Why isn't Sanders raising money for downticket Dems?

[woolldog]

42 million came in last month. Why isn't he helping out other Dems with that $$?

[hrmjustin]

1. Because he does not give a damn about the Democratic party.

It is all about him.

[woolldog]

4. yup

[COLGATE4]

5. Yep. The Democratic Party is simply a vehicle of

convenience for him to make a Presidential bid. He is not a member and couldn't care less about the Party.

[CorporatistNation]

28. BULLSH**! As A Former "Down Ticket" Dem... The Party ONLY Gives Support To "ESTABLISHMENT" TOADIES

NEVER PROGRESSIVES!

[COLGATE4]

31. For a fact the Party doesn't give support

to people who aren't members. BTW, shouting is rude.

[brooklynite]

36. So if I can point to an example of where the Party gave support to a progressive...

...your Ehlers argument falls apart?

[virtualobserver]

49. no access to the Democratic Party database unless you are running against DWS and shamed into it

[brooklynite]

65. ...which has nothing to do with her opponent being a progressive...

...it has to do with running against an incumbent. They'd do the same thing with a Blue Dog running against Alan Grayson.

Feel free to complain about how inappropriate Party loyalty is, but that has nothing to do with your previous diatribe.

[virtualobserver]

69. why should I give to the DNC if they won't provide access to party information....

to the House or Senate candidate that I prefer?

Why should I give to the DNC if they help fund a candidate who is publicly trashing my preferred candidate for President?

[brooklynite]

77. I don't care if you give to the DNC at all...

...but the OP was about Sanders not doing anything for either the Party OR any of its candidates.

[virtualobserver]

90. yes, but we are funding Bernie..He is getting a tiny number of donors who even max out at $2700....

much less $5400.....No one gets any "help" from Hillary unless they give her the maximum legal amount of $5400....

I certainly haven't maxed out, but I have also given to individual campaigns during this cycle.

With the aptly named "Hillary Victory Fund" , if I had given the combined total of all my donations to her.....100% would have been in the pocket of her campaign....not a dime anywhere else.

This is a gimmick which convinces lower level Hillary donors that the fund helps the party in general, which it doesn't unless you are a wealthy donor. Nothing gets to the state parties unless $38,800 is donated.

Based on that, her fund is dependent on individuals with a lot of spare cash, and very little is spread out beyond Hillary. That is my point.

[brooklynite]

92. Bernie Sanders could right the terms of the JFA any way he wanted to...

...I've contributed to JFAs which allocated money equally, or in $250 chunks.

Bottom line continues to be: Sanders has done nothing for other candidates. No fundraising, no endorsements, no joint appearances.

[virtualobserver]

96. Yes, he could screw his own candidacy as you suggest, but Hillary is just taking care of herself....

The best thing that he can do for other candidates is win the nomination, so that Hillary will not be an anchor around their necks.

[brooklynite]

98. And yet, every candidate I've talked to wants to run with Hillary at the top

[virtualobserver]

101. they are in the bubble.....they will come to their senses

[brooklynite]

102. Most of the candidates I support are non-incumbents...

...how did they get in the bubble already?

[virtualobserver]

103. it is a big bubble

[LiberalFighter]

82. The DNC is not publicly trashing Sanders.

As for access the challenger needs to demonstrate viability. That is done by winning the primary. There is a different criteria when an incumbent is not involved.

[virtualobserver]

91. I'll donate to the DNC in the fall, not while they support the opponent of my chosen candidate

[LiberalFighter]

95. You don't even have to donate to them.

Donate to the candidate directly or to a PAC that supports your type of candidates.

[virtualobserver]

97. I'm already doing that

[MADem]

114. At the end of the day, that will be a wasted effort, I suspect.

They don't want to admit that Sanders is an Establishment Toady. It will ruin their day.

He takes that ugly money though--he took it straight from HILLPAC in 2006, too!!! He NEEDED that Democratic money to win that race--one of the most expensive in VT history, it was.

[MADem]

81. OK, they gave money to Sanders--so he's an "ESTABLISHMENT TOADY" then (your words) ? nt

[bowens43]

14. Nor do I, the party has moved so far to the right that I no longer will vote a party ticket

Oh and contrary to your statement, unlike your dear leader , it's not about him . it's about the american people Hillary is the most self centered , egotistical person ever to run for the office. Her ego dwarfs trump's

[virtualobserver]

17. Hillary isn't giving a dime to the Democratic party......She takes the first $5400 for herself.

It's all about her.

[TheBlackAdder]

48. That's like children giving $5 to "Hands Across America" and the first $5 went to "Admin Costs!"

.


No one else benefited from those small donations, just the members of the charity.

Of course, they didn't really publicize that too much, that the charity helped themselves first!


.

[virtualobserver]

54. This is even worse since not many people have the capability of donating $5400....

but you are right it is the same principle.....they don't call it the HILLARY victory fund for nothing.

[SidDithers]

26. +1...nt

Sid

[Perogie]

27. correction, he doesn't give a damn about Dems that sold out.

[woolldog]

59. Surely there are *some* downticket Dems who meet his purity standards?

Or is the entire Dem party corrupt? And if so, then why is he running as a Dem??

[Henhouse]

117. Careful....I asked that on another thread and a Bernie supporter went nuts....n/t

[Bodych]

63. Absolutely False

The people who donated directly to Sanders could have donated their money to others in the Dem Party.

They. Did. Not.

Connect the dots instead of trying to impress us with your disingenuous indignation.

[Gothmog]

110. Agreed

[senz]

113. He gives a gigantic damn about the American people.

None of this is "about him."

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Because he hasn't until recently realized the benefit of buying superdelegate votes. n/t

[woolldog]

3. you call it buying votes,

I call it loyalty.

Clinton has unselfishly helped out lots of fellow Dems over the years and it is paying dividends.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. "Business as usual" "Undemocratic oligarchic douchebaggery" Tomato, tomahto.

[arcane1]

15. He's loyal to his donors, like me. What's wrong with that?

Is this more whining about "he's not a real Dem!!!1"

[bowens43]

16. no , it's buying votes.

It's all about ignoring the will of the people and catering to the elite limousine l'liberals'. Hillary has NEVER done anything that was unselfish. Everything she has done was calculated to increase the likelihood of her seizing power. That is all she cares about. Power.

[snowy owl]

20. If she is so unselfish and a shoo-in, why not debate when the Amer. People can hear her?

Besides, she has all that superpac money.

[woolldog]

22. how many debates have there been already?

more than enough. Don't know why a front-runner with her lead would agree to debate at all.

The American people are just as capable of tuning into the debate if it's on during a basketball game as at any other time, if they are truly interested.

[snowy owl]

25. In P primary, can't have enough debates! All Americans deserve to hear candidates. Period.

It's NY's turn to have one.

[unapatriciated]

44. I guess 26 in 2008 was way too obsessive

1 Election 2008
2 2008 Democratic candidates
3 Candidates in debate
3.1 Withdrawn candidates
4 Debate table
5 Debates
5.1 April 26, 2007 – Orangeburg, South Carolina, South Carolina State University
5.2 June 3, 2007 - CNN 7:00pm EDT - Goffstown, New Hampshire, Saint Anselm College
5.3 June 28, 2007 - PBS - Washington, D.C., Howard University
5.4 July 12, 2007–Detroit, Michigan
5.5 July 23, 2007 - CNN - Charleston, South Carolina, The Citadel military college
5.6 August 4, 2007 – Chicago, Illinois
5.7 August 7, 2007 – Chicago, Illinois
5.8 August 9, 2007 – Los Angeles, California
5.9 August 19, 2007 – Des Moines, Iowa
5.10 September 9, 2007 – Coral Gables, Florida, University of Miami
5.11 September 12, 2007
5.12 September 20, 2007 – Davenport, Iowa
5.13 September 26, 2007 – Hanover, New Hampshire, Dartmouth College
5.14 October 30, 2007 - NBC 9:00pm EDT - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Drexel University
5.15 November 15, 2007 - CNN - Las Vegas, Nevada
5.16 December 4, 2007 - NPR (radio only) - Des Moines, Iowa
5.17 December 13, 2007 – Johnston, Iowa
5.18 January 5, 2008 - ABC 8:45pm EST - Goffstown, New Hampshire, Saint Anselm College
5.19 January 15, 2008 - MSNBC 6:00pm PST - Las Vegas, Nevada, College of Southern Nevada
5.20 January 21, 2008 - CNN 8:00pm EST - Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
5.21 January 31, 2008 - CNN 5:00pm PDT - Hollywood, California
5.22 February 2, 2008 - MTV 6:00pm EST - MTV Myspace Debate
5.23 February 21, 2008 - CNN 7:00pm CST - Austin, Texas, University of Texas at Austin
5.24 February 26, 2008 - MSNBC 9:00pm EST - Cleveland, Ohio, Cleveland State University
5.25 April 13, 2008 - CNN 8:00pm EDT - Grantham, Pennsylvania, Messiah College
5.26 April 16, 2008 - ABC 8:00pm EDT - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2008

Back in 2008 much was being said about the presidential debates and even though there were more than four times as many in that cycle as there are now, the Clinton camp was adamant about scheduling even more. They recognized the benefit of being in front of the camera. I think we can quickly dismiss any talk that Clinton is not part of the decision making process about the debate schedule for 2016. Back in 2008 when her camp was accusing Obama of avoiding her, Obama was making it clear that he or his camp were involved in approving the debate schedule.

http://bandsforbernie.co/in-2008-letter-clinton-camp-suggests-avoiding-debates-might-be-un-american/


i guess it is ok if it is Clinton who wants more.

[MADem]

55. UH OH....according to YOUR citation, there were only SIX DEBATES in total between TWO candidates.

The other debates had as many as EIGHT candidates all vying for camera time. It's not the same thing. When you have to divide the time up between a half dozen people or more, it's not a debate--it's a live Q and A.


So I think your point might not be taken.

[unapatriciated]

74. And she didn't think six were enough in 2008

Clinton put out an ad slamming Obama for not agreeing to more.
So this statement only mattered in 2008.

Wisconsin deserves to hear BOTH candidates debate the issues that matter.

[MADem]

79. Well, golly--she was LOSING. The LOSER always wants more debates!

But if you're going to make the "The people need to hear..." argument, they've heard plenty. More than they heard, in total, from the two final candidates in 2008.

And lately, Sanders has been lying, or having his surrogates lie. Mark Shields took 'em to the woodshed the other night for his gross misstatement of facts.


Why let Trump know just how she intends to handle someone who makes shit up and tells lies?

[unapatriciated]

84. so she only cares about fairness when she is loosing.

We can debate who is more truthful and go in circles of he said she said. Bottom line she has had a few untruths herself.

[MADem]

99. It's LOSING, not LOOSING--Loosing is what happens to bowels.

You confuse "caring" with a political tactic that is TERRIBLY common to candidates looking for a Hail Mary pass to gain momentum.

This is a political tactic--and Sanders is pushing it to beat the band--because he is LOSING.

Like she was in 08.


It's not the losing that is really important, big picture--it's how the candidate behaves AFTER losing:

This is how Hillary handled it.

[unapatriciated]

107. Thanks for the spelling correction

Clinton does not yet have enough delegates for the nomination (super delegates are not in play yet). So I wouldn't be so quick to call him a loser. When that happens she will have mine and I'm sure Sanders support.

You have a really good night.

[MADem]

112. He's in worse shape by FAR than she was at this same time in the process.

He's losing.

[Perogie]

29. Her help comes with a price, there is nothing unselfish about it

[woolldog]

39. what price?

is she breaking kneecaps?

[Gwhittey]

75. Ha Perogie hit a nerve it looks like

[demmiblue]

6. Because he is running a Presidential campaign...

and doesn't want others to pick up his debt like Hillary did in 2008?

He is paying his tab, while Hillary took money away from the party to pay for hers.

[Red Oak]

8. Which "downticket" dems are doing ANYTHING for the Sanders campaign?

I wouldn't raise a bunch of money for people that are working against me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. +1 Best answer.

Kinda like giving your keys to the burglar.

[MADem]

115. Maybe you don't understand what "downticket" means. It sure sounds that way from your comment. nt

[Red Oak]

116. Want to answer my question or deflect with your nonsense?

[phantom power]

9. Because it's more expensive to come from behind than maintain a lead?

Because he doesn't know how much he's going to spend yet?

Because the larger party apparatus hasn't given him any help, and he's running on whatever he can raise?

[woolldog]

13. Wait a minute...

the "larger party apparatus" needs to give him help in order for him to help downticket dems? Huh?

[WhiteTara]

23. He's using the Party's voter VAN program

that targets democrats in every state. That's not nothing. It is a very powerful tool.

[MADem]

35. That's why I was contacted by them right after that data got....errrr.....mis-appropriated, perhaps?

I'm on the petty cash donor list w/HRC.

Very weird, that.

[WhiteTara]

41. I've gotten many soliciting emails

though I have never signed up for his list. I have no idea how he came across me although I am a registered Democrat.

[MADem]

58. Probably the same way he got my information.

And I don't think someone just put me on his list because they thought I'd like him, either.

I hope, when this is all done, that they really do some digging into that--I found that whole episode to be Rovian in the extreme. But hey, what else do you expect from the Tad and Jeff Show?

[WhiteTara]

66. I don't know about Jeff but Tad brought us

Super delegates that Bernie used to hate.

[kennetha]

11. He's a one man revolution

[MADem]

37. Revolting!!!

[arcane1]

12. Good. When I donate to a campaign, I want the campaign to spend it n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. ^THIS^

[Milestone]

33. +1

[WhiteTara]

18. I was told that they could use his model

and raise money that way. And he doesn't like the DNC. I'm so happy he joined the party.

[MADem]

32. If he doesn't like the DNC, he shouldn't sign agreements w/them and want to attend THEIR convention.

If you "join the party" you are JOINING THE DNC.

smh.

[woolldog]

42. You would think this goes withthout saying.

Sanders is like the guy who crashes your party and then complains about the food not being good enough.

[MADem]

45. HA!!!!!

"Ewwwww.....PAPER plates? And silk flowers for the centerpieces? What??? No CAVIAR????"

LOL!!!!!!

[noretreatnosurrender]

93. I thought you were a fan of reciprocity?

Sanders is running as a Democrat instead of an Independent. The Democratic Party seemed to like this idea because they didn't want to run against a third party in the General Election. Are the Democrats the only ones who are supposed to benefit from this arrangement? Surely not. Both parties agreed and both parties should get something out of it.

[woolldog]

100. I'm an even greater fan of good manners. nt

[noretreatnosurrender]

108. Yeah

I didn't think you were.

[woolldog]

111. Good day to you.

[snowy owl]

24. Hey, I sent money to Canova in FL. I'll choose my own downticket dems if you don't mind.

[arcane1]

38. Same here. I doubt any primary challengers are getting this Clinton cash n/t

[virtualobserver]

40. We certainly can't trust DWS....I gave to Pramila Jayapal and Zephyr Teachout

[snowy owl]

50. Also FEINGOLD - a tried and true dem from Wisconsin

[suffragette]

61. Soooo glad Jayapal is running for McDermott's seat. Sad to lose him, but

Hoping she will win!

[MADem]

30. It's very puzzling. He's certainly done this before, when he was taking a cut from the

Big Spenders at Palm Beach and Martha's Vineyard. It's not like he's unfamiliar with the Big Money people and he hasn't attended these kinds of things in the past.

He's also taken plenty from them, directly and through Democratic PACS. Most notably, he took donations from Hillary Clinton's HILLPAC for his 2006 Senate run.

He also signed an agreement with the DNC to raise money for the up-and-comers.


I think his Slash-And-Burn senior staff wants to keep up the fiction that he hasn't benefited from One Percenter cash, and they're giving him shitty advice. Either that, or he ENJOYS burning bridges. It makes no sense, otherwise.

He doesn't seem to realize that if this attempt of his to grab the brass ring goes pear shaped, his Twenty Seven Dollar buddies aren't going to be there for him when he needs them for his parochial re-election campaign. And he likely WILL be a) Primaried and b) VIGOROUSLY contested in a general election--maybe from two fronts (a Democrat, AND a Republican, opponent). Last time out, the Democrats waved away any opposition and smoothed the way for him--they might not do that if he continues to deride them.

You don't stick a knife between someone's ribs and then expect them to be your pal later on.

[noretreatnosurrender]

34. Any Money Hillary

donates to other Dems comes with strings attached to it.

[woolldog]

47. as it should.

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, when I can. The concept of reciprocity is hard-wired into our brains.

[noretreatnosurrender]

70. Speak For Yourself

It's not hard-wired into everyone's brain.

[woolldog]

71. Yes it is.

In Robert Cialdini’s Influence: Science and Practice (2009), he describes the powerful rule of reciprocity in the second chapter of his book. As one of the most influential dynamics of human behavior, the reciprocation rule essentially states that if someone gives something to us, we feel obligated to repay that debt. There are several characteristics of this rule, which make it phenomenally compelling - the rules’ historical and cultural universality, the impact on individuals, groups, politics and culture, the potential for exploitation and compliance, and disparities of indebtedness and concessions with the rule.

The rule of reciprocity was fundamental in human evolution. Cialdini notes the work of anthropologist Richard Leakey, who considers the rule of reciprocity as a defining factor of what it means to be human, "We are human because our ancestors learned to share their food and their skills in an honored network of obligation" (2009, p. 19). By obligating the recipient to an act of future repayment, the rule of reciprocation allows one person to give something to another with the confidence that it is not being lost. The mutually beneficial exchanges of our ancestors evolved into a sound interdependence among humans. As a result, people were (and are) trained from an early age to comply with the rule of reciprocity.


Interestingly, the rule of reciprocation not only has longstanding roots in the human psyche, its’ universality applies cross culturally. According to Cialdini, anthropologists report that the rule of reciprocity is apparent in all human societies (p. 19). Although different cultures may employ the rule in various ways, it still exists. For those who “fail to conform” to the reciprocity rule, public disapproval is likely to follow. Researcher found in one cross-cultural study that breaking the reciprocity rule in the other direction, giving something and refusing payment or
gifts in return, is disliked, as well (p. 34).

<....>

References

Cialdini, R.B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

deBecker, G. (1999). The gift of fear: Survival signals that protect us from violence. New York: Random House.

Soules, M. (2012). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Media Studies. Retrieved from http://www.media-studies.ca/index.htm.

https://sites.google.com/site/724ecialdiniwiki/chapter-1-weapons-of-influence/chapter-2-reciprocation

[noretreatnosurrender]

85. Hillary

is giving money to buy support for herself and the money actually comes right back to her. You honestly compare this to what you posted? Wow. Do you also think that when a politician votes for a piece of legislation because someone gave them a bribe to do so that when the politician is arrested for accepting a bribe he can tell the judge that he is just doing it because it's hard-wired into our psyche to reciprocate? Your generalization about reciprocity does not fit the facts.

[WhiteTara]

46. I wonder why he doesn't campaign with other candidates

that would be supportive of his message...Donna Edwards for one.

[snowy owl]

51. Maybe because he's trying to get nominated?

I've send money to Edwards. I like her. Why doesn't the party bundle and support down-ticket dems?

[WhiteTara]

64. What do you think Hillary is doing?

Those fund raisers are not just for her and she supports the party as well as other democrats.

[snowy owl]

87. Hillary's $18 Million "Victory Fund" could be spent helping her campaign

Tell me who her victory fund as helped? I don't think it has been spent yet.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/3/1465719/-Hillary-s-18-Million-Victory-Fund-could-be-spent-helping-her-campaign

Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

[mcar]

52. And yet he wants them a superdelegates

[snowy owl]

53. Hillary's $18 Million "Victory Fund" could be spent helping her campaign

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/3/1465719/-Hillary-s-18-Million-Victory-Fund-could-be-spent-helping-her-campaign

[noretreatnosurrender]

89. According to This It Is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1631779

[grasswire]

56. the OP is disingenuous

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511631779

[Bodych]

57. The Better Question Is...

...Why aren't millions of Americans donating to down-ticket Dems instead of directly to Bernie Sanders?

Imagine how it would look to these millions if Bernie redirected their donations.

The OP's question is a vibrant-red herring.

[geek tragedy]

60. same reason he sneered at the idea of being a Democrat and refused to help

any Democrats anywhere get elected.

where was he when Donna Edwards made her first run?

Just imagine how things would look for him in Maryland if he had shown an interest in helping progressives like Donna Edwards.

Edwards, of course, endorsed Hillary Clinton.

[unapatriciated]

62. Because we donated directly to our candidate not the DNC

We are also quite capable of donating directly to our candidates of choice down ticket.

This article explains when and why Clinton started asking for donations to the DNC and why both Sanders and O'Malley were not in the same position to do so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fortifies-ties-and-fund-raising-with-democratic-committee.html?

[GardeningGal]

67. Why should he?

The down ticket dems are refusing to respect their constituents when they vote for Hillary rather than Bernie in the states where
Bernie won.

I just received an email from a dem here in Colorado and you can bet I won't be giving or voting for any dem that goes against the will of the people that they represent.

[matt819]

68. Maybe because he's not yet the nominee

My subject line aside, can a rational person here, i.e., not a Hillary supporter, tell me the history of candidates for the nomination funnel funds to down ticket candidates.

[TheDormouse]

72. The artful smear nt

[TheDormouse]

73. (a) How many downticket Dems have endorsed him? and (b)

and even more relevant, Has he won the nomination yet?

It's all hands on deck to win the friggin nomination first!

[Hiraeth]

76. Because until he is the nominee he has no coattails for them to hang on to. n/t

[dchill]

78. If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you'd ask...

Why isn't Sanders donating cash to the HRC Campaign? The DNC is all set up to help Hillary and her establiDems. You know all about this, I know you do. So get another ax to grind.

[CalvinballPro]

80. Tad Devine doesn't get a commission on money donated to Congressional campaigns, that's why. nt

[Autumn]

83. That 42 million was donated to Bernie's presidential campaign. What has the party apparatus

done to get him elected? Many Sanders supporters donate to down ticket Democrats.

[rock]

86. He's not a Dem

What's the question?

[pat_k]

88. Plenty of time after July

We don't give him donations for other races. We give it so he can create a power base from which he can more effectively act. He needs all the cash he can get to do it.

I have little doubt that as nominee, he will select, endorse, and promote candidates for the US House, Senate, and other key offices who can defeat Republicans in their districts, who share his values, and who want his support.

And if he doesn't win the nomination, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he formed an organization in the model of DFA, focused and getting liberal Dems elected to all levels of government.

I don't even know if any "down ticket" Dems have sought his support. I would hate to see him funneling money into the DNC or the DCCC, unless of course there are some major changes. I'd like to see a more selective approach that would just be a major distraction now.

And that's what this latest "selfish" meme is all about. It's a distraction.

Can you imagine all the crap it would stir up at this point? Why did you support this primary candidate over this other one. Why are you promoting this race or that race and not this one? Isn't so and so more in line with your positions? Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Just what we need now.

Shhhheeesh

[w4rma]

94. I'm never donating to the DNC with the current Clintonites in charge of it.

And I don't want resources diverted there, either. They have done the opposite of what I want done ever since Obama kicked Dean out.

I'd rather donate directly to each candidate.

[oldandhappy]

106. x2

[Red Oak]

119. x3

[litlbilly]

104. another recycled meme of the day. pathetic

[oldandhappy]

105. I anyone 'down ticket' supporting his ideas?

Talking the talk? Supporting ideas for people?

The DNC has certainly dissed him.

Maybe he would be more interested if he could see the movement happening down ticket. What do you think?

[Gothmog]

109. Sanders will be unsuccessful in trying to flip super delegates

[PeaceNikki]

118. It isn't just about financial help, but help with resources, guidance, connections

That's sustainable stuff that can be worth far more than cash in the right hands. The Clinton campaign works hard to build up down ticket Democrats to strengthen the party, the country and coalitions.

[Yuugal]

120. If he gives any to DWS's DNC,

she will lend it out at 3-400% and poor progressive candidates shouldn't be victimized like that by predatory scum. I gave Tim Canova and Zephyr Teachout money so far and will give more. First I need to concentrate on Bernie though, so he gets 90% of my donations until he wins this.

I want him to spend every cent I give him and then ask for more which we will all gladly give.