|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 03 2016 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:And it starts... Show nested quote +Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 2 points in a head-to-head matchup, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey.
Trump gets 41 percent to Clinton's 39 percent in the new poll.
This poll differs from recent polling, which all show Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, holding a lead over her Republican counterpart. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Clinton has a 7.3 point lead over Trump, 47.4 to 40.1 percent.
Just last week, Clinton and Trump tied in another Rasmussen poll in which each won 38 percent. In that survey, voters were also allowed to answer that they would stay home and not vote for either candidate.
According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 15 percent of respondents would prefer some other candidate and 5 percent were undecided.
The recent poll also found that Trump does twice as well among Democrats as Clinton does among Republicans in a matchup between the two candidates.
Trump takes 15 percent support of Democrats in a general election matchup between Trump and Clinton, but Clinton takes just 8 percent of GOP voters.
Trump has 73 percent support of Republicans, and Clinton has 77 percent support of Democrats in a matchup.
The survey was conducted from April 27 to 28 among 1,000 likely voters. The margin of error is 3 percentage points. Source
Who cares about polls like this, she's not even going to be the nominee, right? Bernie will convince super delegates to save us from democracy, right? Why even bother posting this?
|
On May 03 2016 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2016 23:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 02 2016 14:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2016 13:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 02 2016 13:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2016 13:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 02 2016 13:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2016 12:46 Mohdoo wrote:On May 02 2016 12:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's saying after 4 years and Citizens United is still active will you be pissed or glad that the Democrats who are in power are using it. I don't think either Clinton or Bernie would have the ability to somehow get rid of money in politics in 4 years. I also think 4 years in the future is plainly silly to speculate about. Did we see this election coming 4 years ago? 4 years in politics is like a different era. So four years is an "era", but not enough time to get something done that 2 out of the 3 viable presidential candidates are already doing and the other claims she supports, done? Don't think that quite adds up. I'm curious who you think would stop it and how? High attendance in local elections is the only way to get it overturned. Get the house and senate Blue, get a Blue president, and then have the congressmen pressure the executive branch to push for the overturning of citizens united. You know, actual politics and not danke memes. Why is it so absurd to ask Hillary to join the other two viable candidates in not having superPAC's and not coordinating with them, and not using her Victory Fund like she has? I shouldn't have to convince the Democrat nominee to only exploit Citizens United as little as her Republican opponent (which, to date, is not at all). Right now if I was a Trump supporter I could be making the argument that Trump needs to get a superPAC, otherwise he's unilaterally disarming against a Democratic nominee that embraces their corrupting influence. If that doesn't raise a flag for Democrats I don't know what could on the topic of campaign finance. So you're saying that Hilary is more beholden to corporations than the guy who's corporation literally has his name on it? I'm saying she's exploiting CU more than any other candidate ever and that makes her a bad champion for campaign finance reform. Trump and his supporters are going to point that out frequently. That should raise some flags for Democrats imo. So the resourceful politician accused of getting stuff done will use all options at her disposal to get stuff done? What's trump going to do, "Oh, I don't believe in corporations using money doing politics, which is why the Trump Corporation is using its money to run a politician for president" You're being really weird right now, like, more than usual. Cool off bro. That's an interesting use of an "ends justify the means" argument. How much has Trump's corporation donated to his campaign?
How so? Losing an election means you get 0% chance to change the system, winning the election means you have more than 0% chance to change the system. Bernie willing to lose in order to have the moral high ground is 100% the reason why he's so unwanted by america. More than 2million more democrats want Hilary over Bernie, and instead of giving the American people what they want Bernie instead buries his head in the sand and holds on to his non-voting supporters for dear life. Is that the kind of person we want to be in charge of nukes? To be in charge of defending us from nukes? Is the personality of "willing to lose so I don't get my hands dirty" the kind of person you want representing america, or is that elitist, smug, old white person personality of not listening to the opinions of others 100% the reason that conservatives don't work with liberals.
Also, are you also suggesting that Trump will not be influenced by Trump? It doesn't matter how much of Trump's funds are officially or unofficially donated--Trump is 100% influenced by Trump.
|
Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised.
...But it is perhaps more notable that the arrangement has prompted concerns among some participating state party officials and their allies. They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party.
“It’s a one-sided benefit,” said an official with one participating state party. The official, like those with several other state parties, declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
In fact, the DNC, which has pushed back aggressively on charges that it is boosting Clinton at the expense of other Democrats, has advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told POLITICO.
“The DNC has given us some guidance on what they’re saying, but it’s not clear what we should be saying,” said the official. “I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits.”
Some fundraisers who work for state parties predict that the arrangement could actually hurt participating state parties. They worry that participating states that aren’t presidential battlegrounds and lack competitive Senate races could see very little return investment from the DNC or Clinton’s campaign, and are essentially acting as money laundering conduits for them. And for party committees in contested states, there’s another risk: they might find themselves unable to accept cash from rich donors whose checks to the victory fund counted towards their $10,000 donation limit to the state party in question — even if that party never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC.
Article
|
On May 03 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised.
...But it is perhaps more notable that the arrangement has prompted concerns among some participating state party officials and their allies. They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party.
“It’s a one-sided benefit,” said an official with one participating state party. The official, like those with several other state parties, declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
In fact, the DNC, which has pushed back aggressively on charges that it is boosting Clinton at the expense of other Democrats, has advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told POLITICO.
“The DNC has given us some guidance on what they’re saying, but it’s not clear what we should be saying,” said the official. “I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits.”
Some fundraisers who work for state parties predict that the arrangement could actually hurt participating state parties. They worry that participating states that aren’t presidential battlegrounds and lack competitive Senate races could see very little return investment from the DNC or Clinton’s campaign, and are essentially acting as money laundering conduits for them. And for party committees in contested states, there’s another risk: they might find themselves unable to accept cash from rich donors whose checks to the victory fund counted towards their $10,000 donation limit to the state party in question — even if that party never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC. Article
Very lacking in substance, details or confirmation.
|
On May 03 2016 01:17 LegalLord wrote:
If Trump clinches the nomination then loses to Hillary, how do you think that Cruz and Kasich will be considered in the next primary? Will people think of them as undermining the R party, or as brave heroes who stood up to the evil Trump, or will they simply just forget or not care?
Considering how ridiculed both of them are I don't see them ever getting into the good graces of the public ever again. Trump voters see Cruz as Lyin' Ted, a globalist shill that has no convictions or character and stands for absolutely nothing. The man is the essence of a lie in human form. Kasich they look at as a complete loser and spoiler of the election. There is literally no other candidate the Republicans could put forth atm to garner support without facing massive backlash. They've already tested Romney & Ryan. Not just the 2012 election, but this one as well they brought them out and poked at what the public response would be for either on the ticket and the response was overwhelmingly against. Here's something they tested on April 7th. Just open, click, see what he's trying to pull, see dislike bar, close. + Show Spoiler +
Down the line they won't be looked at as those who tried to stay in the race for the party & conservative values, because most Trump supporters have realized that the Republicans have been selling them out just as much as the Democrats. Trump voters are convincing (rightly so) their peers that the conservatives haven't had their back in a long time (if they ever did). That they really didn't stand for "conservative" values. They towed the against social change line, but still sold their country out in their eyes. That's not going to be forgiven.
|
On May 03 2016 03:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised.
...But it is perhaps more notable that the arrangement has prompted concerns among some participating state party officials and their allies. They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party.
“It’s a one-sided benefit,” said an official with one participating state party. The official, like those with several other state parties, declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
In fact, the DNC, which has pushed back aggressively on charges that it is boosting Clinton at the expense of other Democrats, has advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told POLITICO.
“The DNC has given us some guidance on what they’re saying, but it’s not clear what we should be saying,” said the official. “I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits.”
Some fundraisers who work for state parties predict that the arrangement could actually hurt participating state parties. They worry that participating states that aren’t presidential battlegrounds and lack competitive Senate races could see very little return investment from the DNC or Clinton’s campaign, and are essentially acting as money laundering conduits for them. And for party committees in contested states, there’s another risk: they might find themselves unable to accept cash from rich donors whose checks to the victory fund counted towards their $10,000 donation limit to the state party in question — even if that party never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC. Article Very lacking in substance, details or confirmation.
Unnamed sources are a big part of reporting. I am also slightly suspicious, but Politico has a good track record. So I think its reasonable to take it on good faith.
But also many state races have not started yet, so I question when those funds are normally handed out.
|
I agree with Testie. I also think it's hilarious that Trump is the one pulling a revolution here. The party is getting completely transformed. In an odd way, the republican party were the first ones to get money out of politics. Kind of on accident, lol. After this election, how the hell does anyone put on a campaign? As soon as big donors gather around, they are toxic.
Part of me wonders if, after this campaign, our elected officials will start actually working on campaign finance reform, for their own sake. "Establishment" and "Backed by corporations" are both now highly toxic qualities.
|
On May 03 2016 03:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 03:13 Mohdoo wrote:On May 03 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised.
...But it is perhaps more notable that the arrangement has prompted concerns among some participating state party officials and their allies. They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party.
“It’s a one-sided benefit,” said an official with one participating state party. The official, like those with several other state parties, declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
In fact, the DNC, which has pushed back aggressively on charges that it is boosting Clinton at the expense of other Democrats, has advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told POLITICO.
“The DNC has given us some guidance on what they’re saying, but it’s not clear what we should be saying,” said the official. “I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits.”
Some fundraisers who work for state parties predict that the arrangement could actually hurt participating state parties. They worry that participating states that aren’t presidential battlegrounds and lack competitive Senate races could see very little return investment from the DNC or Clinton’s campaign, and are essentially acting as money laundering conduits for them. And for party committees in contested states, there’s another risk: they might find themselves unable to accept cash from rich donors whose checks to the victory fund counted towards their $10,000 donation limit to the state party in question — even if that party never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC. Article Very lacking in substance, details or confirmation. Unnamed sources are a big part of reporting. I am also slightly suspicious, but Politico has a good track record. So I think its reasonable to take it on good faith. But also many state races have not started yet, so I question when those funds are normally handed out.
It's fair to say that she and her supporters have been greatly exaggerating how much she has been doing for state parties/down ballot dems. Not sure what exactly Moh is disputing though?
|
On May 03 2016 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 03:16 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2016 03:13 Mohdoo wrote:On May 03 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised.
...But it is perhaps more notable that the arrangement has prompted concerns among some participating state party officials and their allies. They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party.
“It’s a one-sided benefit,” said an official with one participating state party. The official, like those with several other state parties, declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
In fact, the DNC, which has pushed back aggressively on charges that it is boosting Clinton at the expense of other Democrats, has advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told POLITICO.
“The DNC has given us some guidance on what they’re saying, but it’s not clear what we should be saying,” said the official. “I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits.”
Some fundraisers who work for state parties predict that the arrangement could actually hurt participating state parties. They worry that participating states that aren’t presidential battlegrounds and lack competitive Senate races could see very little return investment from the DNC or Clinton’s campaign, and are essentially acting as money laundering conduits for them. And for party committees in contested states, there’s another risk: they might find themselves unable to accept cash from rich donors whose checks to the victory fund counted towards their $10,000 donation limit to the state party in question — even if that party never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC. Article Very lacking in substance, details or confirmation. Unnamed sources are a big part of reporting. I am also slightly suspicious, but Politico has a good track record. So I think its reasonable to take it on good faith. But also many state races have not started yet, so I question when those funds are normally handed out. It's fair to say that she and her supporters have been greatly exaggerating how much she has been doing for state parties/down ballot dems. Not sure what exactly Moh is disputing though?
They are unaccredited sources and very little hard data to back up most of the article. And also doesn’t provide any context for how things worked last presidential election. This could be totally normal and we wouldn’t know because the article doesn’t provide that insight.
|
On May 03 2016 02:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:And it starts... Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 2 points in a head-to-head matchup, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey.
Trump gets 41 percent to Clinton's 39 percent in the new poll.
This poll differs from recent polling, which all show Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, holding a lead over her Republican counterpart. According to the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Clinton has a 7.3 point lead over Trump, 47.4 to 40.1 percent.
Just last week, Clinton and Trump tied in another Rasmussen poll in which each won 38 percent. In that survey, voters were also allowed to answer that they would stay home and not vote for either candidate.
According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 15 percent of respondents would prefer some other candidate and 5 percent were undecided.
The recent poll also found that Trump does twice as well among Democrats as Clinton does among Republicans in a matchup between the two candidates.
Trump takes 15 percent support of Democrats in a general election matchup between Trump and Clinton, but Clinton takes just 8 percent of GOP voters.
Trump has 73 percent support of Republicans, and Clinton has 77 percent support of Democrats in a matchup.
The survey was conducted from April 27 to 28 among 1,000 likely voters. The margin of error is 3 percentage points. Source Who cares about polls like this, she's not even going to be the nominee, right? Bernie will convince super delegates to save us from democracy, right? Why even bother posting this?
Do you remember when Bernie's campaign was about "issues people care about"? I think that disastrous NYDN transcript was the tipping point where Bernie and his campaign straight gave up trying to win on the merits, and fully committed to running on Corruption and Unfairness. Bernie was revealed to be the policy emperor without any clothes, and simply stopped running on substantive issues because he couldn't defend them. Now we have to watch him and his campaign flail about slinging mud and burning the last of his money.
EDIT: Oh no, Hillary raises money near the limits of campaign finance law, just like every serious national politician ... vote Trump? I want someone actually playing to win at the helm of the Democratic party. Good on her for getting some pro lawyers and playing the game according to the rules that exist.
EDIT2:
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2013-12-03
Timmy = Trump (needs to win flashy)
Johnny = Bernie (playing to lose his own way)
Spike = Clinton (playing to win period)
|
On May 03 2016 03:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2016 03:16 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2016 03:13 Mohdoo wrote:On May 03 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised.
...But it is perhaps more notable that the arrangement has prompted concerns among some participating state party officials and their allies. They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party.
“It’s a one-sided benefit,” said an official with one participating state party. The official, like those with several other state parties, declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
In fact, the DNC, which has pushed back aggressively on charges that it is boosting Clinton at the expense of other Democrats, has advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told POLITICO.
“The DNC has given us some guidance on what they’re saying, but it’s not clear what we should be saying,” said the official. “I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits.”
Some fundraisers who work for state parties predict that the arrangement could actually hurt participating state parties. They worry that participating states that aren’t presidential battlegrounds and lack competitive Senate races could see very little return investment from the DNC or Clinton’s campaign, and are essentially acting as money laundering conduits for them. And for party committees in contested states, there’s another risk: they might find themselves unable to accept cash from rich donors whose checks to the victory fund counted towards their $10,000 donation limit to the state party in question — even if that party never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC. Article Very lacking in substance, details or confirmation. Unnamed sources are a big part of reporting. I am also slightly suspicious, but Politico has a good track record. So I think its reasonable to take it on good faith. But also many state races have not started yet, so I question when those funds are normally handed out. It's fair to say that she and her supporters have been greatly exaggerating how much she has been doing for state parties/down ballot dems. Not sure what exactly Moh is disputing though? They are unaccredited sources and very little hard data to back up most of the article. And also doesn’t provide any context for how things worked last presidential election. This could be totally normal and we wouldn’t know because the article doesn’t provide that insight.
I don't think it being "normal" would make it much better but I'm not sure what you guys are saying isn't backed up?
|
On May 03 2016 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 03:29 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2016 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2016 03:16 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2016 03:13 Mohdoo wrote:On May 03 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised.
...But it is perhaps more notable that the arrangement has prompted concerns among some participating state party officials and their allies. They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party.
“It’s a one-sided benefit,” said an official with one participating state party. The official, like those with several other state parties, declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
In fact, the DNC, which has pushed back aggressively on charges that it is boosting Clinton at the expense of other Democrats, has advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told POLITICO.
“The DNC has given us some guidance on what they’re saying, but it’s not clear what we should be saying,” said the official. “I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits.”
Some fundraisers who work for state parties predict that the arrangement could actually hurt participating state parties. They worry that participating states that aren’t presidential battlegrounds and lack competitive Senate races could see very little return investment from the DNC or Clinton’s campaign, and are essentially acting as money laundering conduits for them. And for party committees in contested states, there’s another risk: they might find themselves unable to accept cash from rich donors whose checks to the victory fund counted towards their $10,000 donation limit to the state party in question — even if that party never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC. Article Very lacking in substance, details or confirmation. Unnamed sources are a big part of reporting. I am also slightly suspicious, but Politico has a good track record. So I think its reasonable to take it on good faith. But also many state races have not started yet, so I question when those funds are normally handed out. It's fair to say that she and her supporters have been greatly exaggerating how much she has been doing for state parties/down ballot dems. Not sure what exactly Moh is disputing though? They are unaccredited sources and very little hard data to back up most of the article. And also doesn’t provide any context for how things worked last presidential election. This could be totally normal and we wouldn’t know because the article doesn’t provide that insight. I don't think it being "normal" would make it much better but I'm not sure what ou guys are saying isn't backed up?
Why would it be bad? If the DNC keeps the money for until the races get going, why is that terrible? Maybe there is a valid reason holding the money and allocating it when necessary. What is the RNC doing? These are all questions I have that are unaddressed by the article.
And once again, its uses 2 unnamed sources, which is fine. But it is also the reason I am taking it with a grain of salt.
|
On May 03 2016 03:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2016 03:29 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2016 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2016 03:16 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2016 03:13 Mohdoo wrote:On May 03 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised.
...But it is perhaps more notable that the arrangement has prompted concerns among some participating state party officials and their allies. They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party.
“It’s a one-sided benefit,” said an official with one participating state party. The official, like those with several other state parties, declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
In fact, the DNC, which has pushed back aggressively on charges that it is boosting Clinton at the expense of other Democrats, has advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told POLITICO.
“The DNC has given us some guidance on what they’re saying, but it’s not clear what we should be saying,” said the official. “I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits.”
Some fundraisers who work for state parties predict that the arrangement could actually hurt participating state parties. They worry that participating states that aren’t presidential battlegrounds and lack competitive Senate races could see very little return investment from the DNC or Clinton’s campaign, and are essentially acting as money laundering conduits for them. And for party committees in contested states, there’s another risk: they might find themselves unable to accept cash from rich donors whose checks to the victory fund counted towards their $10,000 donation limit to the state party in question — even if that party never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC. Article Very lacking in substance, details or confirmation. Unnamed sources are a big part of reporting. I am also slightly suspicious, but Politico has a good track record. So I think its reasonable to take it on good faith. But also many state races have not started yet, so I question when those funds are normally handed out. It's fair to say that she and her supporters have been greatly exaggerating how much she has been doing for state parties/down ballot dems. Not sure what exactly Moh is disputing though? They are unaccredited sources and very little hard data to back up most of the article. And also doesn’t provide any context for how things worked last presidential election. This could be totally normal and we wouldn’t know because the article doesn’t provide that insight. I don't think it being "normal" would make it much better but I'm not sure what ou guys are saying isn't backed up? Why would it be bad? If the DNC keeps the money for until the races get going, why is that terrible? Maybe there is a valid reason holding the money and allocating it when necessary. What is the RNC doing? These are all questions I have that are unaddressed by the article. And once again, its uses 2 unnamed sources, which is fine. But it is also the reason I am taking it with a grain of salt.
Try this. Start from the hard premise that everything Hillary does is Corrupt, and that she is lying about everything she says or does. Then, what could be normal movement of money between organizations in a lead up to an election could instead be "money-laundering" as the official Bernie website puts it. All those alternative explanations and needs for more information are unnecessary if you have that hard premise.
Also consider a correlated hard premise, that everything Bernie does is great because he is such a good man. So when he raises a ton of cash and blows it all on consultants and TV ad buys in irrelevant markets, it is for the good of the people.
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/politico-exposes-clinton-campaign-money-laundering-scheme/
|
On May 03 2016 04:55 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 03:51 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2016 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2016 03:29 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2016 03:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2016 03:16 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2016 03:13 Mohdoo wrote:On May 03 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised.
...But it is perhaps more notable that the arrangement has prompted concerns among some participating state party officials and their allies. They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party.
“It’s a one-sided benefit,” said an official with one participating state party. The official, like those with several other state parties, declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
In fact, the DNC, which has pushed back aggressively on charges that it is boosting Clinton at the expense of other Democrats, has advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told POLITICO.
“The DNC has given us some guidance on what they’re saying, but it’s not clear what we should be saying,” said the official. “I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits.”
Some fundraisers who work for state parties predict that the arrangement could actually hurt participating state parties. They worry that participating states that aren’t presidential battlegrounds and lack competitive Senate races could see very little return investment from the DNC or Clinton’s campaign, and are essentially acting as money laundering conduits for them. And for party committees in contested states, there’s another risk: they might find themselves unable to accept cash from rich donors whose checks to the victory fund counted towards their $10,000 donation limit to the state party in question — even if that party never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC. Article Very lacking in substance, details or confirmation. Unnamed sources are a big part of reporting. I am also slightly suspicious, but Politico has a good track record. So I think its reasonable to take it on good faith. But also many state races have not started yet, so I question when those funds are normally handed out. It's fair to say that she and her supporters have been greatly exaggerating how much she has been doing for state parties/down ballot dems. Not sure what exactly Moh is disputing though? They are unaccredited sources and very little hard data to back up most of the article. And also doesn’t provide any context for how things worked last presidential election. This could be totally normal and we wouldn’t know because the article doesn’t provide that insight. I don't think it being "normal" would make it much better but I'm not sure what ou guys are saying isn't backed up? Why would it be bad? If the DNC keeps the money for until the races get going, why is that terrible? Maybe there is a valid reason holding the money and allocating it when necessary. What is the RNC doing? These are all questions I have that are unaddressed by the article. And once again, its uses 2 unnamed sources, which is fine. But it is also the reason I am taking it with a grain of salt. Try this. Start from the hard premise that everything Hillary does is Corrupt, and that she is lying about everything she says or does. Then, what could be normal movement of money between organizations in a lead up to an election could instead be "money-laundering" as the official Bernie website puts it. All those alternative explanations and needs for more information are unnecessary if you have that hard premise. Also consider a correlated hard premise, that everything Bernie does is great because he is such a good man. So when he raises a ton of cash and blows it all on consultants and TV ad buys in irrelevant markets, it is for the good of the people. https://berniesanders.com/press-release/politico-exposes-clinton-campaign-money-laundering-scheme/
I cannot believe that is on his official page. That is just gross.
|
On May 03 2016 03:21 Mohdoo wrote:
I agree with Testie. I also think it's hilarious that Trump is the one pulling a revolution here. The party is getting completely transformed. In an odd way, the republican party were the first ones to get money out of politics. Kind of on accident, lol. After this election, how the hell does anyone put on a campaign? As soon as big donors gather around, they are toxic.
Part of me wonders if, after this campaign, our elected officials will start actually working on campaign finance reform, for their own sake. "Establishment" and "Backed by corporations" are both now highly toxic qualities.
Aren't Trump and Sanders both doing it? It's just that there's a wall of superdelegates in the Democratic process.
|
On May 03 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 03:21 Mohdoo wrote:
I agree with Testie. I also think it's hilarious that Trump is the one pulling a revolution here. The party is getting completely transformed. In an odd way, the republican party were the first ones to get money out of politics. Kind of on accident, lol. After this election, how the hell does anyone put on a campaign? As soon as big donors gather around, they are toxic.
Part of me wonders if, after this campaign, our elected officials will start actually working on campaign finance reform, for their own sake. "Establishment" and "Backed by corporations" are both now highly toxic qualities. Aren't Trump and Sanders both doing it? It's just that there's a wall of superdelegates in the Democratic process.
Bernie is losing even without the super delegates. His revolution failed, unlike Trump who is winning the nomination.
|
On May 03 2016 05:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 03 2016 03:21 Mohdoo wrote:
I agree with Testie. I also think it's hilarious that Trump is the one pulling a revolution here. The party is getting completely transformed. In an odd way, the republican party were the first ones to get money out of politics. Kind of on accident, lol. After this election, how the hell does anyone put on a campaign? As soon as big donors gather around, they are toxic.
Part of me wonders if, after this campaign, our elected officials will start actually working on campaign finance reform, for their own sake. "Establishment" and "Backed by corporations" are both now highly toxic qualities. Aren't Trump and Sanders both doing it? It's just that there's a wall of superdelegates in the Democratic process. Bernie is losing even without the super delegates. His revolution failed, unlike Trump who is winning the nomination.
I think Trump is succeeding in a sea of the most lack luster candidates the GOP had to offer. They backed a third Bush for the White House, which shows a deep misunderstanding about how much the public disliked Bush number 2 by the end. The GOP doesn’t know what it wants.
|
On May 03 2016 05:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 05:50 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 03 2016 03:21 Mohdoo wrote:
I agree with Testie. I also think it's hilarious that Trump is the one pulling a revolution here. The party is getting completely transformed. In an odd way, the republican party were the first ones to get money out of politics. Kind of on accident, lol. After this election, how the hell does anyone put on a campaign? As soon as big donors gather around, they are toxic.
Part of me wonders if, after this campaign, our elected officials will start actually working on campaign finance reform, for their own sake. "Establishment" and "Backed by corporations" are both now highly toxic qualities. Aren't Trump and Sanders both doing it? It's just that there's a wall of superdelegates in the Democratic process. Bernie is losing even without the super delegates. His revolution failed, unlike Trump who is winning the nomination. I think Trump is succeeding in a sea of the most lack luster candidates the GOP had to offer. They backed a third Bush for the White House, which shows a deep misunderstanding about how much the public disliked Bush number 2 by the end. The GOP doesn’t know what it wants.
The GOP knows what it wants, a president they control. And I certainly think they would have been in control of Jeb.
The problem for the GOP, as it has been for a while now, it that the tea party is a group of voters who are very active (unlike Bernie's youngsters) and they do not agree with the leadership.
The Tea party is the embodiment of the revolution that Bernie wants. An outside group of voters who subverts a party to enact their will.
From an outside field the GOP candidate list is utterly shit but from the republican voters I imagine they are split in 2, the moderates had a terrible roster to choose from but the more radical members, the right fringe. They had their pick of Trump and Cruz, and I would say the votes show this group now outnumbers the moderates by a lot.
|
Some of America’s largest food producers have successfully petitioned Congress to propose a change to the Freedom of Information Act that would shield their lobbying activities from the scrutiny of the public, the Guardian has learned.
The move follows a series of stories that showed the government-backed egg lobby, American Egg Board, had attempted to stifle competition from Silicon Valley food startup Hampton Creek, in direct conflict with its mandate.
Several agricultural lobbyists including United Egg Producers, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Pork Producers Council have now sent a letter to the congressional subcommittee overseeing appropriations for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) asking to be exempted from Foia.
Source
|
On May 03 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 03:21 Mohdoo wrote:
I agree with Testie. I also think it's hilarious that Trump is the one pulling a revolution here. The party is getting completely transformed. In an odd way, the republican party were the first ones to get money out of politics. Kind of on accident, lol. After this election, how the hell does anyone put on a campaign? As soon as big donors gather around, they are toxic.
Part of me wonders if, after this campaign, our elected officials will start actually working on campaign finance reform, for their own sake. "Establishment" and "Backed by corporations" are both now highly toxic qualities. Aren't Trump and Sanders both doing it? It's just that there's a wall of superdelegates in the Democratic process.
People like to point to superdelegates, but our goddess is winning even without them. The irony is that Sanders is building his entire strategy around somehow convincing super delegates to defy democracy. Imagine that, he's not the swell guys he memed himself out to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
