Whoever enters the White House on January 20, 2017 will have raised $1 billion.

[MohRokTah]

Think about that when you think of who is a potential candidate. If the person you want cannot raise $1 billion in campaign funds, they are unelectable in 2016.

This is a fact of national level politics and is especially true for the Democratic nominee because that nominee will face a GOP candidate who is getting a $1 billion assist from the Koch brothers in addition to the $1 billion they will raise for their campaign. That assist won't be as effective as the direct campaign funds, but will make a huge difference in the electability of the GOP candidate.

Right now, Hillary Clinton's campaign machine is definitely capable of raising that kind of money. So is Jeb Bush's.

Name me one other candidate on the Democratic side capable of that and I will consider them.

Name me one person other than Jeb Bush in the GOP Kandidate Klown Kar capable of that and I will consider ways the Democratic candidate can defeat them.

Right now, though, I see NOBODY capable of raising that kind of money other than Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.

[bigwillq]

1. Gross.

We are a sad nation.

[MohRokTah]

3. Reality

It's sick, but true. And Citizens United changed everything, making it all that much worse.

[Fred Sanders]

22. CU is making democracy the slave of money.

[MohRokTah]

24. As if it wasn't the slave of money before!

CU made matters worse by several magnitudes.

[Fred Sanders]

31. Democracy would have been an indentured servant before CU......

Last edited Fri Jan 30, 2015, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)

[MohRokTah]

43. You confused me with the "DU"

Pretty much an indentured servant that consistently has additional time tacked onto the indentured servitude.

[benz380]

2. It sucks it's all about the money. If Hillary gets in, it will still be all about the money. n/t

[MohRokTah]

4. If Hillary doesn't get in, it will still be all about the money. eom

[benz380]

7. Not if Bernie, Elizabeth, or another real Democrat gets in, and not a corporatist. n/t

[yeoman6987]

19. You think they won't raise money

Wrong. They will have to raise a billion too. In fact, both are raising money as we speak. Maybe not personally, but their supporters are.

[Fred Sanders]

27. Warren will have to raise $100 million, wild guesstimate, to make it through Iowa and New Hampshire, where ad time is

already bought up in broadcast media.

It is not just DU, the whole system was rigged for the independently wealthy even before DU.

What is Warrens's personal net worth lately, is it a million bucks yet?

[benz380]

47. I'm more concerned about the corporatism after the election is won. n/t

[MohRokTah]

44. Elizabeth Warren is not running. Already said so many times emphatically.

Bernie Sanders is incapable of raising the necessary funds.

[yeoman6987]

48. Maybe not but money is still being raised

Perhaps will end up going toward her Senate reelection. Who knows.

[MohRokTah]

50. Warren is not involved in ANY fund raising for a run at the presidency.

It's unclear how much of the money being raised independently by people who wish she would run even though she is not running can be donated to her campaign since they are a PAC.

[ChosenUnWisely]

5. Why would the American people be stupid enough to vote for the canidate who raised the most money?

Pretty stupid way to elect a leader if you ask me.

[MohRokTah]

8. The American People can be pretty damned stupid.

In 2000, they came close to electing the guy who raised the most money because they thought they'd like to have a beer with the guy, and the guy DIDN'T EVEN DRINK BEER!. It was so close, that guy's brother was able to steal it.

In 2004, they elected that guy again, and he again raised the most money.

In 2008, they elected the guy who raised the most money by an electoral college landslide.

In 2012, they re-elected that guy in another electoral college landslide and he, again, raised the most money.

On a national level, politics and money are inextricably linked.

[ChosenUnWisely]

23. In 1980 they elected Reagan not once but twice yup America is not very bright

politics and money are inextricably linked only because we the people allow it and vote for those that support it.

[Historic NY]

46. You must have missed the last election...

https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/ 2.3 billion combined

Add in all the hidden money etc.... and its obscene.

[CK_John]

6. Money is highly overrated and is used as a fright factor. The world events in the last 6 weeks

determine the election.

[MohRokTah]

10. In 2016, the cost to enter the White House is $1 billion.

Nobody incapable of raising that much money is electable regardless.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Aren't we supposed to be for getting the money out of politics?

Is Hillary?

[MohRokTah]

11. Two words. Citizens United.

'Nuff said.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Two other words. Goldman Sachs.

[MohRokTah]

32. Who would you rather have replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush?

Who would you rather have potentially replace Stephen Beyer?

Would you rather have a Democratic president or a Republican president in office when Antonin Scalia or Anthony Kennedy have to be replaced on the SCOTUS?

The SCOTUS is the ONLY issue in presidential elections. Everything else is just a distraction, including your Goldman Sachs remark.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Bernie Sanders or Jerry Brown

I don't find Hillary's payoffs from Goldman Sachs merely a diversion but an indication of her neo-lib mindset and policies.

[MohRokTah]

42. Neither of them are capable of raising $1 billion.

That means neither of them will be the nominee.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. Oh, well. I guess we'll be stuck with a "Not as Bad" corrupt politician again.

[MohRokTah]

51. It's the political reality.

Above all in politics, one must be realistic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. Paine

Oh, well, if it's just "reality" we should just go along with it no matter how obviously corrupt. I suppose payoffs from Goldman Sachs is "Not as Bad" as payoffs from the Koch brothers.

[HappyMe]

12. Gross.

Buy a President! Yay! Bombard us poor fools with crap, then pay back your buddies once elected. It's not about us.



I would bet that there are better uses for that money. We need campaign finance reform badly.

[MohRokTah]

13. The ONLY way to campaign finance reform is to overturn Citizens United.

The only way to do that is to replace one of five SCOTUS justices.

On top of that, the next president will most likely replace two of the four dissenters.

We are teetering on the brink. If a Republican is elected president in 2016, it's over.

[HappyMe]

15. I don't hold out much hope that it will

ever be overturned. Ever. Candidates like the money, and don't don't mind about the payback.

[MohRokTah]

16. Actually, I think you are wrong.

Candidates pretty universally DESPISE raising the funds, and Citizens United made it even worse. Candidates like campaigning and raising funds takes away from campaigning.

[HappyMe]

18. I kind of doubt that.

Raising funds kind of goes with the gig.

[MohRokTah]

20. Raising funds in 1992 is very different from raising funds in 2016.

Night and day. Bill Clinton spent far more time campaigning than raising funds.

In 2016, that equation is flipped 180 degrees.

[HappyMe]

28. I still don't think they mind.

I'm pretty disgusted on the amount of money that gets pissed away like this. Our priorities and the state of politics are fucked up.

[MohRokTah]

33. Oh they mind.

Fundraising is the biggest chore of any campaign.

[HappyMe]

37. -----

[MohRokTah]

38. Get rid of the fundraising aspect and we go back to issues instead of personalities.

That's why Citizens United is the single most important consideration on the national level today.

I'd much rather have candidates out there talking about the real issues, but until then my vote is a vote AGAINST Citizens Untied because my vote is a vote FOR the Democratic Candidate regardless.

[cyberswede]

17. Well, that's disgusting.

Our priorities are totally fucked up.

[MohRokTah]

21. I agree, it's disgusting.

It's also reality so long as Citizens United is the law of the land.

[KamaAina]

25. Or whoever is anointed by the mighty Koch brothers.

[MohRokTah]

26. IF the Democratic candidate does not raise more money than the GOP candidate...

The Koch influence will win by fiat.

[KamaAina]

29. Maybe Bernie could do a fundraiser in Zimbabwe.

[MohRokTah]

35. Heh!

[Fred Sanders]

36. Good one!

[fredamae]

30. If there are No Other

electoral Shenanigans going on that changes the will of the people (ie: tampering with voting machines)when counting the votes...IF We elect the person who raises the Most...then we deserve what "we" get.
I suggest that whomever has the Most Ad Buys..the Best ad buys, the Most frightening ad buys IS Exactly Who "we" Should be Voting Against.

[MohRokTah]

34. Convince 160 million other voters of that.

OOPS, that takes money.

[fredamae]

39. Exactly...yet

IF there were Enough folks who agree with this...began communicating with family/friends etc a Whole lot of educating could happen for Free.....so, no-money is NOT a real factor - This is grassroots logical thinking.

They keep us distracted so "we" don't really talk to each other...plus, we've all got our heads down busy on our electronic devices.
"They" say Thank you!
We can change, en masse' IF we choose to. It's not Impossible--It's simply Improbable.
(I know, I know...I'ma silly dreamer)

[MohRokTah]

40. Grassroots is best locally.

It really doesn't work on a national level.

It's a way to start. If you can get that thought process working statewide in multiple states, it could cycle up to the national level.

It would take a couple of presidential cycles for it to move up to having an effect on a national level, though.

[fredamae]

45. Local Grass Roots

efforts only stay local when the news doesn't spread to those family/friends who live in other areas of your state or even to those close to you in Other states. Word Can travel real fast.
I think we could make a notable impact by 2016 Easily...Because so Many People are So fed up with Corporate Money buying Our government officials/our very government...The message would be more readily acceptable..imo this is a Valuable and I believe Sensible tool to move Away from said Corporate influence.
Simply support the people They Don't.
It's worth a try...unless there is another solution-what other tools do we have at our disposal that Doesn't cost Money?