC.

The Hillary Victory Fund can collect $700,000 from a single donor compared to an individual maximum limit of only $2,700.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000

But the individual donor limit to Clinton's campaign is still $5,400, split between primary and general. The rest goes to the DNC and to state parties. And Bernie could do the same; he just chooses not to raise funds for the DNC or state parties. Did you not read the story?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "corporate interests." The money Hillary raises for the Democratic Party is raised from individuals, not from corporations. The Hillary victory fund is not a super PAC.

The Hillary Victory Fund can collect $700,000 from a single donor compared to an individual maximum limit of only $2,700.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000

But the individual donor limit to Clinton's campaign is still $5,400, split between primary and general. The rest goes to the DNC and to state parties. And Bernie could do the same; he just chooses not to raise funds for the DNC or state parties. Did you not read the story?

Hopefully you realize that the DNC uses those donations to help candidates get elected. And as such, large donations influence DNC/Democrate policy making. Something Bernie is specifically trying to ensure does not happen. If Bernie choose to do the same thing he would be disingenuous in his stance against big money influencing campaigns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "corporate interests." The money Hillary raises for the Democratic Party is raised from individuals, not from corporations. The Hillary victory fund is not a super PAC.

The Hillary Victory Fund can collect $700,000 from a single donor compared to an individual maximum limit of only $2,700.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000

But the individual donor limit to Clinton's campaign is still $5,400, split between primary and general. The rest goes to the DNC and to state parties. And Bernie could do the same; he just chooses not to raise funds for the DNC or state parties. Did you not read the story?

Hopefully you realize that the DNC uses those donations to help candidates get elected. And as such, large donations influence DNC/Democrate policy making. Something Bernie is specifically trying to ensure does not happen. If Bernie choose to do the same thing he would be disingenuous in his stance against big money influencing campaigns.

Then why run as a Democrat?

[Anonymous]

The Alexandria Democratic Committee offices split their office hours, allowing Bernie's supporters to use them half the time. I'm wondering why, given that he's not really a democrat, and hasn't done anything to support the party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "corporate interests." The money Hillary raises for the Democratic Party is raised from individuals, not from corporations. The Hillary victory fund is not a super PAC.

The Hillary Victory Fund can collect $700,000 from a single donor compared to an individual maximum limit of only $2,700.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000

But the individual donor limit to Clinton's campaign is still $5,400, split between primary and general. The rest goes to the DNC and to state parties. And Bernie could do the same; he just chooses not to raise funds for the DNC or state parties. Did you not read the story?

Hopefully you realize that the DNC uses those donations to help candidates get elected. And as such, large donations influence DNC/Democrate policy making. Something Bernie is specifically trying to ensure does not happen. If Bernie choose to do the same thing he would be disingenuous in his stance against big money influencing campaigns.

Then why run as a Democrat?

There are numerous reasons. Perhaps this will help answer some of them: http://washingtonforberniesanders.com/why-bernie-sanders-was-right-to-run-for-president-as-a-democrat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "corporate interests." The money Hillary raises for the Democratic Party is raised from individuals, not from corporations. The Hillary victory fund is not a super PAC.

The Hillary Victory Fund can collect $700,000 from a single donor compared to an individual maximum limit of only $2,700.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000

But the individual donor limit to Clinton's campaign is still $5,400, split between primary and general. The rest goes to the DNC and to state parties. And Bernie could do the same; he just chooses not to raise funds for the DNC or state parties. Did you not read the story?

Hopefully you realize that the DNC uses those donations to help candidates get elected. And as such, large donations influence DNC/Democrate policy making. Something Bernie is specifically trying to ensure does not happen. If Bernie choose to do the same thing he would be disingenuous in his stance against big money influencing campaigns.

Of course I understand that. So what you're saying is that Bernie wants to lead a political revolution, running as a Democrat, but doesn't want to help Democrats win elections by raising money for them. He's raised money for Democrats in the past, but he doesn't want to do it now. He criticizes Hillary for doing it. The Republicans aren't going to stop doing it. So how is this going to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "corporate interests." The money Hillary raises for the Democratic Party is raised from individuals, not from corporations. The Hillary victory fund is not a super PAC.

The Hillary Victory Fund can collect $700,000 from a single donor compared to an individual maximum limit of only $2,700.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000

But the individual donor limit to Clinton's campaign is still $5,400, split between primary and general. The rest goes to the DNC and to state parties. And Bernie could do the same; he just chooses not to raise funds for the DNC or state parties. Did you not read the story?

Hopefully you realize that the DNC uses those donations to help candidates get elected. And as such, large donations influence DNC/Democrate policy making. Something Bernie is specifically trying to ensure does not happen. If Bernie choose to do the same thing he would be disingenuous in his stance against big money influencing campaigns.

Then why run as a Democrat?

There are numerous reasons. Perhaps this will help answer some of them: http://washingtonforberniesanders.com/why-bernie-sanders-was-right-to-run-for-president-as-a-democrat

So basically, he wants to use them, without offering nothing in return, yes?

Doesn't strike me as a honorable thing to do.

[Anonymous]

The DNC is a national political party. It is not the Socialist club meeting in the Burlington library. It takes money to organize and win elections. Read the linked article.

"Since Obama’s election in 2008, Democratic losses at all other levels have been staggering: 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats, 910 state legislative seats, 30 state legislative chambers and 11 governorships. Democrats are at their weakest position in state capitols in nearly a century.

"There are many reasons for this, but one is Obama’s decision to bypass the Democratic Party apparatus in favor of his own, parallel network, now known as Organizing for Action. Under the theory that Obama could directly rally supporters (and therefore didn’t need to rely as much on party operatives or on congressional Democrats), this outgrowth of Obama’s 2008 campaign apparatus competed with the party and wound up starving the party of funds."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DNC is a national political party. It is not the Socialist club meeting in the Burlington library. It takes money to organize and win elections. Read the linked article.

"Since Obama’s election in 2008, Democratic losses at all other levels have been staggering: 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats, 910 state legislative seats, 30 state legislative chambers and 11 governorships. Democrats are at their weakest position in state capitols in nearly a century.

"There are many reasons for this, but one is Obama’s decision to bypass the Democratic Party apparatus in favor of his own, parallel network, now known as Organizing for Action. Under the theory that Obama could directly rally supporters (and therefore didn’t need to rely as much on party operatives or on congressional Democrats), this outgrowth of Obama’s 2008 campaign apparatus competed with the party and wound up starving the party of funds."

And more:

The consequences of the Democrats’ atrophy at the state level are potentially catastrophic for progressives. If the party doesn’t make major gains in the next couple of election cycles, Republican majorities in state legislatures will control redistricting after the 2020 Census, virtually guaranteeing that the party retains control of the House for another decade. Thanks in part to the 2010 redistricting, Republicans now can lose the popular vote by several percentage points but keep control of the House.

The collapse in state legislatures for Democrats has also left the party with few prospects for statewide and congressional offices. In Ohio, for example, Democrats should have a good shot at unseating first-term Republican Sen. Rob Portman, but many prospective challengers were wiped out in 2010 and 2014, leaving a 74-year-old former governor, Ted Strickland, as the Democrat to challenge Portman.