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

[Anonymous]

You are quoting an opinion piece that says there are many reasons for the Dems lack of state level success. That money is spent on democratic party candidates via the party or via alternative structures doesn't make for a substantially different election result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are quoting an opinion piece that says there are many reasons for the Dems lack of state level success. That money is spent on democratic party candidates via the party or via alternative structures doesn't make for a substantially different election result.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I have been state party executive director, congressional campaign manager, and congressional chief of staff from a red state. We organized at the precinct level and Governors and Members of Congress in red districts. In red states you need the party to organize and get out the base so the candidates can focus on the independents and ticket splitters. We went from winning elections to being noncompetitive since Obama starved the party. When the national party cares only about the presidential race all the red states are completely written off with no organizers and organizational support. There is no party to speak of any longer. Every candidate has to do everything alone. We got obliterated in 2010 and all the moderate Dem deal makers were replaced by Republican do-nothings. Without incumbents the state party can't raise anything internally either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are quoting an opinion piece that says there are many reasons for the Dems lack of state level success. That money is spent on democratic party candidates via the party or via alternative structures doesn't make for a substantially different election result.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I have been state party executive director, congressional campaign manager, and congressional chief of staff from a red state. We organized at the precinct level and Governors and Members of Congress in red districts. In red states you need the party to organize and get out the base so the candidates can focus on the independents and ticket splitters. We went from winning elections to being noncompetitive since Obama starved the party. When the national party cares only about the presidential race all the red states are completely written off with no organizers and organizational support. There is no party to speak of any longer. Every candidate has to do everything alone. We got obliterated in 2010 and all the moderate Dem deal makers were replaced by Republican do-nothings. Without incumbents the state party can't raise anything internally either.

All of which is why it's essential to rebuild the Democratic Party in every state, organizing and raising funds and running coordinated campaigns. This is why Hillary invests so much time in this and helps state parties raise funds. The people who imagine Bernie is somehow better or purer for not doing this just don't get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are quoting an opinion piece that says there are many reasons for the Dems lack of state level success. That money is spent on democratic party candidates via the party or via alternative structures doesn't make for a substantially different election result.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I have been state party executive director, congressional campaign manager, and congressional chief of staff from a red state. We organized at the precinct level and Governors and Members of Congress in red districts. In red states you need the party to organize and get out the base so the candidates can focus on the independents and ticket splitters. We went from winning elections to being noncompetitive since Obama starved the party. When the national party cares only about the presidential race all the red states are completely written off with no organizers and organizational support. There is no party to speak of any longer. Every candidate has to do everything alone. We got obliterated in 2010 and all the moderate Dem deal makers were replaced by Republican do-nothings. Without incumbents the state party can't raise anything internally either.

All of which is why it's essential to rebuild the Democratic Party in every state, organizing and raising funds and running coordinated campaigns. This is why Hillary invests so much time in this and helps state parties raise funds. The people who imagine Bernie is somehow better or purer for not doing this just don't get it.

People get it. Money buys things. A speech, a returned phone call, etc. People do get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are quoting an opinion piece that says there are many reasons for the Dems lack of state level success. That money is spent on democratic party candidates via the party or via alternative structures doesn't make for a substantially different election result.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I have been state party executive director, congressional campaign manager, and congressional chief of staff from a red state. We organized at the precinct level and Governors and Members of Congress in red districts. In red states you need the party to organize and get out the base so the candidates can focus on the independents and ticket splitters. We went from winning elections to being noncompetitive since Obama starved the party. When the national party cares only about the presidential race all the red states are completely written off with no organizers and organizational support. There is no party to speak of any longer. Every candidate has to do everything alone. We got obliterated in 2010 and all the moderate Dem deal makers were replaced by Republican do-nothings. Without incumbents the state party can't raise anything internally either.

All of which is why it's essential to rebuild the Democratic Party in every state, organizing and raising funds and running coordinated campaigns. This is why Hillary invests so much time in this and helps state parties raise funds. The people who imagine Bernie is somehow better or purer for not doing this just don't get it.

People get it. Money buys things. A speech, a returned phone call, etc. People do get it.

Then why taint yourself by using the resources of the DNC? Stay pure, run as an independent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are quoting an opinion piece that says there are many reasons for the Dems lack of state level success. That money is spent on democratic party candidates via the party or via alternative structures doesn't make for a substantially different election result.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I have been state party executive director, congressional campaign manager, and congressional chief of staff from a red state. We organized at the precinct level and Governors and Members of Congress in red districts. In red states you need the party to organize and get out the base so the candidates can focus on the independents and ticket splitters. We went from winning elections to being noncompetitive since Obama starved the party. When the national party cares only about the presidential race all the red states are completely written off with no organizers and organizational support. There is no party to speak of any longer. Every candidate has to do everything alone. We got obliterated in 2010 and all the moderate Dem deal makers were replaced by Republican do-nothings. Without incumbents the state party can't raise anything internally either.

All of which is why it's essential to rebuild the Democratic Party in every state, organizing and raising funds and running coordinated campaigns. This is why Hillary invests so much time in this and helps state parties raise funds. The people who imagine Bernie is somehow better or purer for not doing this just don't get it.

People get it. Money buys things. A speech, a returned phone call, etc. People do get it.

ok, let's not raise money for Democrats then. Let's let Republicans hold every possible elected office. That will fix things right up.

Funny how it was Ok for Bernie to raise money for Democrats before but somehow it's not anymore.

[Anonymous]

This is interesting and educational. Didn't know Obama had done that, but that goes a long way to explaining republican success at the state level over the past six years. It's a suicide pact to limit fundraising when the other side isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The honorable thing is to use the wholesome parts while discouraging the tainted parts. Sanders for sure is using the DNC but does return some things. Since he caucuses with democrats in congress he offers his general support of their policies. As a contending candidate he certainly has helped shape DNC talking points and media coverage. But I would agree that in totality the DNC offers him more than he, one person, can return. But I would say that is true of Hillary as well, without the DNC she would have little to zero chance of running a successful campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The honorable thing is to use the wholesome parts while discouraging the tainted parts. Sanders for sure is using the DNC but does return some things. Since he caucuses with democrats in congress he offers his general support of their policies. As a contending candidate he certainly has helped shape DNC talking points and media coverage. But I would agree that in totality the DNC offers him more than he, one person, can return. But I would say that is true of Hillary as well, without the DNC she would have little to zero chance of running a successful campaign.

His general support of Democratic policies doesn't seem to have accomplished much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The honorable thing is to use the wholesome parts while discouraging the tainted parts. Sanders for sure is using the DNC but does return some things. Since he caucuses with democrats in congress he offers his general support of their policies. As a contending candidate he certainly has helped shape DNC talking points and media coverage. But I would agree that in totality the DNC offers him more than he, one person, can return. But I would say that is true of Hillary as well, without the DNC she would have little to zero chance of running a successful campaign.

This is just amazingly ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The honorable thing is to use the wholesome parts while discouraging the tainted parts. Sanders for sure is using the DNC but does return some things. Since he caucuses with democrats in congress he offers his general support of their policies. As a contending candidate he certainly has helped shape DNC talking points and media coverage. But I would agree that in totality the DNC offers him more than he, one person, can return. But I would say that is true of Hillary as well, without the DNC she would have little to zero chance of running a successful campaign.

His general support of Democratic policies doesn't seem to have accomplished much.

I can't tell if that's a diss against Sanders or Democratic policies.

[Anonymous]

The Dems lost everything in 2010 because the youngsters and minority voters who turned out in record numbers for Obama in 2008 ... stayed home. These were not voters who existed under a well funded Dem machine. They were voters nurtured into existence by the Obama campaign. They remain outside the Dem machine. Hillary's funding the old guard via corporate donations won't change this. Bernie though has success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The honorable thing is to use the wholesome parts while discouraging the tainted parts. Sanders for sure is using the DNC but does return some things. Since he caucuses with democrats in congress he offers his general support of their policies. As a contending candidate he certainly has helped shape DNC talking points and media coverage. But I would agree that in totality the DNC offers him more than he, one person, can return. But I would say that is true of Hillary as well, without the DNC she would have little to zero chance of running a successful campaign.

His general support of Democratic policies doesn't seem to have accomplished much.

I can't tell if that's a diss against Sanders or Democratic policies.

Perhaps it's a diss of the inane posting in light of an obstructionist GOP Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Dems lost everything in 2010 because the youngsters and minority voters who turned out in record numbers for Obama in 2008 ... stayed home. These were not voters who existed under a well funded Dem machine. They were voters nurtured into existence by the Obama campaign. They remain outside the Dem machine. Hillary's funding the old guard via corporate donations won't change this. Bernie though has success.

And yet minority voters have overwhelmingly backed Hillary and she won NV, where 2/3 of voters were first-time caucusers. How's that work? As for minority voters being outside the Democratic machine, well, no. Black women are the single most reliable Democratic voting bloc. Watch SC this weekend if you do t believe that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Dems lost everything in 2010 because the youngsters and minority voters who turned out in record numbers for Obama in 2008 ... stayed home. These were not voters who existed under a well funded Dem machine. They were voters nurtured into existence by the Obama campaign. They remain outside the Dem machine. Hillary's funding the old guard via corporate donations won't change this. Bernie though has success.

And yet minority voters have overwhelmingly backed Hillary and she won NV, where 2/3 of voters were first-time caucusers. How's that work? As for minority voters being outside the Democratic machine, well, no. Black women are the single most reliable Democratic voting bloc. Watch SC this weekend if you do t believe that.

I believe it but...Obama won and caused other Dems to win by having exceptionally high turnout among these groups. Hillary can't win the general by merely bringing out the regular turnout percentages.