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

[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.

Why do you think the republicans turned out? Because the party apparatus made it happen. My grandfather was a blue collar guy who was big in democratic politics on a local level. He spent election day doing things like getting people rides to the election sites.

[Anonymous]

And Nevada had 30+ percent less Dem turnout than in 2008.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Than give a better explanation of it's silliness.

[Anonymous]

The claim has been that Sanders hasn't done anything for the party - and that comes mainly from Debbie Wasserman Schultz who from day one has been completely behind the Clinton campaign and who from day one has been actively sabotaging Sanders and screwing him over every chance she gets. But even so, the claim that he hasn't done anything for the party is bogus, because he has in fact raised a lot of money for the Democratic Senate campaign.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-regular-luxurious-dscc-fundraising-retreats

The money HRC is raising "for the party", on the other hand, is likely to just be funneled right back into her own campaign, if it isn't already. DWS is hellbent on making Hillary the nominee and the next President.

[Anonymous]

At least Trump isn't whining about the fact that the Republican Party isn't pulling for him.

Pro tip: if you want to run as an outsider, don't expect support from the "insiders" you're pissing on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The claim has been that Sanders hasn't done anything for the party - and that comes mainly from Debbie Wasserman Schultz who from day one has been completely behind the Clinton campaign and who from day one has been actively sabotaging Sanders and screwing him over every chance she gets. But even so, the claim that he hasn't done anything for the party is bogus, because he has in fact raised a lot of money for the Democratic Senate campaign.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-regular-luxurious-dscc-fundraising-retreats

The money HRC is raising "for the party", on the other hand, is likely to just be funneled right back into her own campaign, if it isn't already. DWS is hellbent on making Hillary the nominee and the next President.

Except in the article, his campaign manager said he never actually made fundraising calls so he either 1) was just enjoying a fancy vacation courtesy of the DSCC/his campaign or 2) understood that given access to high dollar donors was raising money for the DSCC and he was ok with that. Personally, it just verifies that he's a standard politician and nothing more.

My question is how would Sanders raise enough money for his campaign, the DNC and the Convention without courting high dollar donors? The Charlotte convention had a difficult enough time raising what they needed and that was with a President who didn't constantly lambaste the wealthy and was willing to compromise by taking in-kinds from corporations. Would he be willing to do that? Will he hold small high dollar events to get maxout donor to the DNC? If so, how will explain the sudden change to his supporters? If not, how does he expect to sustain the onslaught of the RNC and GOP SuperPACs, plus successfully pull off the Convention? I expect some donors will give no matter what and create SuperPACs whether he wants them or not. However, I doubt they will raise nearly as much because a lot of donors aren't going to very generous while being yelled at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least Trump isn't whining about the fact that the Republican Party isn't pulling for him.

Pro tip: if you want to run as an outsider, don't expect support from the "insiders" you're pissing on.

actually he does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The claim has been that Sanders hasn't done anything for the party - and that comes mainly from Debbie Wasserman Schultz who from day one has been completely behind the Clinton campaign and who from day one has been actively sabotaging Sanders and screwing him over every chance she gets. But even so, the claim that he hasn't done anything for the party is bogus, because he has in fact raised a lot of money for the Democratic Senate campaign.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-regular-luxurious-dscc-fundraising-retreats

The money HRC is raising "for the party", on the other hand, is likely to just be funneled right back into her own campaign, if it isn't already. DWS is hellbent on making Hillary the nominee and the next President.

Sanders has chosen not to raise money for Democrats this cycle. He has raised $1,000 for them. There's clear accountability for all the money Hillary raises for other Democrats, and actually clear laws about where it has to go. I think the funds are disbursed every month.

Seeing the January disclosures, I kind of understand now why Sanders isn't raising money for Democrats. He wants to push his purity message but his burn rate is also very high. His campaign says they were spending big to win big. Not happening so far. His advertising is concentrated in the whitest states, now, hoping to rack up delegates there. We'll see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claim has been that Sanders hasn't done anything for the party - and that comes mainly from Debbie Wasserman Schultz who from day one has been completely behind the Clinton campaign and who from day one has been actively sabotaging Sanders and screwing him over every chance she gets. But even so, the claim that he hasn't done anything for the party is bogus, because he has in fact raised a lot of money for the Democratic Senate campaign.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-regular-luxurious-dscc-fundraising-retreats

The money HRC is raising "for the party", on the other hand, is likely to just be funneled right back into her own campaign, if it isn't already. DWS is hellbent on making Hillary the nominee and the next President.

Except in the article, his campaign manager said he never actually made fundraising calls so he either 1) was just enjoying a fancy vacation courtesy of the DSCC/his campaign or 2) understood that given access to high dollar donors was raising money for the DSCC and he was ok with that. Personally, it just verifies that he's a standard politician and nothing more.

My question is how would Sanders raise enough money for his campaign, the DNC and the Convention without courting high dollar donors? The Charlotte convention had a difficult enough time raising what they needed and that was with a President who didn't constantly lambaste the wealthy and was willing to compromise by taking in-kinds from corporations. Would he be willing to do that? Will he hold small high dollar events to get maxout donor to the DNC? If so, how will explain the sudden change to his supporters? If not, how does he expect to sustain the onslaught of the RNC and GOP SuperPACs, plus successfully pull off the Convention? I expect some donors will give no matter what and create SuperPACs whether he wants them or not. However, I doubt they will raise nearly as much because a lot of donors aren't going to very generous while being yelled at.

Not "standard politician" because a.) these are bigger fundraisers than the typical House ones, and b.) there are plenty "standard politician" Senators who did far less than Sanders did in terms of doing his part and raising funds for DSCC and the party.

As I see it this is just BS, first they try and lambast Sanders as "he's no Democrat, he's an outsider independent and socialist who's done nothing for the party" and then when someone points out that he did indeed raise a lot of money for the party they try and do a switcheroo and say "he's no outsider, he's out there pandering to the rich and going on junkets just like the rest." Quite a bit of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" hypocrisy coming from his critics on it.

It's intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The claim has been that Sanders hasn't done anything for the party - and that comes mainly from Debbie Wasserman Schultz who from day one has been completely behind the Clinton campaign and who from day one has been actively sabotaging Sanders and screwing him over every chance she gets. But even so, the claim that he hasn't done anything for the party is bogus, because he has in fact raised a lot of money for the Democratic Senate campaign.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-regular-luxurious-dscc-fundraising-retreats

The money HRC is raising "for the party", on the other hand, is likely to just be funneled right back into her own campaign, if it isn't already. DWS is hellbent on making Hillary the nominee and the next President.

Except in the article, his campaign manager said he never actually made fundraising calls so he either 1) was just enjoying a fancy vacation courtesy of the DSCC/his campaign or 2) understood that given access to high dollar donors was raising money for the DSCC and he was ok with that. Personally, it just verifies that he's a standard politician and nothing more.

My question is how would Sanders raise enough money for his campaign, the DNC and the Convention without courting high dollar donors? The Charlotte convention had a difficult enough time raising what they needed and that was with a President who didn't constantly lambaste the wealthy and was willing to compromise by taking in-kinds from corporations. Would he be willing to do that? Will he hold small high dollar events to get maxout donor to the DNC? If so, how will explain the sudden change to his supporters? If not, how does he expect to sustain the onslaught of the RNC and GOP SuperPACs, plus successfully pull off the Convention? I expect some donors will give no matter what and create SuperPACs whether he wants them or not. However, I doubt they will raise nearly as much because a lot of donors aren't going to very generous while being yelled at.

Not "standard politician" because a.) these are bigger fundraisers than the typical House ones, and b.) there are plenty "standard politician" Senators who did far less than Sanders did in terms of doing his part and raising funds for DSCC and the party.

As I see it this is just BS, first they try and lambast Sanders as "he's no Democrat, he's an outsider independent and socialist who's done nothing for the party" and then when someone points out that he did indeed raise a lot of money for the party they try and do a switcheroo and say "he's no outsider, he's out there pandering to the rich and going on junkets just like the rest." Quite a bit of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" hypocrisy coming from his critics on it.

It's intellectually dishonest.

You're ignoring the fact that he is not raising funds for Democrats NOW. He's raising money only for himself, for his own campaign, despite saying that he is now a Democrat.

[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.

Why do you think the republicans turned out? Because the party apparatus made it happen. My grandfather was a blue collar guy who was big in democratic politics on a local level. He spent election day doing things like getting people rides to the election sites.

Republicans turned out because Trump, and to a lesser extent Cruz, have tapped into a vein of anger and frustration such that it's now acceptable to assault and hurl vitriol at people who show up to express a dissenting viewpoint at events. Even Rubio supporters tried to manhandle the "bots" until it was pointed out that they were being recorded. It's disgusting.

[Anonymous]

There's a ton of people who are willing to vote for Bernie that will not vote for Hillary, myself included. I think he gets a lot more support from regular voters and she gets a lot more institutional support. The system wants her, the average Joe wants him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a ton of people who are willing to vote for Bernie that will not vote for Hillary, myself included. I think he gets a lot more support from regular voters and she gets a lot more institutional support. The system wants her, the average Joe wants him.

Then why aren't the average joes turning out to support him in huge numbers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a ton of people who are willing to vote for Bernie that will not vote for Hillary, myself included. I think he gets a lot more support from regular voters and she gets a lot more institutional support. The system wants her, the average Joe wants him.

Then why aren't the average joes turning out to support him in huge numbers?

They know he can't win, it won't be allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a ton of people who are willing to vote for Bernie that will not vote for Hillary, myself included. I think he gets a lot more support from regular voters and she gets a lot more institutional support. The system wants her, the average Joe wants him.

Then why aren't the average joes turning out to support him in huge numbers?

They know he can't win, it won't be allowed.

This is tin foil territory, PP.