Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
BigSteelThrill

Bernie Sanders 2020 HQ!

Recommended Posts

This may have already been stated, but wouldn't it seem as feasible that Bernie entering the race will have an effect to show Hillary as less liberal and more Center (or whoever else may win the nomination) therefore boosting the change in the federal election? Cruz can call Hill a liberal all he wants, but in comparison to sanders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may have already been stated, but wouldn't it seem as feasible that Bernie entering the race will have an effect to show Hillary as less liberal and more Center (or whoever else may win the nomination) therefore boosting the change in the federal election? Cruz can call Hill a liberal all he wants, but in comparison to sanders?

This almost certainly will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He won't make it tough on Hillary, he'll make it easy on her. Hillary likes Bernie, and Beenie likes Hillary. This will be s very congenial campaign. They will disagree on a few issues but you won't hear them attack each other. There won't be any "dirty tricks" against Bernie. And sorry NC, there won't be any anti-Hillary money going to Bernie because there is no anti-Hillary money.

Sanders is running to discuss ideas that are important to him and more power to him. It's good for Hillary because it allows her to delineate her own thinking to the American people, and it allows the press to have the pretense of a contest within the Democratic Party. But when it comes to the caucuses and primaries, forget it. Hillary will win every last one of them without any real contest.

Yeah there is anti- Hillary money. This idea that everyone in the party can't wait to kiss her ring is ludicrous.

Not really My sense is that this is largely true actually.

However, I should correct myself- there might be some money. As I mentioned before, Campaign United allowed Sheldon Adelson to singlehandledly keep New Gingrich afloat, and Foster Friez did the same thing for Santorum for several months. So you never know. There are progressive billionaires out there. If one them, perhaps a George Soros, became enamored with Sanders that could make a difference. But I doubt it actually happens. Hillary Clinton is going to be our next President, and people want a seat at the table.

At least among the democrats that I personally know (maybe 15ish that I've explicitly talked about it with), this couldn't be further from the truth. Not a single one would have Hillary as their first choice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He won't make it tough on Hillary, he'll make it easy on her. Hillary likes Bernie, and Beenie likes Hillary. This will be s very congenial campaign. They will disagree on a few issues but you won't hear them attack each other. There won't be any "dirty tricks" against Bernie. And sorry NC, there won't be any anti-Hillary money going to Bernie because there is no anti-Hillary money.

Sanders is running to discuss ideas that are important to him and more power to him. It's good for Hillary because it allows her to delineate her own thinking to the American people, and it allows the press to have the pretense of a contest within the Democratic Party. But when it comes to the caucuses and primaries, forget it. Hillary will win every last one of them without any real contest.

Yeah there is anti- Hillary money. This idea that everyone in the party can't wait to kiss her ring is ludicrous.

Not really My sense is that this is largely true actually.

However, I should correct myself- there might be some money. As I mentioned before, Campaign United allowed Sheldon Adelson to singlehandledly keep New Gingrich afloat, and Foster Friez did the same thing for Santorum for several months. So you never know. There are progressive billionaires out there. If one them, perhaps a George Soros, became enamored with Sanders that could make a difference. But I doubt it actually happens. Hillary Clinton is going to be our next President, and people want a seat at the table.

At least among the democrats that I personally know (maybe 15ish that I've explicitly talked about it with), this couldn't be further from the truth. Not a single one would have Hillary as their first choice.

Sorry McIntyre, let me clarify that. When NC referred to "everyone in the party" I assumed he was referring to the Democratic establishment, the people that actually run the Democratic Party. So in my reply I wasn't referring to regular folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim, Berbie might not "attack" Hillary but he will bring up the differences in corporate financing between the two of them. You won't see any Sid Blymenthals or Jim Carvilkes on his campaign that's fir sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim, Berbie might not "attack" Hillary but he will bring up the differences in corporate financing between the two of them. You won't see any Sid Blymenthals or Jim Carvilkes on his campaign that's fir sure.

I'm not even sure he'll do this. We'll have to see.

I've watched and listened to Sanders a lot over the years. I don't recall him ever taking shots at a Democrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim, Berbie might not "attack" Hillary but he will bring up the differences in corporate financing between the two of them. You won't see any Sid Blymenthals or Jim Carvilkes on his campaign that's fir sure.

I'm not even sure he'll do this. We'll have to see.

I've watched and listened to Sanders a lot over the years. I don't recall him ever taking shots at a Democrat.

I largely agree, he won't ever run any attack ads, that's for sure. Some people took the last part of this twitter exchange between the two as a jab, though: "Thanks @HillaryClinton. Looking forward to debating the big issues: income inequality, climate change & getting big money out of politics."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He won't make it tough on Hillary, he'll make it easy on her. Hillary likes Bernie, and Beenie likes Hillary. This will be s very congenial campaign. They will disagree on a few issues but you won't hear them attack each other. There won't be any "dirty tricks" against Bernie. And sorry NC, there won't be any anti-Hillary money going to Bernie because there is no anti-Hillary money.

Sanders is running to discuss ideas that are important to him and more power to him. It's good for Hillary because it allows her to delineate her own thinking to the American people, and it allows the press to have the pretense of a contest within the Democratic Party. But when it comes to the caucuses and primaries, forget it. Hillary will win every last one of them without any real contest.

My opinion-This won't be accurate. Bernie is too firey. I'd be willing to bet Hillary's campaign people are telling her not to get pulled into anything by his temper. The guy rrrreally cares and some issues really burn him. It'll stir the pot.

There's tons of articles already stating this is both good and bad for Hilary so that's already a reasonable debate with two sides. Others do feel as you do here.

Here's a decent article, you can tell at one point he wants to say "I'm not biting yet, let's see where she stands" and he mentions taxes and China production stealing american jobs which I mentioned above.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-signals-aggressive-challenge-to-hillary-clinton/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not a socialist, lol. I love the spin.

Yes, he just calls himself that for fun.
He calls himself a democratic socialist which is a term he may have invented.

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heh guy behind him almost wet himself

I hope the Bernie saying "starvation wages" sticks. He mentioned China, General Motors being supplanted by Walmart as the largest employer and...there he goes. Certain issues totally get him rollin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He won't make it tough on Hillary, he'll make it easy on her. Hillary likes Bernie, and Beenie likes Hillary. This will be s very congenial campaign. They will disagree on a few issues but you won't hear them attack each other. There won't be any "dirty tricks" against Bernie. And sorry NC, there won't be any anti-Hillary money going to Bernie because there is no anti-Hillary money.

Sanders is running to discuss ideas that are important to him and more power to him. It's good for Hillary because it allows her to delineate her own thinking to the American people, and it allows the press to have the pretense of a contest within the Democratic Party. But when it comes to the caucuses and primaries, forget it. Hillary will win every last one of them without any real contest.

Yeah there is anti- Hillary money. This idea that everyone in the party can't wait to kiss her ring is ludicrous.

It is the only reason Sanders goes from no chance to having the other team in victory formation with time running out and you need a fumble returned for a TD chance to win. Hillary is easy to not like and there are a lot of people who don't like her. Which is the reason why I think she will end up losing in the primary as long as the GOP survivor is not a complete dipstick. The steps in planning her move were well thought out- Sec of State to bolster her resume but not a partisan position. Exit to have some time off of the stage which always improves attitude and numbers and then make a run. Some details were maybe over thought like having her own emails to protect herself but the general strategy was brilliant. Is it enough to over take the easiness to not like her? Likely not enough for Sanders but in the general, I think she is going to have some real problems that some of the Democratic party don't think is going to be there when they look at polling data in the here and now.

To win a republican primary you have to take lunatic.positions. You can't gerrymander your way to the presidency. The GOP can't get out of it's own way at the national level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He won't make it tough on Hillary, he'll make it easy on her. Hillary likes Bernie, and Beenie likes Hillary. This will be s very congenial campaign. They will disagree on a few issues but you won't hear them attack each other. There won't be any "dirty tricks" against Bernie. And sorry NC, there won't be any anti-Hillary money going to Bernie because there is no anti-Hillary money.

Sanders is running to discuss ideas that are important to him and more power to him. It's good for Hillary because it allows her to delineate her own thinking to the American people, and it allows the press to have the pretense of a contest within the Democratic Party. But when it comes to the caucuses and primaries, forget it. Hillary will win every last one of them without any real contest.

Yeah there is anti- Hillary money. This idea that everyone in the party can't wait to kiss her ring is ludicrous.

It is the only reason Sanders goes from no chance to having the other team in victory formation with time running out and you need a fumble returned for a TD chance to win. Hillary is easy to not like and there are a lot of people who don't like her. Which is the reason why I think she will end up losing in the primary as long as the GOP survivor is not a complete dipstick. The steps in planning her move were well thought out- Sec of State to bolster her resume but not a partisan position. Exit to have some time off of the stage which always improves attitude and numbers and then make a run. Some details were maybe over thought like having her own emails to protect herself but the general strategy was brilliant. Is it enough to over take the easiness to not like her? Likely not enough for Sanders but in the general, I think she is going to have some real problems that some of the Democratic party don't think is going to be there when they look at polling data in the here and now.

To win a republican primary you have to take lunatic.positions. You can't gerrymander your way to the presidency. The GOP can't get out of it's own way at the national level.

Whoa..do we really have a dyed in the wool liberal lecturing us about gerrymandering? :lmao:

WTF? You guys invented it.

And any republican we choose can't be any worse than the disaster that is currently POTUS or your already crowned corrupt nominee Hillary.

Edited by MaxThreshold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion- Hillary's campaign people are telling her not to get pulled into anything

Precisely. For the next 18 months Hillary will stand tall for ice cream cones and grand-babies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He won't make it tough on Hillary, he'll make it easy on her. Hillary likes Bernie, and Beenie likes Hillary. This will be s very congenial campaign. They will disagree on a few issues but you won't hear them attack each other. There won't be any "dirty tricks" against Bernie. And sorry NC, there won't be any anti-Hillary money going to Bernie because there is no anti-Hillary money.

Sanders is running to discuss ideas that are important to him and more power to him. It's good for Hillary because it allows her to delineate her own thinking to the American people, and it allows the press to have the pretense of a contest within the Democratic Party. But when it comes to the caucuses and primaries, forget it. Hillary will win every last one of them without any real contest.

Yeah there is anti- Hillary money. This idea that everyone in the party can't wait to kiss her ring is ludicrous.

It is the only reason Sanders goes from no chance to having the other team in victory formation with time running out and you need a fumble returned for a TD chance to win. Hillary is easy to not like and there are a lot of people who don't like her. Which is the reason why I think she will end up losing in the primary as long as the GOP survivor is not a complete dipstick. The steps in planning her move were well thought out- Sec of State to bolster her resume but not a partisan position. Exit to have some time off of the stage which always improves attitude and numbers and then make a run. Some details were maybe over thought like having her own emails to protect herself but the general strategy was brilliant. Is it enough to over take the easiness to not like her? Likely not enough for Sanders but in the general, I think she is going to have some real problems that some of the Democratic party don't think is going to be there when they look at polling data in the here and now.

To win a republican primary you have to take lunatic.positions. You can't gerrymander your way to the presidency. The GOP can't get out of it's own way at the national level.

Seems like a reasonable response to my post to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad Bernie rakes in $1.5 mill in the first 24 hours.

Advisers to Bernie Sanders have argued that his grassroots network of small-dollar donors could raise him the roughly $50 million the independent senator from Vermont will need to run a credible, competitive campaign in the Democratic presidential primaries.

They may be right.

On Friday, the Sanders campaign announced that it has raised more than $1.5 million online in the 24 hours since he announced his candidacy. It is a surprisingly heavy haul for a candidate whom some in the Democratic chattering class have cast off as a gadfly and viewed as unable to wrest the nomination from the overwhelming favorite, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The donations came from a broad base of supporters -- some 35,000 donors who gave an average of $43.54 a piece, according to the Sanders campaign. The campaign also said it signed up more than 100,000 supporters through its website, building what it calls a "mass movement."

Clinton has not released any details about her fundraising totals, online or otherwise. But the Sanders haul outpaces the three major Republican candidates who already have announced. In the first 24 hours since launching their campaigns, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) raised $1.25 million and Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ted Cruz (Texas) raised about $1 million each, according to their campaigns.

...

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie is doing about the same number in both NH & IA. I think NCC is right that Bernie could do some damage via small ball, gather up all those little donations Obama did so well with in 08. - Why would a small contributor give to Hillary? She has got tons of money and your 100 won't mean jack. - If Bernie can really hit the ground and campaign non-stup and come out of IA & NH he could hit the rest of the US with a surge. - I think if Hillary wins with <50% in those two states there will be shaken faith about the general. - I agree with Tim that she will steer clear of attacking Bernie but I do think or hope or expect he will bring inload full broadsides on her financial strings.

I'd be stunned if he ever seriously attacks Hillary Clinton. He will attack Republicans and conservatives, and state his respectful disagreement with President Obama on TPP. But all of his vitriol will be reserved, I predict, for the GOP.

Senator Bernie Sanders Calls Hillary Clinton Foundation Money ‘A Very Serious Problem’

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, said he is concerned by the millions of dollars flowing into the Clinton Foundation at a time when he thinks money plays too strong a role in politics.

“It tells me what is a very serious problem,” Sanders said in an interview with ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl. “It's not just about Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton. It is about a political system today that is dominated by big money. It's about the Koch brothers being prepared to spend $900 million dollars in the coming election.

“So do I have concerns about the Clinton Foundation and that money? I do,” he added. “But I am concerned about Sheldon Adelson and his billions. I’m concerned about the Koch Brothers and their billions. We're looking at a system where our democracy is being owned by a handful of billionaires.”

Sanders said that “anybody now who is running for office, with few exceptions,” is part of that system.

“I am one of the exceptions," he said. "I am not going to start a super PAC. I’m not going to go around the country talking to millionaires. Now I'm saving my time because they wouldn't give me any money anyhow and that's fine.”

The two-term Vermont senator announced he will run for president in 2016. Sanders, the longest serving independent lawmaker in congressional history, will run as a Democrat in the primaries – the first official challenger to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“Do I go into this thing as the underdog? Absolutely, no question about it,” he said. “We're going to be heavily outspent, but I think the American people have had enough of establishment politics, i think they want real change i think they want to see a movement which stands up to the billionaire class.”

In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, Sanders was supported for the Democratic presidential nomination by 5 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who are registered to vote, trailing behind Clinton by 61 percent.

Sanders, who serves as the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, has advocated for increases to Medicare and Social Security benefits and pushed for ending tax cuts for the wealthy, which he has described as “Robin Hood in reverse.”

“No we're not going to give more tax breaks to billionaires,” he said. “In fact maybe it’s about time that the richest people in this country and the largest corporations started paying their fair share of taxes.”

Sanders, 73, is a self-described Democratic socialist. President Obama even recently joked about what a Sanders campaign would look like.

“Bernie Sanders might run. I like Bernie. Bernie’s an interesting guy. Apparently, some folks want to see a pot-smoking socialist in the White House,” President Obama said at this year’s White House Correspondent’s Dinner. “We could get a third Obama term after all.”

“As a matter of fact, I'm not a pot smoker. I have admittedly some 30, 40 years ago,” Sanders said. “I know people get hung up on the word socialism…I think there are things we can learn from social democratic countries around the world where in fact government does work for ordinary people in a much greater degree than it does in our country.”

Sanders said his first campaign stop will be in New Hampshire this weekend. His formal campaign kick-off will be in May, likely in his home state of Vermont.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863

Sanders: American people 'don't know' what Hillary is running on

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a potential 2016 presidential contender, slammed the national media’s coverage of Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, saying the press and public "don't know" where she stands on important issues.

“Why don’t you tell me what Hillary Clinton is campaigning on, do you know?” he said on MSNBC’s “Live with Thomas Roberts,” when asked if he believed her campaign message that she’s running to represent the “little guy."

“You don’t know and I don’t know and the American people don’t know.”

...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/238816-sanders-american-people-do-not-know-where-clinton-stands

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie is doing about the same number in both NH & IA. I think NCC is right that Bernie could do some damage via small ball, gather up all those little donations Obama did so well with in 08. - Why would a small contributor give to Hillary? She has got tons of money and your 100 won't mean jack. - If Bernie can really hit the ground and campaign non-stup and come out of IA & NH he could hit the rest of the US with a surge. - I think if Hillary wins with <50% in those two states there will be shaken faith about the general. - I agree with Tim that she will steer clear of attacking Bernie but I do think or hope or expect he will bring inload full broadsides on her financial strings.

I'd be stunned if he ever seriously attacks Hillary Clinton. He will attack Republicans and conservatives, and state his respectful disagreement with President Obama on TPP. But all of his vitriol will be reserved, I predict, for the GOP.

Senator Bernie Sanders Calls Hillary Clinton Foundation Money ‘A Very Serious Problem’

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, said he is concerned by the millions of dollars flowing into the Clinton Foundation at a time when he thinks money plays too strong a role in politics.

“It tells me what is a very serious problem,” Sanders said in an interview with ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl. “It's not just about Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton. It is about a political system today that is dominated by big money. It's about the Koch brothers being prepared to spend $900 million dollars in the coming election.

“So do I have concerns about the Clinton Foundation and that money? I do,” he added. “But I am concerned about Sheldon Adelson and his billions. I’m concerned about the Koch Brothers and their billions. We're looking at a system where our democracy is being owned by a handful of billionaires.”

Sanders said that “anybody now who is running for office, with few exceptions,” is part of that system.

“I am one of the exceptions," he said. "I am not going to start a super PAC. I’m not going to go around the country talking to millionaires. Now I'm saving my time because they wouldn't give me any money anyhow and that's fine.”

The two-term Vermont senator announced he will run for president in 2016. Sanders, the longest serving independent lawmaker in congressional history, will run as a Democrat in the primaries – the first official challenger to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“Do I go into this thing as the underdog? Absolutely, no question about it,” he said. “We're going to be heavily outspent, but I think the American people have had enough of establishment politics, i think they want real change i think they want to see a movement which stands up to the billionaire class.”

In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, Sanders was supported for the Democratic presidential nomination by 5 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who are registered to vote, trailing behind Clinton by 61 percent.

Sanders, who serves as the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, has advocated for increases to Medicare and Social Security benefits and pushed for ending tax cuts for the wealthy, which he has described as “Robin Hood in reverse.”

“No we're not going to give more tax breaks to billionaires,” he said. “In fact maybe it’s about time that the richest people in this country and the largest corporations started paying their fair share of taxes.”

Sanders, 73, is a self-described Democratic socialist. President Obama even recently joked about what a Sanders campaign would look like.

“Bernie Sanders might run. I like Bernie. Bernie’s an interesting guy. Apparently, some folks want to see a pot-smoking socialist in the White House,” President Obama said at this year’s White House Correspondent’s Dinner. “We could get a third Obama term after all.”

“As a matter of fact, I'm not a pot smoker. I have admittedly some 30, 40 years ago,” Sanders said. “I know people get hung up on the word socialism…I think there are things we can learn from social democratic countries around the world where in fact government does work for ordinary people in a much greater degree than it does in our country.”

Sanders said his first campaign stop will be in New Hampshire this weekend. His formal campaign kick-off will be in May, likely in his home state of Vermont.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863

Sanders: American people 'don't know' what Hillary is running on

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a potential 2016 presidential contender, slammed the national media’s coverage of Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, saying the press and public "don't know" where she stands on important issues.

“Why don’t you tell me what Hillary Clinton is campaigning on, do you know?” he said on MSNBC’s “Live with Thomas Roberts,” when asked if he believed her campaign message that she’s running to represent the “little guy."

“You don’t know and I don’t know and the American people don’t know.”

...

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/238816-sanders-american-people-do-not-know-where-clinton-stands

:coffee:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad Bernie rakes in $1.5 mill in the first 24 hours.

Advisers to Bernie Sanders have argued that his grassroots network of small-dollar donors could raise him the roughly $50 million the independent senator from Vermont will need to run a credible, competitive campaign in the Democratic presidential primaries.

They may be right.

On Friday, the Sanders campaign announced that it has raised more than $1.5 million online in the 24 hours since he announced his candidacy. It is a surprisingly heavy haul for a candidate whom some in the Democratic chattering class have cast off as a gadfly and viewed as unable to wrest the nomination from the overwhelming favorite, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The donations came from a broad base of supporters -- some 35,000 donors who gave an average of $43.54 a piece, according to the Sanders campaign. The campaign also said it signed up more than 100,000 supporters through its website, building what it calls a "mass movement."

Clinton has not released any details about her fundraising totals, online or otherwise. But the Sanders haul outpaces the three major Republican candidates who already have announced. In the first 24 hours since launching their campaigns, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) raised $1.25 million and Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ted Cruz (Texas) raised about $1 million each, according to their campaigns.

...

I don't know politics like you guys at all. I'm not even really into discussing them all that much. Sometimes a leader catches my eye and intrigues me for a while.

Can you tell me is 43 dollar average super low? That seems like an "everyman" type donation to me.

I envision Hillary calls GM or some company and has 1.5 mil while Bernie actually got citizens to donate.

Also, what's the significance of this if any?

Suppose Hillary gets a campaign fund of 50 mil from 20 corporations and Bernie gets a fund of 20 mil from 500k citizens.

Edited by Bri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad Bernie rakes in $1.5 mill in the first 24 hours.

Advisers to Bernie Sanders have argued that his grassroots network of small-dollar donors could raise him the roughly $50 million the independent senator from Vermont will need to run a credible, competitive campaign in the Democratic presidential primaries.

They may be right.

On Friday, the Sanders campaign announced that it has raised more than $1.5 million online in the 24 hours since he announced his candidacy. It is a surprisingly heavy haul for a candidate whom some in the Democratic chattering class have cast off as a gadfly and viewed as unable to wrest the nomination from the overwhelming favorite, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The donations came from a broad base of supporters -- some 35,000 donors who gave an average of $43.54 a piece, according to the Sanders campaign. The campaign also said it signed up more than 100,000 supporters through its website, building what it calls a "mass movement."

Clinton has not released any details about her fundraising totals, online or otherwise. But the Sanders haul outpaces the three major Republican candidates who already have announced. In the first 24 hours since launching their campaigns, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) raised $1.25 million and Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ted Cruz (Texas) raised about $1 million each, according to their campaigns.

...

I don't know politics like you guys at all. I'm not even really into discussing them all that much. Sometimes a leader catches my eye and intrigues me for a while.

Can you tell me is 43 dollar average super low? That seems like an "everyman" type donation to me.

I envision Hillary calls GM or some company and has 1.5 mil while Bernie actually got citizens to donate.

Also, what's the significance of this if any?

Suppose Hillary gets a campaign fund of 50 mil from 20 corporations and Bernie gets a fund of 20 mil from 500k citizens.

Yes that is super-low. That's the kind of contribution a college kid or working class person could make.

Hillary is in the San Francisco area this week raising money with a Silicon Valley group which just paid her $300,000, cash in pocket, for a single speech two months ago.

The significance of this is organization and grass roots support, momentum, and the sort of base Obama had in 2008. Though the difference between Sanders charisma and Obama charisma is like Ben Tate running skills vs Leveon Bell.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know politics like you guys at all. I'm not even really into discussing them all that much. Sometimes a leader catches my eye and intrigues me for a while.

Can you tell me is 43 dollar average super low? That seems like an "everyman" type donation to me.

I envision Hillary calls GM or some company and has 1.5 mil while Bernie actually got citizens to donate.

Also, what's the significance of this if any?

Suppose Hillary gets a campaign fund of 50 mil from 20 corporations and Bernie gets a fund of 20 mil from 500k citizens.

Campaign contributions are important for two reasons. One reason they're good is what you would expect -- to buy stuff. Campaign ads cost a lot of money, and there's other stuff to spend on too -- staff, offices, etc. Obviously, for this purpose, the more money the better, regardless of its source.

But the other reason campaign contributions are important is that they help campaigns to identify people that are strong supporters. Organizing a successful campaign takes a lot of volunteers, to knock on doors, make phone calls, etc. When a campaign has a long list of contributors, it can go back to those people again and again, asking for more money, asking for their time, encouraging them to talk to their friends about the candidate, etc. Regular people who contribute small amounts to a campaign tend to be very loyal -- they aren't doing it with some expectation of getting something in return, they just like the candidate and want to help. So having a giant list of the little people that contributed to you can be invaluable, much more so than a short list of rich people that gave a lot of money but probably aren't going to go out and knock on doors for you.

The candidate with the most money has a big advantage, but doesn't necessarily always win. The typical strategy for a candidate that is going to be overwhelmed financially is to try to build an army of volunteers. Sometimes it can work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know politics like you guys at all. I'm not even really into discussing them all that much. Sometimes a leader catches my eye and intrigues me for a while.

Can you tell me is 43 dollar average super low? That seems like an "everyman" type donation to me.

I envision Hillary calls GM or some company and has 1.5 mil while Bernie actually got citizens to donate.

Also, what's the significance of this if any?

Suppose Hillary gets a campaign fund of 50 mil from 20 corporations and Bernie gets a fund of 20 mil from 500k citizens.

Campaign contributions are important for two reasons. One reason they're good is what you would expect -- to buy stuff. Campaign ads cost a lot of money, and there's other stuff to spend on too -- staff, offices, etc. Obviously, for this purpose, the more money the better, regardless of its source.

But the other reason campaign contributions are important is that they help campaigns to identify people that are strong supporters. Organizing a successful campaign takes a lot of volunteers, to knock on doors, make phone calls, etc. When a campaign has a long list of contributors, it can go back to those people again and again, asking for more money, asking for their time, encouraging them to talk to their friends about the candidate, etc. Regular people who contribute small amounts to a campaign tend to be very loyal -- they aren't doing it with some expectation of getting something in return, they just like the candidate and want to help. So having a giant list of the little people that contributed to you can be invaluable, much more so than a short list of rich people that gave a lot of money but probably aren't going to go out and knock on doors for you.

The candidate with the most money has a big advantage, but doesn't necessarily always win. The typical strategy for a candidate that is going to be overwhelmed financially is to try to build an army of volunteers. Sometimes it can work.

Good point, it's partly about generating excitement and enthusiasm in a campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article on Slate about how this helps Hillary. It pointed out that even when Bernie criticized the foundation (in response to questioning) he quickly shifted to attacking the Koch brothers.

I still don't think he has any serious interest in harming HILLARY or hindering her campaign in the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article on Slate about how this helps Hillary. It pointed out that even when Bernie criticized the foundation (in response to questioning) he quickly shifted to attacking the Koch brothers.

I still don't think he has any serious interest in harming HILLARY or hindering her campaign in the least.

That quote is posted further up. I noticed that and actually I think that's not good for her. For one thing it's intellectually honest. Personally I think cash in pocket is worse but at any rate it's about purchasing of influence. Secondly, he is lumping her in with Republicans. For people who are thinking that Hillary is someone to consider because of what policies she will bring to the WH or at least to keep the GOP out it's something to consider.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He won't make it tough on Hillary, he'll make it easy on her. Hillary likes Bernie, and Beenie likes Hillary. This will be s very congenial campaign. They will disagree on a few issues but you won't hear them attack each other. There won't be any "dirty tricks" against Bernie. And sorry NC, there won't be any anti-Hillary money going to Bernie because there is no anti-Hillary money.

Sanders is running to discuss ideas that are important to him and more power to him. It's good for Hillary because it allows her to delineate her own thinking to the American people, and it allows the press to have the pretense of a contest within the Democratic Party. But when it comes to the caucuses and primaries, forget it. Hillary will win every last one of them without any real contest.

Yeah there is anti- Hillary money. This idea that everyone in the party can't wait to kiss her ring is ludicrous.

It is the only reason Sanders goes from no chance to having the other team in victory formation with time running out and you need a fumble returned for a TD chance to win. Hillary is easy to not like and there are a lot of people who don't like her. Which is the reason why I think she will end up losing in the primary as long as the GOP survivor is not a complete dipstick. The steps in planning her move were well thought out- Sec of State to bolster her resume but not a partisan position. Exit to have some time off of the stage which always improves attitude and numbers and then make a run. Some details were maybe over thought like having her own emails to protect herself but the general strategy was brilliant. Is it enough to over take the easiness to not like her? Likely not enough for Sanders but in the general, I think she is going to have some real problems that some of the Democratic party don't think is going to be there when they look at polling data in the here and now.

To win a republican primary you have to take lunatic.positions. You can't gerrymander your way to the presidency. The GOP can't get out of it's own way at the national level.

Whoa..do we really have a dyed in the wool liberal lecturing us about gerrymandering? :lmao:

WTF? You guys invented it.

And any republican we choose can't be any worse than the disaster that is currently POTUS or your already crowned corrupt nominee Hillary.

The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 17441814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander.

The term Democratic-Republican Party is the name used primarily by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans. Historians usually use "Republican Party."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article on Slate about how this helps Hillary. It pointed out that even when Bernie criticized the foundation (in response to questioning) he quickly shifted to attacking the Koch brothers.

I still don't think he has any serious interest in harming HILLARY or hindering her campaign in the least.

That quote is posted further up. I noticed that and actually I think that's not good for her. For one thing it's intellectually honest. Personally I think cash in pocket is worse but at any rate it's about purchasing of influence. Secondly, he is lumping her in with Republicans. For people who are thinking that Hillary is someone to consider because of what policies she will bring to the WH or at least to keep the GOP out it's something to consider.

Thought I might be one of only a few that thought he was trying to lump her in with the GOP :oldunsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article on Slate about how this helps Hillary. It pointed out that even when Bernie criticized the foundation (in response to questioning) he quickly shifted to attacking the Koch brothers.

I still don't think he has any serious interest in harming HILLARY or hindering her campaign in the least.

That quote is posted further up. I noticed that and actually I think that's not good for her. For one thing it's intellectually honest. Personally I think cash in pocket is worse but at any rate it's about purchasing of influence. Secondly, he is lumping her in with Republicans. For people who are thinking that Hillary is someone to consider because of what policies she will bring to the WH or at least to keep the GOP out it's something to consider.

Thought I might be one of only a few that thought he was trying to lump her in with the GOP :oldunsure:
And I think you guys are both wrong. He's trying to change the subject, that's sll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article on Slate about how this helps Hillary. It pointed out that even when Bernie criticized the foundation (in response to questioning) he quickly shifted to attacking the Koch brothers.

I still don't think he has any serious interest in harming HILLARY or hindering her campaign in the least.

That quote is posted further up. I noticed that and actually I think that's not good for her. For one thing it's intellectually honest. Personally I think cash in pocket is worse but at any rate it's about purchasing of influence. Secondly, he is lumping her in with Republicans. For people who are thinking that Hillary is someone to consider because of what policies she will bring to the WH or at least to keep the GOP out it's something to consider.

Thought I might be one of only a few that thought he was trying to lump her in with the GOP :oldunsure:

One thing is (I think) people trust Bernie. If he uses "koch" and "Hillary" in the same sentence, he might not only be right but people might listen to him.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article on Slate about how this helps Hillary. It pointed out that even when Bernie criticized the foundation (in response to questioning) he quickly shifted to attacking the Koch brothers.

I still don't think he has any serious interest in harming HILLARY or hindering her campaign in the least.

That quote is posted further up. I noticed that and actually I think that's not good for her. For one thing it's intellectually honest. Personally I think cash in pocket is worse but at any rate it's about purchasing of influence. Secondly, he is lumping her in with Republicans. For people who are thinking that Hillary is someone to consider because of what policies she will bring to the WH or at least to keep the GOP out it's something to consider.

Thought I might be one of only a few that thought he was trying to lump her in with the GOP :oldunsure:
And I think you guys are both wrong. He's trying to change the subject, that's sll.

Not sure which article you're reading. Think it might be different than what Saints and I are talking about. It's clear in the article we are talking about that he's concerned with the way our politics are run by a few billionaires. He's concerned of the shadiness of campaign financing and he specifically mentions the Clintons as part of that group along with the Koch brothers. What subject was being talked about that he changed from/to exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure which article you're reading. Think it might be different than what Saints and I are talking about. It's clear in the article we are talking about that he's concerned with the way our politics are run by a few billionaires. He's concerned of the shadiness of campaign financing and he specifically mentions the Clintons as part of that group along with the Koch brothers. What subject was being talked about that he changed from/to exactly?

He was asked a specific question about Hillary. He broadened it, as if to say, "not just Hillary sucks, the whole system sucks." You are both right, sorta. There certainly was an element of criticism there, but he declined a specific opportunity to direct that criticism squarely at Hillary, choosing instead to make a bigger policy argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rude Pundit, a very funny liberal blogger and frequent guest on the Stephanie Miller show, with his take on other candidacies (this was written a few days before Bernie announced, but it's still pertinent to this thread IMO):

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Rude Pundit feels your pain. He'd love, love, love for a real liberal to run for president. He says this pretty much every election, often supports whatever quixotic candidate is taking a shot this time until he (and, sadly, it's only been "he") drops out, and then votes for the moderate who he mostly agrees with on Supreme Court picks. In 2008, he supported Barack Obama because he thought the movement Obama had started would be transformative, not realizing that the president cared less about the movement than about governing from the presumptive middle (which, truth be told, Obama's pretty damn good at). Obama didn't move left. The middle moved right.

This time, though, it seems as if we're not getting the token liberal. And we're not getting anyone of color. Those who are remaining are either the white liberals who say they're not running - Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders - and the white dude who might - Martin O'Malley. If that liberal appeared, the Rude Pundit would love to jump on that bandwagon. But he or she won't be there this time. As much as we want to say that Hillary Clinton should have a primary candidate or whatever other bull#### we want to hide behind, the truth of the matter is, as everyone knows, very, very simple. Hillary Clinton is the nominee. She is more or less running as an incumbent. Last week, the Rude Pundit said this and was attacked on Twitter (which is the rhetorical equivalent of a gnat buzzing by you) for being racist because somehow he was dissing Obama. Sorry, but, Alan Keyes' paranoia aside, Obama can't run. And there is no man or woman of color who is even on the bench at this point, something that better be corrected or the Democrats will seem as out of touch as the Republicans.

So what are we left with? 18 months of #####ing about what Hillary Clinton is not? 18 months of pretending like that will do a ####### thing to move her to the left on some of her positions? No, what'll it do is, one more time, take the left out of the equation. Because if there's one thing that Team Clinton knows is that most of the people who complain about her not being progressive enough on Wall Street, on foreign affairs, on immigration reform, will still vote for her because who the #### else are they gonna vote for her? The ones who promise more Scalias and Alitos? Mike Huckabee? Jeb ####### Bush?

Oh, you can say, "Well, I'll just stay home," and then you're a selfish ####### idiot who doesn't give a #### about the future. In her powerful Facebook post on how women of color should confront a Hillary Clinton candidacy, Jada Pinkett Smith (yeah, a celebrity) says, "The only question I have been asking myself is if I’m suppose to vote for Hillary because she is a woman; will she take us to the mountaintop with her or will women of color once again be left out and left behind?" But she concludes in the most hopeful way possible: "Women of color and white women have been taking on the majority of their fights on the political platform on separate lines; can Hillary Clinton change that legacy through her journey to become president? Because if she can...she would not only have my vote...but she would have my heart." You got that? Pinkett Smith says that she is voting for Hillary Clinton. But she wants Clinton to be something more.

That's why the title of this post is not a threat. It's not marching orders. It's an opportunity. What if the left coalesced behind Clinton and did so early? Clinton has already made one of her big issues a constitutional amendment restricting money in politics. That's some Lawrence Lessig-level #### right there, even if she's raising metric assloads of cash to run for president. What if, instead of the usual cycle of pretending we can get a moderate candidate to veer left by viciously tweeting and blogging and giving Fox "news" a chance to say, "See? The Left doesn't like Hillary," we just said, "#### it. We back her. Now let's talk policy"? What if we made ourselves players instead of giddy, powerless outsiders?

Obviously, it could backfire. Obviously, the votes could be taken for granted and Clinton could play us like we've been played so many times (and that's especially true for people of color). But that's what will happen if liberals decide to be the headless opposition, as we learned with Bill Clinton, as we learned, to an extent, with Barack Obama. At the very least, a different tactic during campaign season would force Clinton to deal with liberals in a different way. If there's one thing that we know about Hillary Clinton, it's that she can eviscerate or at least isolate those who seek to destroy her or her family.

And we know that she privileges loyalty. Maybe this time we could play it differently. Just shut the #### up. Stop acting like there's gonna be any other choice. And behave as if this is the only one we have. Resignation doesn't have to be defeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure which article you're reading. Think it might be different than what Saints and I are talking about. It's clear in the article we are talking about that he's concerned with the way our politics are run by a few billionaires. He's concerned of the shadiness of campaign financing and he specifically mentions the Clintons as part of that group along with the Koch brothers. What subject was being talked about that he changed from/to exactly?

He was asked a specific question about Hillary. He broadened it, as if to say, "not just Hillary sucks, the whole system sucks." You are both right, sorta. There certainly was an element of criticism there, but he declined a specific opportunity to direct that criticism squarely at Hillary, choosing instead to make a bigger policy argument.

Sure....I agree with this. He certainly broadened it to make it about more than JUST Hillary, and he was careful not to exclude her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rude Pundit, a very funny liberal blogger and frequent guest on the Stephanie Miller show, with his take on other candidacies (this was written a few days before Bernie announced, but it's still pertinent to this thread IMO):

This is all about Hillary....why is it in the Bernie thread exactly? Close some of your tabs. You're confusing threads again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rude Pundit, a very funny liberal blogger and frequent guest on the Stephanie Miller show, with his take on other candidacies (this was written a few days before Bernie announced, but it's still pertinent to this thread IMO):

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

...

This time, though, it seems as if we're not getting the token liberal. And we're not getting anyone of color. ... Last week, the Rude Pundit said this and was attacked on Twitter (which is the rhetorical equivalent of a gnat buzzing by you) for being racist because somehow he was dissing Obama. Sorry, but, Alan Keyes' paranoia aside, Obama can't run. And there is no man or woman of color who is even on the bench at this point, something that better be corrected or the Democrats will seem as out of touch as the Republicans.

...

That this is a standard is worth criticizing but if it is the standard then by the end of this week the GOP has 2 Hispanics, 1 woman, 1 black, several candidates under 55, and candidates from California to Florida in the race. While the Demos currently have 3 old white candidates, including 1 woman who is married to a serial sexual harasser, and all three are from New England.

Sounds like if the Rude Liberal should recalibrate who is "out of touch."

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He won't make it tough on Hillary, he'll make it easy on her. Hillary likes Bernie, and Beenie likes Hillary. This will be s very congenial campaign. They will disagree on a few issues but you won't hear them attack each other. There won't be any "dirty tricks" against Bernie. And sorry NC, there won't be any anti-Hillary money going to Bernie because there is no anti-Hillary money.

Sanders is running to discuss ideas that are important to him and more power to him. It's good for Hillary because it allows her to delineate her own thinking to the American people, and it allows the press to have the pretense of a contest within the Democratic Party. But when it comes to the caucuses and primaries, forget it. Hillary will win every last one of them without any real contest.

Yeah there is anti- Hillary money. This idea that everyone in the party can't wait to kiss her ring is ludicrous.

It is the only reason Sanders goes from no chance to having the other team in victory formation with time running out and you need a fumble returned for a TD chance to win. Hillary is easy to not like and there are a lot of people who don't like her. Which is the reason why I think she will end up losing in the primary as long as the GOP survivor is not a complete dipstick. The steps in planning her move were well thought out- Sec of State to bolster her resume but not a partisan position. Exit to have some time off of the stage which always improves attitude and numbers and then make a run. Some details were maybe over thought like having her own emails to protect herself but the general strategy was brilliant. Is it enough to over take the easiness to not like her? Likely not enough for Sanders but in the general, I think she is going to have some real problems that some of the Democratic party don't think is going to be there when they look at polling data in the here and now.

To win a republican primary you have to take lunatic.positions. You can't gerrymander your way to the presidency. The GOP can't get out of it's own way at the national level.

Whoa..do we really have a dyed in the wool liberal lecturing us about gerrymandering? :lmao:

WTF? You guys invented it.

And any republican we choose can't be any worse than the disaster that is currently POTUS or your already crowned corrupt nominee Hillary.

This liberal is against gerrymandering no matter which party does it. Again Liberal doesn't mean lockstep Democrat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rude Pundit, a very funny liberal blogger and frequent guest on the Stephanie Miller show, with his take on other candidacies (this was written a few days before Bernie announced, but it's still pertinent to this thread IMO):

This is all about Hillary....why is it in the Bernie thread exactly? Close some of your tabs. You're confusing threads again.

The Rude Pundit, a very funny liberal blogger and frequent guest on the Stephanie Miller show, with his take on other candidacies (this was written a few days before Bernie announced, but it's still pertinent to this thread IMO):

This is all about Hillary....why is it in the Bernie thread exactly? Close some of your tabs. You're confusing threads again.

I'm not confusing anything. Ultimately, this thread is all about Hillary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rude Pundit, a very funny liberal blogger and frequent guest on the Stephanie Miller show, with his take on other candidacies (this was written a few days before Bernie announced, but it's still pertinent to this thread IMO):

This is all about Hillary....why is it in the Bernie thread exactly? Close some of your tabs. You're confusing threads again.

The Rude Pundit, a very funny liberal blogger and frequent guest on the Stephanie Miller show, with his take on other candidacies (this was written a few days before Bernie announced, but it's still pertinent to this thread IMO):

This is all about Hillary....why is it in the Bernie thread exactly? Close some of your tabs. You're confusing threads again.

I'm not confusing anything. Ultimately, this thread is all about Hillary.

No its ####### not. Don't be a dirtbag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rude Pundit, a very funny liberal blogger and frequent guest on the Stephanie Miller show, with his take on other candidacies (this was written a few days before Bernie announced, but it's still pertinent to this thread IMO):

This is all about Hillary....why is it in the Bernie thread exactly? Close some of your tabs. You're confusing threads again.

The Rude Pundit, a very funny liberal blogger and frequent guest on the Stephanie Miller show, with his take on other candidacies (this was written a few days before Bernie announced, but it's still pertinent to this thread IMO):

This is all about Hillary....why is it in the Bernie thread exactly? Close some of your tabs. You're confusing threads again.

I'm not confusing anything. Ultimately, this thread is all about Hillary.

No its ####### not. Don't be a dirtbag.

I'm not trying to be, honestly. But what is the title of this thread? It's not "Bernie Sanders will run", it's "Bernie Sanders will run VS HILLARY".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that article is an exercise in wish fulfillment. Hillary isn't a liberal. There will be no liberals in her advisory circle. Liberals will be ignored and.pushed aside again. Place at the table my ###. Constitutional amendment? Pie in the sky just some crap to say while you raise a billion dollars and sell your soul.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rude Pundit, a very funny liberal blogger and frequent guest on the Stephanie Miller show, with his take on other candidacies (this was written a few days before Bernie announced, but it's still pertinent to this thread IMO):

This is all about Hillary....why is it in the Bernie thread exactly? Close some of your tabs. You're confusing threads again.

The Rude Pundit, a very funny liberal blogger and frequent guest on the Stephanie Miller show, with his take on other candidacies (this was written a few days before Bernie announced, but it's still pertinent to this thread IMO):

This is all about Hillary....why is it in the Bernie thread exactly? Close some of your tabs. You're confusing threads again.

I'm not confusing anything. Ultimately, this thread is all about Hillary.

Stop being a doosh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that article is an exercise in wish fulfillment. Hillary isn't a liberal. There will be no liberals in her advisory circle. Liberals will be ignored and.pushed aside again. Place at the table my ###. Constitutional amendment? Pie in the sky just some crap to say while you raise a billion dollars and sell your soul.

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rude Pundit, a very funny liberal blogger and frequent guest on the Stephanie Miller show, with his take on other candidacies (this was written a few days before Bernie announced, but it's still pertinent to this thread IMO):

This is all about Hillary....why is it in the Bernie thread exactly? Close some of your tabs. You're confusing threads again.

The Rude Pundit, a very funny liberal blogger and frequent guest on the Stephanie Miller show, with his take on other candidacies (this was written a few days before Bernie announced, but it's still pertinent to this thread IMO):

This is all about Hillary....why is it in the Bernie thread exactly? Close some of your tabs. You're confusing threads again.

I'm not confusing anything. Ultimately, this thread is all about Hillary.

No its ####### not. Don't be a dirtbag.

I'm not trying to be, honestly. But what is the title of this thread? It's not "Bernie Sanders will run", it's "Bernie Sanders will run VS HILLARY".

It was the Bernie Sanders thread retitled to help MORONS who couldn't think. Thus I will re-title it again, for you.

Edited by BigSteelThrill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.