2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAmazing but true, Bernie is now raising more $$$ than Hillary. If it continues, this could be big.
$30 million raised in January. $3 million raised just in the past 24 hours alone. Even after Iowa, Bernie's war chest is overflowing, whereas Hillary reportedly spent 90% of her money to secure her "tie" in Iowa. She is probably strapped for cash and will soon have to go back to Wall Street to beg for more. For a candidate whose entire campaign rests on slick marketing and spin, Hillary needs to outspend Bernie. The fact that Bernie can now outspend Hillary - at least for the time being - is huge.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)... while the young and well off white males lean towards Sanders.
Of course he's rasing more money
jfern
(5,204 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)it out. Just to see what it's like living the life of this berniebro.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)uponit7771
(90,359 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)so it must be true.
Remind me again, what Hillary's average donation?
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)I feel so.........reassured.
Have a lovely evening where ever your reality is.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)I hope they get paid well for the damage that they do.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)uponit7771
(90,359 posts)Are in hrc camp nationally
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1130100
jfern
(5,204 posts)Not nationally, which are mostly people not paying much attention since they don't vote for a couple of months.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)But Bernie has shown that he's received more donations from women than Clinton has, so you're already full of it.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)uponit7771
(90,359 posts)white_wolf
(6,238 posts)uponit7771
(90,359 posts)Flying Phoenix
(114 posts)uponit7771
(90,359 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)uponit7771
(90,359 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)my apologies but I've yet to read anything you're written here that was factual
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)Hillary leads
22 points with women - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clintons-advantage-hits-campaign-low-lags-trust-leading/story?id=36524847
50 points with blacks and Latinos - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/19/bernie-sanders-gains-on-hillary-clinton-in-a-new-poll-but-its-not-all-good-news-for-him/
With LGBT endorsements - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/19/hillary-clinton-is-endorsed-by-largest-lgbt-rights-group/
The polling data on LGBT community is poor so I'm going by the endorsements
The poor - Sanders leads Clinton on poor whites not with poor and Hispanics... so the split here isn't as large - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/upshot/bernie-sanders-is-making-surprising-gains-with-less-affluent-whites.html
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)With the HRC. I'm not a fan of them or GLAAD.
Philos
(85 posts)Has been debunked many times. It's more like wishful thinking at this point.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)uponit7771
(90,359 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)mucifer
(23,559 posts)msongs
(67,436 posts)This is money from regular citizens .... It's as low level as donations can be ...
EDIT: Either you already knew that, or you didn't ... either way, not good ...
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,335 posts)Wait. You serious?
frylock
(34,825 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)DUzy. The threads tonight should make the greatest hits list.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)otoh,
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Response to reformist2 (Original post)
mucifer This message was self-deleted by its author.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)every other day as much as I can. K&R
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Hillary is Blockbuster. Sanders is Netflix. Time to embrace the future.
white_wolf
(6,238 posts)I guess I'm just nostalgic, but I miss video stores.
senz
(11,945 posts)And I still love bookstores and magazine stands. Sweet little pleasures.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)And Sanders is an 18TB NAS running a Plex streaming server pushing content to a smartphone that in turn Chromecasts it to the television. Just saying.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 3, 2016, 03:02 AM - Edit history (1)
While money's influence on public policy enacted by those who are in office is enormously substantial, studies show that money's influence on election results have been grossly overstated.
After New Hampshire, Clinton will likely dominate and the race will be decided by Super Tuesday.
ErisDiscordia
(443 posts)and what did she get for it? A fraction of a % win.
No, my friend, how one uses what resources one has is the ultimate test of viability. What we are seeing is an epic failure in motion.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)In addition to the backing of Big/Corporate Money and endorsements from elected officials, Clinton has several other things going for her. She's very popular among Democrats (in spite of being very polarizing nationally), has the potential to become the first woman POTUS, has the experience of running national campaigns and has an expansive ground game.
I'm not a Clinton fan myself, but her massive lead in states that follow New Hampshire is undeniable. Sanders, as all underdogs must, has put all his eggs in the IA-NH basket in hopes that winning one or both would produce positive media coverage and momentum. His camp has done a remarkable job, but Clinton will coast to the nomination--I suspect the race will essentially be over following Super Tuesday.
Money's influence on elected officials is depressingly substantial. But, again, its influence on election results has been overstated--you can easily Google articles that back that up.
As I wrote at another site:
I'd suggest having everyone in the US vote on the same day just like in the general election. And no caucuses, which are ripe for shenanigans. I suppose underdog candidates would have even less of an opportunity to make a splash and build momentum. Sanders has been able to put so much focus on IA and NH in hopes that winning one or both will garner him positive media coverage and momentum. This only masks the reality he faces after NH. The reality that Clinton has a *massive* lead in virtually every state that follows NH, according to polls.
As Bernard Chazelle wrote years ago, the US has leftists but no Left. Leftists haven't laid the groundwork for broad systemic change. There must be a daily struggle, which I acknowledge is no easy task given how many are focused on simply making ends meet (which, by the by, doesn't completely excuse the amount of attention given to mindless entertainment). Sanders's popularity aside, hoping every 4 or 8 years that some relatively non-neoliberal candidate will be nominated and fix everything is poor strategy, to put it mildly.
The dominance of the likes of Clinton/Obama/Kerry/Gore (i.e., neoliberals) is symptomatic of our culture. Bestowing certain states with preeminence so as to potentially give a boost to an underdog (and a boost to a corporate media that benefits from a prolonged 'horse race') is neither a sensible nor sufficient way to address our diseased culture.
ErisDiscordia
(443 posts)but I think there's a new breeze blowing. And I hope, for all our sakes, it's strong enough.
cali
(114,904 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)or get a loan from the Foundation. Or give another "speech" to Goldman Sachs.
Whereas, Bernie is dependent on the American people. On us.
BigGLiberal
(102 posts)studyshare
(49 posts)$800 haircuts, penthouse suites, private jets....shutter. Yea, she is a real worker for the people right there. <eyes roll>
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Bernie has donors from 99% of the population who he can go to anytime for funds...they aren't maxed out and can give small donations constantly.
We will beat the 1%. 99% > 1%!
Now you see our power! Iowa and $3 million in one day.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE