2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBig-money liberals vow to back Bernie whether he likes it or not
http://g.thehill.com/homenews/campaign/269706-big-money-liberals-vow-to-back-bernie-whether-he-likes-it-or-not
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

on edit to avoid confusion

Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)That makes a BIG difference. He's not making promises behind our backs for money.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)he also still needs to win the primary before this is even a real issue. if i were him i'd also try to get anyone doing this to at least provide full disclosure for all donations
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)He's not promising them anything for money. These are just concerned Dem's who don't want the GOP to take over the entire government.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,127 posts)On Wed Feb 17, 2016, 12:14 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
At least he didn't have to whore for it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1257738
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Saying Hillary has to "whore" for her monetary support.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 17, 2016, 12:17 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Making a point. Not enough to block.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "Saying" and "insinuating" are not quite the same. A bit of sleaze is common in this primary season.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: nothing wrong with this sentement
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Thank you guys. We all use that word when it comes to politicians. I wasn't talking about any one candidate.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)but i can see how it could be crossing the line when your opponent is a woman
speaktruthtopower
(800 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Perhaps you were being sarcastic, but in case you weren't and for
the record ...
This is EXACTLY what I was hoping would happen. Bernie's making it very clear
that he is NOT for sale, and that any money donated is totally to advance exactly
what Bernie is saying he's going to do: i.e. his platform in it's entirety.
Not that I agree with all of it (guns), but on balance it's nearly an exact replica of
my own personal priorities and goals for the nation. If I had a ton of money,
but could only give $2700, why should people who have money and support
Bernie's platform in it's entirety be denied the same latitude to USE Citizens United
in an entirely clean way, i.e. in solidarity with We the People's Political Revolution.
I think there's a good case to be made here. Not sure if I'm doing it justice, but
damn .. this could easily make the difference for Bernie. PLUS, it totally destroys
the following Clinton meme, that "Bernie Can't Compete in the GE" due to not
having $uper-pac$.
A number of Hillary Clintons fundraisers and donors say that no matter how impressive Sanderss small-dollar fundraising is and many are stunned that he has managed to haul in close to $100 million in donations averaging around $30 they remain skeptical that the small-dollar approach can work in a general election against a Republican nominee backed by numerous tycoons and likely by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch's powerful donor network.
Also, as I understand it, the nurse's union that endorsed Bernie is also pledging to do their
own thing, and i don't think Bernie has quashed that effort.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)and i suggested that if he should win the primary and big-money wants to go ahead anyway that he should publicly request that anyone producing ads on his behalf provide full donor disclosure...
i will now go back and add the sarcasm tag since you're the second one that misunderstood me
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)
cali
(114,904 posts)Fuck. Why not read before commenting?
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)
cali
(114,904 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)i scanned the article and have since gone back for a full read. i got the point first time.
in another comment in this thread i said should he make it o the GE it would be wise for Bernie to ask PACs that would consider working on his behalf to provide full disclosure of donors.
i'm with you
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)TTUBatfan2008
(3,623 posts)Hillary will win the nomination and the party will continue with business as usual. The best Sanders can hope for is to use his support base (around 40% of the voters at the moment) to get certain issues locked down for sure, like a guarantee from Hillary that she won't sign TPP and will make sure that SCOTUS nominees intend to overturn Citizens United.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Links? Sources?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Republicans have been outspending Democrats for a long time. And even before Democrats cozied up to Wall Street Democrats were still winning races. People don't respond to Bernie because of tv ads. They respond to him because he cares. A real life honest to goodness politician who cares. You can't buy that. Even before people knew who he was he was packing speaking engagements. People love Bernie because Bernie loves them.