If a CEO offers a member of Congress $5 to vote for a bill, it's considered a bribe -

[Uncle Joe]

Link to tweet

[spanone]

1. ...K&R...

[leftstreet]

2. DURec

[Mr.Bill]

3. Elections are publicly funded.

I think Bernie meant to say campaigns.

[onecaliberal]

4. End citizens United.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

21. End the corruption the most crazy decision in Supreme Court history unleashed.

What I find amazing is how the mass media is totally oblivious to the corruption staring America in the face, Almost like the mass media was fine with the mass infusion of ad dollars the corruption gives them in the endless American election campaign.

Most nations take a long pause to let newly elected government function as the electorate wished, but the American media with the aid of the political corruption unleashed by CU will never let it rest and govern.

Remember when in the light standard lobbying was a problem? Still is but now the dark web of dark money on top of all that is a recipe for disaster for democracy.

Exhibit A, tRump.

[JustAnotherGen]

25. Progressives should pull together

A renewed Disclose bill.

[questionseverything]

48. Why do we need a new one?

The disclose act has already passed the house….it’s the senate where it’s dead on arrival

Or if I missed the part in the constitution where a passed bill “expires “ , madam speaker could just put it up for another vote

But she won’t because she knows as you do that it would die in the senate again

[lapucelle]

51. You may have missed the part about the bill not having passed the House yet.

H.R.1334 - DISCLOSE Act of 2021

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1334/actions

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1334/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs

=================================================================



==================================================================

[questionseverything]

52. Post # 7 quotes president obama saying it had passed the house

N/t

[lapucelle]

56. That version (H.R.5175) passed the House during the 111th United States Congress 10 years ago.

The Disclose Act of 2021 (H.R.1334) was (re-)introduced in the House in February 2021 and in the Senate as well. -

The bill has not passed the House. It's in committee.

It looks like the theory about "madam speaker" didn't pan out.

[questionseverything]

57. Point remains the same

Progressives don’t need to write one

Technically the ten year old bill is still being stalled in the senate

Or do they expire?

[lapucelle]

60. Your point that the current bill passed the House and died in the Senate does not remain the same.

H.R.1334 - DISCLOSE Act of 2021 is not dead in either chamber.

And there is no "technically" involved here: bills expire when a Congressional session ends. The bill from 10 years ago is not being "stalled"; it's dead.

[questionseverything]

64. If there is a current bill then it doesn't need to be written

Please copy/paste from the constitution where it says bills expire at end of session

[lapucelle]

66. Article 1 Section 5: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings

Similarly, conference business between the two Houses continues over an adjournment between the first and second sessions of a Congress.

However, because past proceedings of one Congress do not bind its successor, business remaining at the end of one Congress does not carry over to the beginning of a new Congress.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-108/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-108-6.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sine die adjournment has several implications for the legislative process. When one Congress expires, all the pending legislation goes with it. So if it occurs at the end of a Congress, a sine die adjournment effectively permanently ends consideration of any bills that had not been passed yet.

https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2015/01/05/what-is-a-sine-die-adjournment/

[JustAnotherGen]

76. There isn't a current bill

It needs to be brought to the floor of the House again - and this is a perfect vehicle for all Democratic Party members running in 2022 to get behind. A bill from 12 years ago - isn't good enough for me.

In that time with Citizens United - there are plenty of examples of 'could happens' that 'did happen' that could be specifics in the bill.

It's like eliminating college debt to private banking institutions - write the damn bill and I will make certain Congressman Malinowski gets behind it in 2022. His thing is the SALT cap and Human Rights - he's not the right congress person to lead on that. It's GOT to be youngun who the Millenials and Y's can know - 'That person relates to me'.

[questionseverything]

92. Post #51 says there is

[Thomas Hurt]

5. but money IS free speech and corporations are individuals, some with religious sensibilities.

[former9thward]

6. Presidential elections ARE publicly funded.

But every election the Democratic and Republican nominees reject the funding because of the restrictions you have to accept.

[JustAnotherGen]

7. President Obama Warned us

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2010/07/26/president-obama-citizens-united-imagine-power-will-give-special-interests-over-polit/

A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less than a vote to allow corporate and special interest takeovers of our elections. It is damaging to our democracy. It is precisely what led a Republican President named Theodore Roosevelt to tackle this issue a century ago.

. . . the House has already passed a bipartisan bill that would change all this before the next election. The DISCLOSE Act would simply require corporate political advertisers to reveal who’s funding their activities. So when special interests take to the airwaves, whoever is running and funding the ad would have to appear in the advertisement and claim responsibility for it -– like a company’s CEO or the organization’s biggest contributor. And foreign-controlled corporations and entities would be restricted from spending money to influence American elections -- just as they were in the past.

Pounding his hand on his pedestal, the President emphasized again that simple bringing transparency to this kind of spending is about as common-sense as you can get:

And you’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections would not be a partisan issue. But of course, this is Washington in 2010. And the Republican leadership in the Senate is once again using every tactic and every maneuver they can to prevent the DISCLOSE Act from even coming up for an up or down vote. Just like they did with unemployment insurance for Americans who’d lost their jobs in this recession. Just like they’re doing by blocking tax credits and lending assistance for small business owners. On issue after issue, we are trying to move America forward, and they keep on trying to take us back.

The House needs to bring back the Disclose Act . . . it will fail at the Senate level today - but if we can focus on Voting Rights - we'll have the Senate to pass it. I also think we are going to have the numbers in the House to pass it next year. Gerrymandering isn't going so well for the GOP this time around.

[George II]

18. He certainly did, and so did Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. This is not a "revolutionary" idea.

[calimary]

19. Yep! Absolutely.

I HOPE gerrymandering isn’t going so well for the bad guys!

Dems need to VOTE. Even if they have to drag themselves to the polls! JUST VOTE!!!!!

[NurseJackie]

34. Good to see Bernie promoting OTHER PEOPLE'S IDEAS.

[JustAnotherGen]

41. I'm at a loss as to why

The Progressives under the leadership of Jayapal don't write a disclose act bill. They have a champion in the SENATE in Bernie Sanders.

This is an issue all Democratic Party members agree on - and it would score them huge points with those who don't fall into their ideological lines.

[Demsrule86]

85. Why bother, it has no chance of passing the Senate...maybe they should concentrate on BBB

and get what they can while they can.

[jimfields33]

9. Write up the bill

You have both houses of congress and White House.

[George II]

11. Get over yourself....

(I agree with you 110%)

[JustAnotherGen]

22. You are correct

Instead of talking about it on Twitter - those Legislators who consider this their wheelhouse of expertise -

Need to write it up. I believe AOC ran on this twice. If she writes it - and can get co-sponsors in the House, and deliver the votes to Speaker Pelosi -

Pelosi will pass it and get it up to the Senate.

So what's stopping the Progressive Caucus from moving forward with this?

[NurseJackie]

35. It's just that easy, isn't it.

[George II]

10. For the record, Justice Democrats and Sunrise Movement now are Super-PACs and.....

....Our Revolution is a 501(c)(4) that does not report the sources of their contributions.

[lapucelle]

16. He should demand accountability from everyone.

[JustAnotherGen]

24. Saikat Chakrabarti - I know that name

Wasn't he behind Brand New Congress, which collected funds that were solely distributed to AOC under the JD umbrella?

I'm surprised our Progressive Caucus wants anything to do with him - as I understand he has deep deep connections to Peter Thiel of Paypal Fame. Thiel is a notoriously evil Far Right Racist Trumper.

[lapucelle]

28. Chakrabarti, Zack Exley, Kyle Kulinski, and Cenk Uygur are the founders of Justice Democrats.

Justice Democrats is an American progressive political action committee founded on January 23, 2017,by former leaders from the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign Saikat Chakrabarti and Zack Exley, as well as political commentators Kyle Kulinski and Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Democrats

Saikat Chakrabarti, Zack Exley, Alexandra Rojas,and Corbin Trent founded Brand New Congress around the same time. Natalie Trent is currently the treasurer of record on JD's FEC filings.

Here's how Justice Democrats explained their structure before they shut down the page.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[lapucelle]

12. Let's start the cleanup with Justice Democrats superpac

Dark Money Boosted Justice Democrats’ Super PAC In Q2

Progressive Democrat organization Justice Democrats received $260,000 in donations from dark money funded groups and Super PACs in Q2, FEC filings show.

snip==========================================================================

Justice Democrats also received $100,000 from a group mentioned briefly above — Way To Win. Way To Win is a 501(c)(4) dark money venture co-founded by Leah Hunt-Hendrix, granddaughter of Texas oil tycoon H.L. Hunt, and niece of Kansas City Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt — as well as Democracy Alliance (according to the NY Times). According to their most recent tax filings, in 2018 Way To Win pulled in over $7,000,000. Some of that year’s haul can be traced to five-figure grants from Groundswell Fund, Tides Center, and the Goldman Sachs Foundation — but the vast majority, some $6,500,000 — is anonymous and dark.

https://medium.com/@RobletoFire/dark-money-boosted-justice-democrats-super-pac-in-q2-aad6c00b52cf

============================================================================================

THE CASH DASH — Justice Democrats, the hub for insurgent Democrats, has joined the rank of super PACs.

On Friday, the group’s PAC filed a notice with the Federal Elections Commission announcing that it intends to become a so-called Carey Committee (which is also known as a hybrid PAC) — effectively forming a super PAC in addition to their already active PAC.

The move is the latest example of the party’s liberal wing embracing the fundraising strategies that have been scorned by some on the left. (A spokesperson for the Justice Democrats did not respond to a voicemail or email left by Score on Sunday asking to talk about the group’s plans.) A group of top aides to Sanders’ presidential bid announced last week that they were forming a super PAC of their own to convince Sanders’ supporters to back Biden. Chuck Rocha, another Sanders aide, also formed his own super PAC, called Nuestro PAC, that aims to mobilize Latino voters.

Rocha poked at that underlying tension among some progressives who are wary of super PACs in a video he posted to Twitter over the weekend. “Just because Nuestro PAC is a quote-unquote super PAC, we ain’t taking no money from corporations. We ain't going out to work for none of these assholes I hate all my life,” Rocha said in the video. “We are literally going to the movement and trying to raise money to go out and get more Latinos to vote.”

The devil will be in the details (and the FEC reports) with these new groups. Sanders actually had over $700,000 worth of super PAC support during the primaries — but it was from Vote Nurses Values PAC, which has been funded by a nurses’ union and didn’t draw anywhere near the same kind of ire that other outside groups drew. Also worth remembering is Our Revolution, the Sanders-founded dark money nonprofit group. To try to fend off charges of hypocrisy, the group had voluntarily released the name of donors who gave over $250 — but not the exact dollar amount, which is less than the level of disclosure for super PACs. (The group said its largest donor gave $25,000.)

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-score/2020/05/04/insurgent-left-learns-to-live-with-super-pacs-787317

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't Charles Dunlop a billionaire CEO? Doesn't Amro Nahas a directing manager at the Ritz Banc Group?

Time for everyone to clean house.

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/justice-democrats/C00630665/donors/2020

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[JustAnotherGen]

23. Wait - whaaaaat?

I didn't realize they had that status. They are supposed to be the good guys . . . who the hell allowed this?

[lapucelle]

31. From the latest iteration of the Justice Democrat's FAQ page.

The FEC requires that we charge campaigns money for any direct campaign services we do (otherwise, the service would count as a donation to the campaign), so we do these services at-cost to us, making no profit. By creating a scalable infrastructure that candidates can use to run their campaigns, we are able to start creating a party-like infrastructure that not only endorses and fundraises for candidates, but also provides them with the tools and people necessary to run a successful campaign.

https://justicedemocrats.com/frequently-asked-questions/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some political operatives may be discovering perfectly legal (but possibly unethical) tactics for circumventing FEC rules. There may be more to worry about than $5 bills if PAC apparatus architects can proffer casual explanations concerning how FEC regulations can be gamed with legalistic precision.

[George II]

36. Justice Democrats AND their affiliated group, Sunrise Movement, converted to Carey committees....

...sometime in the last year or so.

A Cary committee has two components - a traditional political action committee AND a Super PAC.

[JustAnotherGen]

39. That's interesting

I went down a rabbit hole after reading lapucelle's post . . . like - they pulled money from Brand New Congress Candidates and threw all of it at AOC's race. They continue down the path they are on . . .

Their 'movements' will fail.

[questionseverything]

38. Why do you have a problem with the group encouraging

Sander’s supporters to vote for Biden in the general election?

Why do you have a problem encouraging latinos to vote for democrats?

Geesh I would think the examples you gave prove why not all dark money is bad

As long as the republicans use it , we have to also

[JustAnotherGen]

42. I guess I didn't see lapucelle

Having a problem with it.

But - it makes the entire Democratic Party look like we are a bunch of hypocrites if we don't do anything about it from our side.

[questionseverything]

46. Those were the examples he/she posted

I noticed neither of you posted any examples of freaking republicans doing wrong

[lapucelle]

63. I didn't post those "examples". You did.

All I did was point this out:

Dark Money Boosted Justice Democrats’ Super PAC In Q2

[questionseverything]

65. You posted "cash dash" and those were the examples used

I need to stop before I say what I think

[lapucelle]

67. What's "cash dash"? N/T

[questionseverything]

91. It's the article in your post#12

N/t

[lapucelle]

93. The article is report about a superpac's haul. Isn't "cash dash" some sort of contest or lottery?

[JustAnotherGen]

77. What are you getting on about?

I hate the GOP and I blame them for NOTHING getting done. . .

Specifically - voting rights. Much like they are the biggest beneficiaries of disenfranchisement so they will do nothing . . .

They will do nothing on dark money. It's got to come from us.

Remember - they aren't even defining a platform for 2022.

[lapucelle]

80. Justice Democrats superpac did not spend one dime against Republicans in the last cycle.

But they did spend money against Democrats. Over 20% of their expenditures were AGAINST Democrats.

==========================================================================



==========================================================================

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/justice-democrats/C00630665/independent-expenditures/2020

[lapucelle]

81. JD's ability to spend unlimited funds against Democrats is a direct result of Citizens United.

[lapucelle]

82. Why would Justice Democrat's be spending money AGAINST this Democrat in 2020?

Cui bono?

====================================================================



Richard Neal is a Hard-Core Liberal


====================================================================

https://www.ontheissues.org/MA/Richard_Neal.htm

[lapucelle]

44. Strangers (well-meaning or otherwise) are not entitled to define who I do and do not

have problems with.

Anyone vested in advancing "benefit of the doubt" arguments in defense of dark money fundraising should be prepared to extend that priviledge to others. After all, "all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others" is not a core value of the Democratic Party.

As for this premise,

... not all dark money is bad.
As long as the republicans use it, we have to also

that point is best passed along to social media firebrands who tweet about "corruption" on a daily basis.

[George II]

50. Please look into the background behind Justice Democrats and how they've operated.

[BlueJac]

13. K&R

[KS Toronado]

14. We really do need to get money out of politics

It's usually whoever has the most money wins, this tends to favor Rs.

[Demsrule86]

86. Any change of that died in 16...with the Trump pics on SCOTUS, no legislation will matter and

we don't have the numbers for a constitutional amendment.

[fescuerescue]

15. It's hard to overturn Supreme Court rulings.

It's why Roe V Wade has lasted 50 years.

[DFW]

17. That gives rise to a dilemma

What if a lobbyist offers a member of Congress a cup of Starbucks coffee?
It may have COST $5, but it is worth nothing.

[former9thward]

69. Members of the House and Senate can receive up to $50 in gifts or dinner.

Congress passed that rule for many years now.

[DFW]

72. Ah, OK, sort of like the $200 rule for presidents

The first (and only) time I wanted to make a gift to a sitting president, I made sure the WH got a copy of the receipt, which came out to $175 when converted to dollars.

I knew a shop in Paris that dealt in obscure historical documents. When the owner heard I was going to meet Bill Clinton—this was during his first term—he insisted I buy a rare Arkansas levee bond from 1871 that he had. So I did, and gave it to Clinton a week later when I was in Washington. He was over the moon, as he had never seen one. It was huge, almost two feet by three feet. He wrote to say he had it framed and hung at Camp David. I sent the receipt along to make sure he knew he could keep it when he left office, if he so desired.

[former9thward]

78. Very cool.

[DFW]

79. If you look closely

My dad, just to the right of Al Gore, is holding a brown envelope, where the bond, folded up as it was when I bought it, is inside. That was in March, 1995.

[Me.]

20. Of Course It Is

Many of our leaders have said this for a long time now.

[gulliver]

26. If it's a Dem Congressperson and a Dem Super-PAC, I'm for it

Them's the current rules, and we need to play under those rules to vote every single Republican out of every single office in every election.

On a side note, Sen. Sanders shouldn't be using the word CEO with blanket contempt. In case he hasn't noticed, CEOs and corporations are among our strongest allies in diversity, sustainability, and the fight against COVID. Times have changed. Being "anti-CEO" is just extremely unwise and counterproductive. It can come across as a blithe, democracy-undermining dig against capitalism itself. Here in 2021 (almost 2022), it's just not good or justified to do that.

[AlexSFCA]

27. how do you "overturn" it?

[NurseJackie]

29. Thank you. Bumper-sticker slogans and tweets are not legislation... AND...

... something like this would probably require a constitutional amendment to "overturn" it. You make a valid point.

I would hope that all of our politicians were as thoughtful as you are.

[JustAnotherGen]

40. Bring back the Disclose Act

The Progressive Caucus could write a bill and ferry it through the house. But they haven't.

[Poiuyt]

30. Lobbying is nothing but legalized bribery

[NurseJackie]

32. That's an awfully broad brush you're painting with...

https://www.aclu.org/lobbying-decisionmakers

Lobbying has a bad image. Some of it is deserved. But lobbying is not necessarily something to avoid. Quite the contrary, lobbying can be a socially responsible thing to do. What is more, you have probably been a lobbyist before, in one form or another -- even though you may not have used that label. And if you've never lobbied for a cause, maybe you ought to learn how; so that if and when the time is right you can be an effective lobbyist, in a way that is doable and ethical for you.

What do we mean by lobbying? By lobbying, we mean persuading someone with more decision-making power than you, in a particular situation, to take a course of action that you support. It's that simple. No more (or less) than that.

"Lobbying" is a broad term. The people you lobby, the decision-makers, can vary widely. Much (though not all) lobbying is political, and involves persuading political decision-makers. On a local level, this could mean a member of the town council, or the head of the zoning board, or the director of the library. It could also be a state representative, or a holder of higher elected or appointed office.

But the decision-makers need not be in politics. They could be the editors of newspapers, the ministers of churches, the presidents of hospitals, the CEO's of businesses, a college board of trustees, or the officers of a volunteer organization. These people make decisions, too. And if you want to persuade them, in a real sense you'll be lobbying, in a broad but accurate meaning of the term.

More perspective at the link above.

[NurseJackie]

33. Do you feel the same way about the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and their lobbying activities?

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is the largest LGBTQ advocacy group and LGBTQ political lobbying organization in the United States.

[George II]

37. Any suggestion on just how to proceed to overturn Citizens United? I see that rallying cry....

....here and on Twitter just about once a day, but haven't seen anyone present a workable plan to overturn Citizens United.

[JustAnotherGen]

43. My idea

The Disclose Act. Just because it died once, doesn't mean it cannot get over the finish line if we try try again.

I would think Jayapal would be all over this - AND - she's got a champion in Bernie.

[George II]

45. One would have thought that would have come up a long time ago.

[sheshe2]

49. This point has been around for a decade and then some.

This is nothing new.

Where is all the legislation? We can't wish it away or tweet about it. This should not be just simply talked about on Twitter. BS and the progressives say they have the power to change things. Get off twitter and do it, not a slogan but a bill. We need this to happen and the only way is to write the bills and spend the time and effort to pass them.

[JustAnotherGen]

75. Exactly

This is something that ALL Democratic Party members would rally around. A battle cry for 2022

[Eliot Rosewater]

47. I would have started by NOT bashing HRC so much in 2016 that trump was able to

win by a few thousand votes.

Hillary could have been appointing SC justices instead of the dumbest and most corrupt human being on earth.

[Uncle Joe]

53. Now that you mention 2016 perhaps if HRC had been better connected

to the people?

Even Joe Manchin's endorsement couldn't help HRC win the primary in his home state of West Virginia in 2016 and he says he knows his people pretty well.

https://wvmetronews.com/2015/04/20/manchin-endorses-hillary-clinton-as-he-looks-ahead-to-next-white-house-occupant/

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/10/477553418/bernie-sanders-wins-west-virginia-primary

I'm of the mind Trump was inevitable because of the conditions; that spawned him of which Bernie has been warning about for decades.

[NurseJackie]

58. Oh, Jesus.

[Eliot Rosewater]

59. Garbage like that on DU is why Hillary lost.

Think of how many people didnt vote at all or for prez because they saw people bash her from the left.

They figured why bother, both sides are the same.

Yep, THIS TYPE OF SHIT is why this country is going to end. FUCKERS

[Hortensis]

73. Exactly. Some embraced and spread, others were dispirited by,

waves of lies that helped a depraved RW minority turn power over to everything they claim to despise.

Many of course learned and strengthened in commitment.

And then there are those on the left who aren't sorry at all and are still at it.

[Eliot Rosewater]

88. You don't have to go very far at all to see it either

It’s like this stupid fucking game we have to play, what is wrong with people don’t they understand?

[Hortensis]

94. Why, I don't know, but the Kremlin's social media warfare experts

no doubt do.

That just came to mind because I noticed a guru being quoted in an OP the other day, one of the "America's a full bowl of shit" types, who literally has a weekly program on Russian State TV and is often quoted there as well.

That the guru's extremism and the profound dishonesty required to support it long ago destroyed his career in American journalism if anything seems to be a credential.

He's what's become a very typical type among those who appeal to the growing and very dangerous anti-establishment populism. Forget mere trumpism, the anti-establishment movement is drawing everyone from trumpists and white supremacists on the far right, to Qnuts, to anti-Democrats and Hillary Haters (yes, still around!), to far-left class warrior revolutionaries, and beyond to apolitical dystopians and nihilist barnburners.

[Eliot Rosewater]

95. Who is that?

I have a good friend who was poisoned by a friend of his with


https://www.ntu.org/


The need to all but eliminate taxes on corps and the rich is what this group is about. We almost ended the friendship when he blamed democrats for trumps behavour.

Thankfully we didnt.

[Hortensis]

96. One who's been saying things like this ever since he was fired

years ago by the NYT and others for serial plagiarism, ongoing for years, as the official reason, but he was already indulging the serial dishonesty of extremism that cannot be supported by truth. His Pulitzer was 20 years ago and most of his honorable contributions, which he still touts himself for, were also earned long ago by work he now despises.

He turned to producing product for new following who didn't require truth any more than tRump's do but soak up full-bore demonization of anyone they don't like, such as the despicable equalization of people like us with Republicans that is the foundation of every other lie.

The only thing that mattered to liberals in the presidential race, once again, was removing a Republican, this time Donald Trump, from office. This, the liberals achieved. But their Faustian bargain, in election after election, has shredded their credibility. They are ridiculed, not only among right-wing Trump supporters but by the hierarchy of the Democratic Party that has been captured by corporate power.

No one can, or should, take liberals seriously. They stand for nothing. They fight for nothing. The cost is too onerous. And so, the liberals do what they always do, chatter endlessly about political and moral positions they refuse to make any sacrifices to achieve.

The only thing that mattered to liberals in the presidential race, once again, was removing a Republican, this time Donald Trump, from office. This, the liberals achieved. But their Faustian bargain, in election after election, has shredded their credibility. They are ridiculed, not only among right-wing Trump supporters but by the hierarchy of the Democratic Party that has been captured by corporate power. No one can, or should, take liberals seriously. They stand for nothing. They fight for nothing. The cost is too onerous. And so, the liberals do what they always do, chatter endlessly about political and moral positions they refuse to make any sacrifices to achieve.

Long, grammatical sentences promoting destruction of both parties, need to destroy completely dysfunctional systems, institution of socialism, etc. If liberals were willing to fight, our only possible principled move would be to destroy ourselves and get out of the way so others can save America by destroying the democracy we created.

[George II]

61. How was Clinton NOT "connected" in 2016, and just WHY are you bringing up the 2016 primary here?

Also, what's this business of "Bernie has been warning about for decades"?

Hint: we've had two VERY talented and qualified candidates for President in the last two elections. Sadly Hillary Clinton was defeated for reasons OTHER than herself, and thankfully Joseph Biden was elected President.

I wish people would just let the bashing of Clinton go, it's wearisome. And much to the chagrin of some, she WAS our candidate.

[NurseJackie]

71. Democrats chose the BEST candidate in 2016 and 2020...

... of that, I'm certain.

[sheshe2]

89. 👆👆👆

[betsuni]

62. She had a detailed $30 billion plan to revitalize coal country.

"No other candidate came close to the level of attention to the real challenges facing coal communities. ... I genuinely cared a lot about struggling working class families in fading small towns. I cared a lot about coal communities in particular. Not for political reasons -- I knew I was wasn't going to win a lot of votes in places like West Virginia -- but for personal ones. I lived in Arkansas for years and fell in love with Ozark mountain towns a lot like those in Appalachia. in fact, coal had been mined in Arkansas for decades, and Bill and I knew retired miners suffering from black lung disease."

But the propaganda was bullshit about out-of-touch establishment coastal elites corrupted by campaign contributions and being paid for a speech. If only people had bothered to think rather than hate a fictional cartoon character.

[Demsrule86]

84. Who gives two fucks who wins the WVA primary...they always vote Republican.

[Demsrule86]

87. I am of the opinion that Hillary would have beat Trump had she been the only candidate to run.

[Eliot Rosewater]

54. I refuse to respond to or communicate with people who helped trump, but there is a post

here that will show you HOW trump managed to win.


GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

But even TODAY you can see the BASHING going on and the LIES...about Hillary.

[Uncle Joe]

55. You and I differ as to how and why Trump came to power and you're on the OP I started.

If you can't face a hard truth, you can't make progress.

[George II]

68. Unfortunately YOU feel that trump came into power because of a woman who President Obama....

...said was the most qualified candidate for President EVER. Your reasons are all out there, and it's not very supportive of her or Democrats.

Sorry you don't agree with President Obama and extol the virtues of TFG. I thought we were here to support Democrats.

[progressoid]

98. Being qualified doesn't cut it.

Al Gore was qualified to be President too. John Kerry was. Etc.

Winning elections isn't just about being qualified.

[betsuni]

70. What "hard truth"?

[lapucelle]

74. Well, there is this data from the general election. Maybe that's the "hard truth"?

Link to tweet

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://cces.gov.harvard.edu/pages/welcome-cooperative-congressional-election-study
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi%3A10.7910/DVN/GDF6Z0

[Demsrule86]

83. I don't want to refight the primary... so I can't really reply except to point out

that voting in a primary and voting in a general are completely different things. Winning a state in a primary does not mean that one can win the same state in a General election especially if the numbers are quite close. For example, a Democratic presidential candidate will always win WVA in a primary; however, no Democrat has won a presidential General election in WVA for decades and IMHO that won't change anytime soon.

[lapucelle]

90. None of that changes the hard truth of the general election data.

As for voting in a hypothetical primary election, one cannot vote in both a Democratic and and a Republican race. One must choose.

But it does go without saying that each party will have winner in a state presidential primary regardless of whether that state is red, blue, or swing.

[Demsrule86]

97. And in the case of WVA, the person who wins the primary has no chance of winning the General.

We want Democrats in red states to participate of course but I would not consider such wins important for the General. The same is true of Iowa which is why I don't think they should be on of the first three states. And of course, they need a real primary, not a caucus.

[lapucelle]

101. That's very interesting, but the data cited about the Sanders to Trump voters

does not concern West Virginia or any other red state.

It should be remembered that there is one Democrat who consistently wins a very important national election in West Virginia, and that if the 2016 general election taught us anything, it is that poisoning the well serves Republican interests.

[Demsrule86]

104. I have no idea what you are talking about...my point was some vote for candidates in a

primary that they have no intention of supporting in a general for various reasons...thus you can't judge how a candidate will do in a general by looking at the support he/she garnered during the primary. This is especially true in red states where rat fucking goes on in the primaries.

[SunSeeker]

105. Are you suggesting that those Sanders to Trump voters were GOP ratfuckers? nt

[progressoid]

99. Those numbers are that out of the ordinary.

From this article...https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

A more important caveat, perhaps, is that other statistics suggest that this level of "defection" isn't all that out of the ordinary. Believing that all those Sanders voters somehow should have been expected to not vote for Trump may be to misunderstand how primary voters behave.

For example, Schaffner tells NPR that around 12 percent of Republican primary voters (including 34 percent of Ohio Gov. John Kasich voters and 11 percent of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio voters) ended up voting for Clinton. And according to one 2008 study, around 25 percent of Clinton primary voters in that election ended up voting for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the general. (In addition, the data showed 13 percent of McCain primary voters ended up voting for Obama, and 9 percent of Obama voters ended up voting for McCain — perhaps signaling something that swayed voters between primaries and the general election, or some amount of error in the data, or both.)

[lapucelle]

100. The hard truth remains that the number of Sanders to Trump votes exceeded

the Trump margin of victory in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

It should also be noted that the paragraph you cite concerns defection percentages, rather than Sanders to Trump voter numbers. It's important not to confuse or conflate the two in data analysis.

From the NPR article you cited:

[progressoid]

102. The hardest truth remains that

for a number of reasons, a highly qualified Clinton lost to the worst GOP candidate in a century.

While some denizens of DU are obsessed with one reason Clinton lost, she cites numerous reasons in her book.

In Hillary Clinton's new book "What Happened" she details the experience of her 2016 campaign, and tries to answer the question posed by the title: what happened that caused her to lose the election?

In the book, and in news appearances, Clinton has pinned her loss on several different factors, such as how journalists covered the election, former FBI Director James Comey, and the questions asked at debates.

Here are the 16 reasons Hillary says she lost:

1. Herself: In her book, Hillary blames her "damn emails," her remarks about putting coal miners out of business, and calling Trump's supporters "deplorable."

2. Russia: "What Putin wanted to do was...influence our election, and he's not exactly fond of strong women, so you add that together and that's pretty much what it means."

3. The DNC: "I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party. It was bankrupt...I had to inject money into it - the DNC - to keep it going."

4. Sexism and misogyny: "Sexism and misogyny played a role in the 2016 presidential election. Exhibit A is that the flagrantly sexist candidate won."

5. etc

Remember the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) voters in '08? They outnumbered the Sanders' voters who switched sides. Luckily Obama was able to make up the difference so their defection is largely forgotten. Had Obama lost, I wonder how many people would be pointing fingers at Clinton supporters.

[lapucelle]

103. Yes, well someone up thread seems to think that his opinion

concerning his perception of HRC's personal traits is the root cause and a "hard truth".

He asserts that his opinion is "truth" and explains accepting his opinion as "truth" will help a poster to "progress".



===================================================================================