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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But Obama and his team did nothing to help Democrats financially, organizationally, or politically in 2010, but he sure did help with the Republican turnout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But Obama and his team did nothing to help Democrats financially, organizationally, or politically in 2010, but he sure did help with the Republican turnout.

Runninh s country sometimes means not doing the popular thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But Obama and his team did nothing to help Democrats financially, organizationally, or politically in 2010, but he sure did help with the Republican turnout.

Runninh s country sometimes means not doing the popular thing.

Well, then STFU about no one in Congress working with you after the people from swing districts who did work with you got beat while you did nothing to help them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But Obama and his team did nothing to help Democrats financially, organizationally, or politically in 2010, but he sure did help with the Republican turnout.

Runninh s country sometimes means not doing the popular thing.

Well, then STFU about no one in Congress working with you after the people from swing districts who did work with you got beat while you did nothing to help them.

Stfu you are a hoot. Obama and Biden hustled about the country supporting numerous Dems in 2010. Oh and that's the election where the political bill was paid for the global economic implosion aka the financial crisis. Zeus couldn't have saved the Dems that cycle.

[Anonymous]

They didn't raise money for the state parties and DCCC and DSCC. They put their money into Organizing for America at the expense of Congressional and state campaigns. OFA promoted the Affordable Care Act and Obama. They sacrificed a lot of veteran Congressional Democrats who were not from liberal districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They didn't raise money for the state parties and DCCC and DSCC. They put their money into Organizing for America at the expense of Congressional and state campaigns. OFA promoted the Affordable Care Act and Obama. They sacrificed a lot of veteran Congressional Democrats who were not from liberal districts.

Well I'm glad hillary and the large donors are here now. That will fix everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They didn't raise money for the state parties and DCCC and DSCC. They put their money into Organizing for America at the expense of Congressional and state campaigns. OFA promoted the Affordable Care Act and Obama. They sacrificed a lot of veteran Congressional Democrats who were not from liberal districts.

Well I'm glad hillary and the large donors are here now. That will fix everything.

You should be. If you don't elect some moderate Democrats from red states and swing states to Congress, you will never pass progressive legislation. Do the math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They didn't raise money for the state parties and DCCC and DSCC. They put their money into Organizing for America at the expense of Congressional and state campaigns. OFA promoted the Affordable Care Act and Obama. They sacrificed a lot of veteran Congressional Democrats who were not from liberal districts.

Well I'm glad hillary and the large donors are here now. That will fix everything.

You should be. If you don't elect some moderate Democrats from red states and swing states to Congress, you will never pass progressive legislation. Do the math.

If you elect a former senator from wall s, er NY,
You will never see progressive legislation. Do you have any idea how GLBA came to be or what damage it has caused?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They didn't raise money for the state parties and DCCC and DSCC. They put their money into Organizing for America at the expense of Congressional and state campaigns. OFA promoted the Affordable Care Act and Obama. They sacrificed a lot of veteran Congressional Democrats who were not from liberal districts.

Well I'm glad hillary and the large donors are here now. That will fix everything.

You should be. If you don't elect some moderate Democrats from red states and swing states to Congress, you will never pass progressive legislation. Do the math.

If you elect a former senator from wall s, er NY,
You will never see progressive legislation. Do you have any idea how GLBA came to be or what damage it has caused?

GLB did t cause the downturn. The major bank failures were bad real estate investments which is nothing new, credit default swaps which would not be regulated pre glb.

So you have been fed a lie in this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They didn't raise money for the state parties and DCCC and DSCC. They put their money into Organizing for America at the expense of Congressional and state campaigns. OFA promoted the Affordable Care Act and Obama. They sacrificed a lot of veteran Congressional Democrats who were not from liberal districts.

Well I'm glad hillary and the large donors are here now. That will fix everything.

You should be. If you don't elect some moderate Democrats from red states and swing states to Congress, you will never pass progressive legislation. Do the math.

If you elect a former senator from wall s, er NY,
You will never see progressive legislation. Do you have any idea how GLBA came to be or what damage it has caused?

You're clueless on multiple threads, I see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They didn't raise money for the state parties and DCCC and DSCC. They put their money into Organizing for America at the expense of Congressional and state campaigns. OFA promoted the Affordable Care Act and Obama. They sacrificed a lot of veteran Congressional Democrats who were not from liberal districts.

NP. People are forgetting that the ACA was an albatross for anyone seeking re-election. It was the sacrifice that a lot of Dems made knowingly.

It's also what made them shy away from Obama in November 2015, which cost remaining Democrats even more. They should have banked on the enthusiasm behind some historic progressive wins, but instead they wouldn't even mention Obama.

That was a win for the Republicans that's carrying over to 2016. Hillary seems ambivalent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They didn't raise money for the state parties and DCCC and DSCC. They put their money into Organizing for America at the expense of Congressional and state campaigns. OFA promoted the Affordable Care Act and Obama. They sacrificed a lot of veteran Congressional Democrats who were not from liberal districts.

NP. People are forgetting that the ACA was an albatross for anyone seeking re-election. It was the sacrifice that a lot of Dems made knowingly.

It's also what made them shy away from Obama in November 2015, which cost remaining Democrats even more. They should have banked on the enthusiasm behind some historic progressive wins, but instead they wouldn't even mention Obama.

That was a win for the Republicans that's carrying over to 2016. Hillary seems ambivalent.

Ambivalent about what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They didn't raise money for the state parties and DCCC and DSCC. They put their money into Organizing for America at the expense of Congressional and state campaigns. OFA promoted the Affordable Care Act and Obama. They sacrificed a lot of veteran Congressional Democrats who were not from liberal districts.

NP. People are forgetting that the ACA was an albatross for anyone seeking re-election. It was the sacrifice that a lot of Dems made knowingly.

It's also what made them shy away from Obama in November 2015, which cost remaining Democrats even more. They should have banked on the enthusiasm behind some historic progressive wins, but instead they wouldn't even mention Obama.

That was a win for the Republicans that's carrying over to 2016. Hillary seems ambivalent.

Ambivalent about what?

She spent months showing how she disagreed with Obama on various matters, then, coincidently no doubt, as certain primaries approached, moved to the status of the one most able to carry forward the Obama agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They didn't raise money for the state parties and DCCC and DSCC. They put their money into Organizing for America at the expense of Congressional and state campaigns. OFA promoted the Affordable Care Act and Obama. They sacrificed a lot of veteran Congressional Democrats who were not from liberal districts.

NP. People are forgetting that the ACA was an albatross for anyone seeking re-election. It was the sacrifice that a lot of Dems made knowingly.

It's also what made them shy away from Obama in November 2015, which cost remaining Democrats even more. They should have banked on the enthusiasm behind some historic progressive wins, but instead they wouldn't even mention Obama.

That was a win for the Republicans that's carrying over to 2016. Hillary seems ambivalent.

Ambivalent about what?

She spent months showing how she disagreed with Obama on various matters, then, coincidently no doubt, as certain primaries approached, moved to the status of the one most able to carry forward the Obama agenda.

I don't think so. I think you're just unhappy that Bernie's call for a primary challenge is hurting him with many Democratic voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think so. I think you're just unhappy that Bernie's call for a primary challenge is hurting him with many Democratic voters.

Interesting. How could Bernie's call for a primary challenge hurt him with Democrats? What top Sanders' issues, https://berniesanders.com/issues do many Democrats disagree with?