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

[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.

You have to get more votes than the other candidate to be in a position to win the nomination. Even Superdelegates can't turn their back if these ton of people are showing up and casting a vote. Obama wasn't supposed to win the nomination either.

[Anonymous]

The Democratic party is working for Hillary. Harry Reid and others got involved in Nevada to help her out. The party does not want Bernie to get the nomination, much like the Republicans don't want Trump. There's nothing tin foilish about that, it's just how these things work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic party is working for Hillary. Harry Reid and others got involved in Nevada to help her out. The party does not want Bernie to get the nomination, much like the Republicans don't want Trump. There's nothing tin foilish about that, it's just how these things work.

You know politicians are allowed to back candidates, right? And Democrats are likely to back, you know, Democrats. Yes, Reid helped turn out voters for HRC. That's how you win elections - by turning out the vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic party is working for Hillary. Harry Reid and others got involved in Nevada to help her out. The party does not want Bernie to get the nomination, much like the Republicans don't want Trump. There's nothing tin foilish about that, it's just how these things work.

You know politicians are allowed to back candidates, right? And Democrats are likely to back, you know, Democrats. Yes, Reid helped turn out voters for HRC. That's how you win elections - by turning out the vote.

Bernie is a Democrat too. The established politicians and party officials turned out the vote for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic party is working for Hillary. Harry Reid and others got involved in Nevada to help her out. The party does not want Bernie to get the nomination, much like the Republicans don't want Trump. There's nothing tin foilish about that, it's just how these things work.

You know politicians are allowed to back candidates, right? And Democrats are likely to back, you know, Democrats. Yes, Reid helped turn out voters for HRC. That's how you win elections - by turning out the vote.

Bernie is a Democrat too. The established politicians and party officials turned out the vote for her.

Bernie is an "established politician." He has served in elected office far, far longer than HRC.

Hillary has been a Democrat since 1968. Bernie became a Democrat in late 2015, when he filed to run as a Democrat in NH. When he loses the primary, I bet he will go right back to being an independent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic party is working for Hillary. Harry Reid and others got involved in Nevada to help her out. The party does not want Bernie to get the nomination, much like the Republicans don't want Trump. There's nothing tin foilish about that, it's just how these things work.

You know politicians are allowed to back candidates, right? And Democrats are likely to back, you know, Democrats. Yes, Reid helped turn out voters for HRC. That's how you win elections - by turning out the vote.

Bernie is a Democrat too. The established politicians and party officials turned out the vote for her.

Bernie is an "established politician." He has served in elected office far, far longer than HRC.

Hillary has been a Democrat since 1968. Bernie became a Democrat in late 2015, when he filed to run as a Democrat in NH. When he loses the primary, I bet he will go right back to being an independent.

Well he's considerably left of her, so to me he's more of a Democrat than she is, or at least what a Democrat should be. With her it's just lip service forced by his surprise success. Once she's in all that stuff will be out the window.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic party is working for Hillary. Harry Reid and others got involved in Nevada to help her out. The party does not want Bernie to get the nomination, much like the Republicans don't want Trump. There's nothing tin foilish about that, it's just how these things work.

You know politicians are allowed to back candidates, right? And Democrats are likely to back, you know, Democrats. Yes, Reid helped turn out voters for HRC. That's how you win elections - by turning out the vote.

Bernie is a Democrat too. The established politicians and party officials turned out the vote for her.

Bernie is an "established politician." He has served in elected office far, far longer than HRC.

Hillary has been a Democrat since 1968. Bernie became a Democrat in late 2015, when he filed to run as a Democrat in NH. When he loses the primary, I bet he will go right back to being an independent.

Well he's considerably left of her, so to me he's more of a Democrat than she is, or at least what a Democrat should be. With her it's just lip service forced by his surprise success. Once she's in all that stuff will be out the window.

How nice for you to be appointed Arbiter of the True Democrats. How long is your term?

I think Bernie must not agree with you, though, since he took so long to join the party.

[Anonymous]

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

This is why as a right leaning independent I can't consider anyone on either side but sanders. He may be a lot of things but corporate shill is not one of them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is why as a right leaning independent I can't consider anyone on either side but sanders. He may be a lot of things but corporate shill is not one of them

If you're a right-leaning Independent, you're a rare bird but there's some definite overlap between Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is why as a right leaning independent I can't consider anyone on either side but sanders. He may be a lot of things but corporate shill is not one of them

Most of the posts on this thread carry the message that without the big donors the Democratic Party can't function. While that may be the view from within the beltway, bernie has a few million who act otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is why as a right leaning independent I can't consider anyone on either side but sanders. He may be a lot of things but corporate shill is not one of them

Most of the posts on this thread carry the message that without the big donors the Democratic Party can't function. While that may be the view from within the beltway, bernie has a few million who act otherwise.

They're donating to him, not to the Democratic Party.

[Anonymous]

Let me add this: he has a joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic Party. If he wants to support down-ballot Democrats, why doesn't he simply email his list of donors and ask them to donate to the party?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why raise money for Wasserman-Schultz when he already knows she's going to stab him in the back? I'm sure that if there are Democrats that he wants to support, he will get out there and campaign for them and help them - he's done so many times in the past. But as for just giving Wasserman-Schultz a blank check, I'm not sure why he should and I can't blame him for not doing so. Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC are to blame there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why raise money for Wasserman-Schultz when he already knows she's going to stab him in the back? I'm sure that if there are Democrats that he wants to support, he will get out there and campaign for them and help them - he's done so many times in the past. But as for just giving Wasserman-Schultz a blank check, I'm not sure why he should and I can't blame him for not doing so. Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC are to blame there.

He doesn't have to raise money for the DNC. He can raise it for state parties. DWS wouldn't touch a penny of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic party is working for Hillary. Harry Reid and others got involved in Nevada to help her out. The party does not want Bernie to get the nomination, much like the Republicans don't want Trump. There's nothing tin foilish about that, it's just how these things work.

You know politicians are allowed to back candidates, right? And Democrats are likely to back, you know, Democrats. Yes, Reid helped turn out voters for HRC. That's how you win elections - by turning out the vote.

Fine for individual politicians to endorse or support candidates, but the national committees aren't supposed to back specific candidates until after the convention. The DNC has crossed the line there...