|
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 February 14 2017 07:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2017 06:59 oneofthem wrote:On February 14 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2017 06:47 Nevuk wrote:On February 14 2017 06:45 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Washington (CNN)Four Republican senators have told GOP leadership they are withholding support for President Donald Trump's choice for labor secretary, setting off an intense effort by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and business groups to bring at least two back into the fold so that the nomination does not fail, several sources involved in the effort tell CNN.
The four, these sources say, are GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Tim Scott of South Carolina and Johnny Isakson of Georgia.
Fast food executive Andrew Puzder is the President's choice, and among the last Cabinet picks to get a confirmation hearing because of controversies that include an admission he employed an undocumented housekeeper. His hearing, delayed several times, is now scheduled for Thursday.
Republicans are not counting on any Democratic votes for Puzder. So, with a 52-48 majority, they would need to hold at least 50 Republicans, as was the case last week when Vice President Mike Pence was called on to break the tie and advance the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as education secretary.
Murkowski and Collins were the two GOP defections on the DeVos vote, and of the four who have voiced reservations about Puzder are viewed as the most difficult to get back in the fold.
If at least two of the four reluctant Republicans cannot be swayed, McConnell could face the unwelcome task of advising the White House to pull the nomination instead of facing an embarrassing Senate floor defeat. But the sources involved in the urgent lobbying effort, speaking to CNN on condition of anonymity, said the leader viewed this as a test of party unity and his leadership, and was determined to round up the necessary votes.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/politics/gop-senators-puzder/index.html What, was Cory Booker's price too high for Mitch? Not sure why they're going after the GOP hold outs on that one instead of trying to flip Manchin + 1. Their holding out for contributions (or the reallocation of previous donations). Puzder and his wife contributed $300k + to Trump's campaign. They used the fundraising trick Hillary used to ignore the limits, so presumably some of that money earmarked for local parties can actually end up there. Speaking of which, I know people roundly dismissed the idea that Hillary was funneling money through state parties in order to circumvent donation limits, they assured us that while we didn't know where the money was going to end up, (though we knew at the time ~99% passed straight through the party and back to Hillary's campaign efforts), that after the election we would see that she did actually use that money for the state level parties. So here's the article saying that 99% of the money wasn't going to the states being used as go betweens, has any Hillary supporter or person who disputed that it was an intentional avoidance of campaign finance law been able to find any evidence that what we see in this article isn't what happened in the end? But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings. Source and here we have a supposed democrat complaining about democratic candidate for president raising money to run for president. Hah, Democrats lost me a while ago, what you see is an independent pointing out that just because a Democrat does it, doesn't mean it's okey dokey. I'm guessing that's a "no" from you regarding any evidence that she didn't just take the money and leave those local parties high and dry? She never "took the money". As was explained to you at length when you initially posted that article, the state parties transferred the donations to the dnc for it to allocate funding according to strategic priorities during the election. If you have evidence that the money disappeared into thin air, show it to us. The FEC website and opensecrets are yours to browse. Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: I know Kwiz is a research machine for defending HRC, if it's out there, Kwiz knows where it is. I'd call you a research machine for attacking Hillary, but given your tendency to never substantiate your claims with valid evidence, or to make unsubstantiated accusations while putting the onus on others to disprove them (as you just did), I'm not sure the qualifier applies.
It's alright I got my answer, it got bumped up to ~10% of the money, but obviously was a poor choice to give her campaign and the DNC the money donated to individual parties.
And hopefully people don't support such a dumb decision (particularly while the primary is going) in 2020.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
note that is 15% of the money overall, but states did get a lot relative to what they put in from the primary stage.
this clinton victory fund has yuuge overhead though. must be that brooklyn rent
|
The lack of transparency as to how those funds were being used and distrusted was a problem for the DNC. They could have messaged that much better.
|
On February 14 2017 07:20 oneofthem wrote:
note that is 15% of the money overall, but states did get a lot relative to what they put in from the primary stage.
this clinton victory fund has yuuge overhead though. must be that brooklyn rent
They were renting an entire floor they kept empty until the primary was over. They wasted an epic amount of money. But yeah closer to 15%.
They weren't really contributing anything though, HVF raised the money and just let the money pass through the states so that it was legal. Clearly a very small amount actually went to support down ballot candidates that everyone had praised Hillary for raising money for through this operation. .
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 14 2017 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 07:20 oneofthem wrote:
note that is 15% of the money overall, but states did get a lot relative to what they put in from the primary stage.
this clinton victory fund has yuuge overhead though. must be that brooklyn rent They were renting an entire floor they kept empty until the primary was over. They wasted an epic amount of money. But yeah closer to 15%. They weren't really contributing anything though, HVF raised the money and just let the money pass through the states so that it was legal. Clearly a very small amount actually went to support down ballot candidates that everyone had praised Hillary for raising money for through this operation. .
you'd have to look at what the state committees did, and what national resources they used. a lot of the ad buys for down ballot people prob came from other pacs
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 14 2017 07:23 Plansix wrote:
The lack of transparency as to how those funds were being used and distrusted was a problem for the DNC. They could have messaged that much better.
i mean, next time they'll anticipate bloggers writing conspiracy theories against their own party. who'd have predicted that in 2016 though.
expect the worst, hope for the best.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Everyone of left-leaning sensibilities who didn't cast a vote for Hillary Clinton is a traitor, and further, a Russian hacker. Any other concerns are second to winning this election. That's why we had to choose the most electable candidate we could possibly get our hands on.
|
On February 14 2017 07:27 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2017 07:20 oneofthem wrote:
note that is 15% of the money overall, but states did get a lot relative to what they put in from the primary stage.
this clinton victory fund has yuuge overhead though. must be that brooklyn rent They were renting an entire floor they kept empty until the primary was over. They wasted an epic amount of money. But yeah closer to 15%. They weren't really contributing anything though, HVF raised the money and just let the money pass through the states so that it was legal. Clearly a very small amount actually went to support down ballot candidates that everyone had praised Hillary for raising money for through this operation. . you'd have to look at what the state committees did, and what national resources they used. a lot of the ad buys for down ballot people prob came from other pacs
I did for a few states and it's pretty abysmal. Take a look at Pennsylvania's spending for state level candidates, it's ~3% (if one presumes 100% of pac contributions went to commercials like you describe) of what came into the state.
http://us-campaign-committees.insidegov.com/l/48942/Pennsylvania-Democratic-Party
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that just says federal election spending. not sure what that means lol
|
On February 14 2017 07:44 oneofthem wrote:
that just says federal election spending. not sure what that means lol
That would (at least in part) mean "not used for state level candidates."
|
I mean, (one of) the real problems involved is that the "special caps" on these joint political donations just don't mean much of anything-and it's hard to say if they should or not. If the Democratic Party in Vermont believes their interests are actually best served by giving the money to the DNC because how the fuck are they going to lose any national seats and they completely control the legislature...should they be able to donate it?
Just do publicly funded elections with maybe a 1000 per person donation if you have to have one (hell count the corporations as people but cap them at 5000) and kill this crap. Clever bookkeeping is a silly obstacle to have.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 14 2017 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 07:44 oneofthem wrote:
that just says federal election spending. not sure what that means lol That would (at least in part) mean "not used for state level candidates."
maybe they had candidate supply constraints and whatnot. i'm not sure what happened at the state level, probably a function of the very geographically concentrated nature of dem voters and general low level of participation in non-presidential races.
|
On February 14 2017 07:32 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 07:23 Plansix wrote:
The lack of transparency as to how those funds were being used and distrusted was a problem for the DNC. They could have messaged that much better. i mean, next time they'll anticipate bloggers writing conspiracy theories against their own party. who'd have predicted that in 2016 though. expect the worst, hope for the best.
Once again, I don't dispute the claim was dumb. But making literally ZERO effort to counter the narrative hurt them a lot. You don't take in that much money and then no one where it is going.
|
On February 14 2017 07:53 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 14 2017 07:44 oneofthem wrote:
that just says federal election spending. not sure what that means lol That would (at least in part) mean "not used for state level candidates." maybe they had candidate supply constraints and whatnot. i'm not sure what happened at the state level, probably a function of the very geographically concentrated nature of dem voters and general low level of participation in non-presidential races.
It's consistent across several states, red and blue. State candidates got jack from HVF. The overwhelming majority went back into campaign efforts for Hillary, circumventing the contribution limits.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The Democrats as a party have as much hubris as Hillary herself in thinking they can do whatever they want and get away with it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
ivanka needs to give birth in the white house to her brother, so we have a legit porphyrogenita emperor for when we conquer constantinople
|
On February 14 2017 07:56 LegalLord wrote:
The Democrats as a party have as much hubris as Hillary herself in thinking they can do whatever they want and get away with it.
There was a pretty gross misunderstanding of how much transparency their base is looking for. Announcing how much money they are spending on a specific race is a bad idea. But taking all the money in and saying "trust us" while there is this ongoing narrative of the money being horded is equally stupid.
The old political theory of weather the storm until you can get back on message just doesn't work.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 14 2017 07:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 07:32 oneofthem wrote:On February 14 2017 07:23 Plansix wrote:
The lack of transparency as to how those funds were being used and distrusted was a problem for the DNC. They could have messaged that much better. i mean, next time they'll anticipate bloggers writing conspiracy theories against their own party. who'd have predicted that in 2016 though. expect the worst, hope for the best. Once again, I don't dispute the claim was dumb. But making literally ZERO effort to counter the narrative hurt them a lot. You don't take in that much money and then no one where it is going.
as i said, they lost control over the media, which basically is internet bloggers at this point in time
|
On February 14 2017 08:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 07:56 LegalLord wrote:
The Democrats as a party have as much hubris as Hillary herself in thinking they can do whatever they want and get away with it. There was a pretty gross misunderstanding of how much transparency their base is looking for. Announcing how much money they are spending on a specific race is a bad idea. But taking all the money in and saying "trust us" while there is this ongoing narrative of the money being horded is equally stupid. The old political theory of weather the storm until you can get back on message just doesn't work.
Has it crossed your mind that perhaps they were saying "trust us" because we wouldn't like what we saw if they were transparent?
Or more accurately, that it would undermine the narrative they were trying to portray about Hillary doing so much more for these other candidates that were by all appearances given a pittance of the funds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
