Maybe not Priorities USA but other Hillary SuperPACs like Hillary for America are spending like crazy - that one alone spent 123 million and has another 31 million that it is in the process of spending as we speak.

The Clinton machine is definitely still outspending Sanders by a large margin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, well, all I can tell you is that despite spending an eye-popping $41 million last month, Bernie trails HRC by millions of votes. Interesting, huh?

For whatever "eye popping" factor you seem to think there is, Hillary and her PACs and SuperPACs are spending twice as much money as Sanders. Yet she isn't twice as far ahead. Interesting, huh.

Her superpacs have spent very little so far. Bernie's burn rate is one of the highest ever seen. As for his donors, there's something there that's required two FEC letters so far. An enterprising journalist could have a field day.

Clinton and her SuperPACs combined are outspending Sanders 2:1

I'm not sure that's still true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/20/sanders-outraised-and-outspent-clinton-in-february-leaving-him-with-17-million-cash-on-hand/

It's not. I think it's hard for the PP to acknowledge, and I understand that. But Bernie has been outspending her for months.

Priorities USA said it won't be spending any further funds on primaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, well, all I can tell you is that despite spending an eye-popping $41 million last month, Bernie trails HRC by millions of votes. Interesting, huh?

For whatever "eye popping" factor you seem to think there is, Hillary and her PACs and SuperPACs are spending twice as much money as Sanders. Yet she isn't twice as far ahead. Interesting, huh.

Her superpacs have spent very little so far. Bernie's burn rate is one of the highest ever seen. As for his donors, there's something there that's required two FEC letters so far. An enterprising journalist could have a field day.

Clinton and her SuperPACs combined are outspending Sanders 2:1

I'm not sure that's still true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/20/sanders-outraised-and-outspent-clinton-in-february-leaving-him-with-17-million-cash-on-hand/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, well, all I can tell you is that despite spending an eye-popping $41 million last month, Bernie trails HRC by millions of votes. Interesting, huh?

For whatever "eye popping" factor you seem to think there is, Hillary and her PACs and SuperPACs are spending twice as much money as Sanders. Yet she isn't twice as far ahead. Interesting, huh.

Her superpacs have spent very little so far. Bernie's burn rate is one of the highest ever seen. As for his donors, there's something there that's required two FEC letters so far. An enterprising journalist could have a field day.

Clinton and her SuperPACs combined are outspending Sanders 2:1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:60% of Hillary's campaign funds come from the super wealthy who contributed the maximum amount of $2,700 per cycle, whereas only 2.3% of Sanders' donors hit the maximum.

Sanders is the peoples' candidate, Hillary is Wall Street's candidate.

Interesting, huh.

I have donated my $2700 and am far from super wealthy, whatever that means to you. It works out to slightly more than $50 a week.

LOL! Lemme guess, another $450k HHI DCUMer who says "we're not that well off..."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, well, all I can tell you is that despite spending an eye-popping $41 million last month, Bernie trails HRC by millions of votes. Interesting, huh?

For whatever "eye popping" factor you seem to think there is, Hillary and her PACs and SuperPACs are spending twice as much money as Sanders. Yet she isn't twice as far ahead. Interesting, huh.

Her superpacs have spent very little so far. Bernie's burn rate is one of the highest ever seen. As for his donors, there's something there that's required two FEC letters so far. An enterprising journalist could have a field day.

Anonymous wrote:60% of Hillary's campaign funds come from the super wealthy who contributed the maximum amount of $2,700 per cycle, whereas only 2.3% of Sanders' donors hit the maximum.

Sanders is the peoples' candidate, Hillary is Wall Street's candidate.

Interesting, huh.

I have donated my $2700 and am far from super wealthy, whatever that means to you. It works out to slightly more than $50 a week.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A government by the corporations, for the corporates
not by the people for the people

That's what the GOP has been pushing for the last 30 years.

And they got it.

60% of Hillary's campaign funds come from the super wealthy who contributed the maximum amount of $2,700 per cycle, whereas only 2.3% of Sanders' donors hit the maximum.

Sanders is the peoples' candidate, Hillary is Wall Street's candidate.

Interesting, huh.