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

[Anonymous]

My latest emails from the Bernie and Hillary campaigns show Bernie has 3,200,000 more Donors than Hillary. Can the superdelegates ignore this trend? I think yes, but that likely will lower turnout for presumptive nominee Hillary. Seems like a no win development for the Dems.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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

[Anonymous]

OP, check back in a couple weeks.

[Anonymous]

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.)

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

If the primary is a referendum on whether the Democrats can be wrestled from corporate control, the answer appears to be no.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Different metrics. It's 4 million contributions, not contributors. He does have more contributors than Hillary but it more like double and not five times as many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different metrics. It's 4 million contributions, not contributors. He does have more contributors than Hillary but it more like double and not five times as many.

I'd love to know what percentage of his contributors are Republicans. I'm guessing it's not a small one.

[Anonymous]

Hillary team negotiated long and hard with the dnc over how any money raised by hillary for the dc may be spent. Many think, as with the debates, the dnc was not acting in anything but a favoring hillary manner when bending the joint fundraising agreement terms.

[Anonymous]

Stop with the damn Superdelegates. Isn't it enough that we're letting him run when he isn't even a Democrat? If it was so important maybe he could have joined the party at some point in the 35 years he spent as an Independent, shunning us. Or he could run as an Independent, since that is how he has described himself for half his adult life.

jeez, the entitlement!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hillary team negotiated long and hard with the dnc over how any money raised by hillary for the dc may be spent. Many think, as with the debates, the dnc was not acting in anything but a favoring hillary manner when bending the joint fundraising agreement terms.

What's your source for this?

[Anonymous]

I Googled "Hillary" and "dnc joint fundraising negotiations".

Try it.

[Anonymous]

Oh, boy, who up there doesn't understand that the HVF is not in the best interests of fairness in influencing American politics?

Okay, some links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-donors_us_5627a946e4b02f6a900ed79a
Individual (and corporate) donors can give up to $600,000+ annually. That's a big chunk of change, and a lot of $$$. Um, I mean influence. I mean money, I mean influence... oh, whatever.

More gross news: http://bangordailynews.com/2016/01/07/politics/clinton-donors-use-maine-democrats-to-skirt-campaign-cash-limits/

Gosh, this more than "looks really bad"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-groups-move-to-ramp-up-financial-firepower-for-clinton/2016/02/12/23ca8e00-d1b1-11e5-abc9-ea152f0b9561_story.html