|
0 members (),
8
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,089
Posts313,787
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351 |
Bernie is making a long game move: Sanders begins helping down ticket candidates The Vermont senator is beginning to expand his political network by helping upstart progressive congressional candidates and state legislators, lending his fundraising prowess and national fame to boost their bids.
And win or lose for the White House hopeful, Sanders's candidacy has given them a prominent national messenger and new energy they hope will trickle down-ballot in primaries and the general election.
"Bernie Sanders is really building this political revolution all the way up and down the ballot," said Matt Blizek, MoveOn.org's electoral field director. "His entire campaign, the mantra has been 'not me, us.'" Guess I'll donate to him again. There are givers and takers in the world. Madam Clinton is obviously a taker; Bernie, a giver. 
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 11,991 Likes: 128
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 11,991 Likes: 128 |
There might be a wee bit of rigging-like activity going on in this Democratic primary... take a look and tell us what you think: MSNBC working to suppress the Bernie vote...
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
Good catch, Loggy. They are completely bought and paid for. The whole f@&$in bunch. No wonder I stopped watching MSNBC a long time ago.
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,831 Likes: 180
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,831 Likes: 180 |
Late last week, Bernie Sanders’ campaign announced that it raised $44 million in March, which represents an extraordinary success story. The Vermont independent raised a jaw-dropping $109 million in the first quarter, which in practical terms, may actually be more money than the campaign knows what to do with. For any national political endeavor, it’s a fantastic “problem” to have. Hillary Clinton raised about $29.5 million for her primary campaign during March. That amount brings the first quarter total to nearly $75 million raised for the primary, beating the campaign’s goal of $50 million by about 50 percent. [Hillary For America] begins April with nearly $29 million on hand.
Clinton raised an additional $6.1 million for the DNC and state parties during the month of March, bringing the total for the quarter to about $15 million How much did you say Bernie raised for the down ballot candidates? And who's the taker here?
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
April 13, 2016 Bernie Sanders is raising money for a trio of progressive House candidates who have endorsed him, a move that comes just weeks after he faced friendly fire for not committing to fundraise for down-ballot Democrats.
In the fundraising emails, backers are given an opportunity to split their donation between Sanders and the local candidate.
The trio of candidates — New York's Zephyr Teachout, Nevada’s Lucy Flores, and Washington state’s Pramila Jayapal — is running in primaries that pit them against more establishment-aligned foes. Each has the backing of liberal groups like Democracy for America, and one of Flores’ opponents, for example, was endorsed by Harry Reid. It seems that he is, in fact, helping to raise money for other down-ballot democratic candidates. Clinton has raised from Super PACs almost 85 million while Bernie has raised zero. So, the bulk of his fundraising comes from grass-roots while CLinton's comes from lobbyists. Of her 85mm she has used roughly 15mm for the democratic party. There is a qualitative difference in the source of the money going to the candidates. So the taker, yes, the taker, is Ms. Clinton.
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178 |
I've complained before about ideologues "seeing" only what they want to see, rather then the reality before them, and that is on full display here at RR - but in this particular case on the left, rather than the right. I've said before that I like Bernie Sanders, and I'm glad he's in the race. I think that he had inspired a generation of voters and has made the race exciting - but his race is over. Reality check: Bernie Sanders has lost the race for the Democratic nomination. He knows that. Everyone with any political savvy knows that. Of course, it's technically possible for Sanders to still get the nomination. But what he would have to do would take some Herculean efforts. He would have to pull off multiple landslide victories — not just in the handful of states coming up in the next couple weeks, but also in massive, diverse states like California and New Jersey (where Clinton currently has big polling leads) — to overcome his current deficit in the pledged delegates chosen by the voters.
Sanders is behind by about 300 delegates. That is a lot. Because of the Democrats' proportional allocation rules, he'll need to win every state by 65 percent or more to overcome that deficit. These are margins of victory he hasn't seen in any primary except for his home state of Vermont.
To put the odds in perspective: Sanders's fans celebrated after he crushed Hillary Clinton in West Virginia last week. It seemed like a hopeful moment for Sanders's campaign — until you realize that he only beat Clinton there by a 51 to 36 margin, or by far less than what he needs to win by to cut into her delegate advantage. All that Chris Matthews was saying in that clip is what all the math says. Hillary Clinton is not the devil incarnate (The jury's still out on Ted Cruz). She is not the "ideal" progressive, but she is firmly on the left side of the ledger. She has far more pull within the party and has been campaigning for down-ballot candidates throughout her campaign. I thought it interesting that the earlier quote left out the following paragraphs: How much money did Sanders raise for the DNC and state parties in March? Actually, zero. For the quarter, the total was also zero.
And while the typical voter probably doesn’t know or care about candidates’ work on behalf of down-ballot allies, this speaks to a key difference between Sanders and Clinton: the former is positioning himself as the leader of a revolution; the latter is positioning herself as the leader of the Democratic Party. For Sanders, it means raising amazing amounts of money to advance his ambitions; for Clinton, it means also raising money to help other Democratic candidates. The headline from politico was news because the Sanders campaign has just awoken to this reality. "Bernie Sanders is raising money for a trio of progressive House candidates who have endorsed him, a move that comes just weeks after he faced friendly fire for not committing to fundraise for down-ballot Democrats." Bernie begins raising cash for down-ballot progressives.
Again, I'm really glad he's doing this, and I'm glad he's pushing the party in the progressive direction. It needs to go there, the country is ripe for that change in direction, and the Clinton campaign is acutely aware of that as well. What Sanders acolytes refuse to acknowledge is where he wins and why he doesn't. His slice of the general electorate is small, and shrinking - except among the youth. That is a crucial demographic for the future of the Democratic party, but it is still a small slice. The Hidden Importance Of The Sanders Voter. The good news for Clinton is that she has the opportunity to gain ground among Sanders voters if and when she officially wraps up the nomination, just as Trump did among Republicans. Although many Sanders supporters will start the general election campaign with a negative view of Clinton, they aren’t necessarily eager to vote for Trump. In the YouGov poll, just 55 percent of Sanders supporters said they’d vote for Clinton over Trump in November. However, only 15 percent said they’d vote for Trump. That leaves 30 percent of Sanders voters who say they are undecided, would vote for a third-party candidate or would sit out the election. Clinton has an overwhelming (87%) lead in registered Democrats, Sanders leads among independents. Clinton needs that vote, but not as badly as Trump does. Clinton will likely get 55-70% of that vote (if polling holds true). Given the registration lead of Democrats over Republicans nationally, and in swing states, that has the true potential for a landslide election. Landslide elections have a strong potential to change the shape of Congress and the country for decades. Here's the acid question: would it be better for the country to have Clinton in the White House with a Democratic Congress, or Sanders with a Republican majority?
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
It is astounding how you're all so damned concerned with who is winning the nomination - and not HOW it is being won. The question is: why is this nomination process so rigged? How comes it that if the party bosses don't want someone to win the nomination, they don't win the nomination? The question is far more important than Bernie or Hillary. As far as Hillary being the devil incarnate: I don't believe in either god or the devil. She is better than any of the Republicans but look at how low that bar is set. She is not progressive. Here's the acid question: would it be better for the country to have Clinton in the White House with a Democratic Congress, or Sanders with a Republican majority? What makes you so certain that that would happen? Sounds like a lame attempt to justify the lesser of two evils. I think that the opposite situation would be more likely. Especially because if Bernie were to win the election the Republican party would be in a greater state of disarray than it already is. But, no matter. We know that she has been anointed, right?
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
I've complained before about ideologues "seeing" only what they want to see, rather then the reality before them, and that is on full display here at RR - but in this particular case on the left, rather than the right.
... It seems anyone who takes an opposing view is labeled an ideologue. Is it not possible for people to disagree with Ms. Clinton's positions? I think that has much more to do with Bernie's base of support than does ideology, which, by the way, should not be so very different twixt the candidates, seeing as how they are both from the same party.
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351 |
Hillary Clinton is not the devil incarnate (The jury's still out on Ted Cruz). She is not the "ideal" progressive, but she is firmly on the left side of the ledger. I so disagree. Bernie PULLED Hillary to the Left. Hillary is no way, no how, a 'progressive.' Hillary is most certainly Center-Right. Plus Hillary is a Hawk as her 2003 Iraq vote demonstrates AND her bombing of Libya and removal of Muammar el-Qaddafi from power as SecState. Hillary will govern no differently from her husband did as POTUS. (...and, yes, I "get" that the Libya/Qaddafi thing was payback for the Flight 103).
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178 |
We've seriously drifted into fantasy land, here. "The question is: why is this nomination process so rigged?" How is winning the majority of elected delegates "rigged"? It is not "rigged" just because you don't like the outcome. Clinton has won more delegates. Ignore the SUPER DELEGATES. They truly don't matter, except for talking points. Bernie Sanders is behind by 300 elected delegates, and he cannot make up that deficit. Sanders has actually gotten more benefit from "rigging" the system than Clinton - The System Isn’t ‘Rigged’ Against Sanders. Sanders fans have claimed that because caucuses have lower turnout the current national caucus and primary vote underrates how well Sanders is doing. In fact, the opposite is true. When we switch all caucuses over to primaries, Sanders actually does worse. Clinton’s lead in the popular vote would grow from 2.9 to 3.3 million votes. Moreover, her edge in elected delegates would expand significantly.7 Instead of her current lead of 272 elected delegates, Clinton would be ahead by 424.8 Some states that were won by Sanders in caucuses, including Colorado and Minnesota, would be won by Clinton in primaries, according to our calculations. "Pop" goes that argument. "She is not progressive." Again, this has no basis in reality, but is just a partisan talking point. Hillary Clinton Was Liberal. Hillary Clinton Is Liberal.
We’ve gotten this raft of “Clinton is liberal” exposés as Clinton has revved up her 2016 campaign, speaking out in support of gay marriage, a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the U.S. illegally, and criminal justice reform. But what many of these articles miss is that Clinton has always been, by most measures, pretty far to the left. When she’s shifted positions, it has been in concert with the entire Democratic Party....Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. When I take a position, I base it upon facts, not wishful thinking. According to, On The Issues.Org, "She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders." From FiveThirtyEight: "Clinton got beat on the left on one issue the last time she ran for president: the Iraq War." But in voting for the resolution, she was in the majority of the Democratic party: 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. In the context of the time, this is not actually surprising. People conveniently forget that the resolution authorized the President the discretion to use force. At the time, many believed it was necessary to do so to strengthen the President's hand in ongoing negotiations with the Hussein regime. A vote against the resolution (which was bipartisan and co-sponsored) would have undermined his negotiating position. While I didn't trust Bush to behave responsibly, he was the President, and needed that authority in the interest of national security. That he misused that authority once he got it cannot be blamed on the Democrats, even those that voted for it.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
