I'll say it again. IF A CANDIDATE CANNOT RAISE $1 BILLION, THEY ARE NOT A VIABLE CANDIDATE. PERIOD.

[MohRokTah]

People are all "Walker this" and "Walker that" right now.

Walker is incapable of raising $1 billion into his campaign committee.

People say "but the Kochs!"

BULLSHIT!!!

If you took everybody in the entire Koch billionaire network and every last one of them donated the absolute maximum to the Walker Campaign Committee, both primary and general election, you would not even reach $50 milliion. That's nowhere near enough and Walker simply does not have the fund raising chops or network to make up the $950 million deficit.

ONE CANDIDATE on the GOP side already has the built in fund raising network and chops to reach that kind of fund raising money.

Jeb Bush.

Everybody else is a distraction running for things like Veep, Secretary of State(I'm looking at YOU, Lindsey Graham), Secretary of Defense, etc. etc. etc.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Draft Senator Warren for President, 2016 (nt)

She can bring it, and it would come from real people and not corporations.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I hate to harp on this, but she doesn't want it. She really DOESN'T. n/t

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. Warren as sated five times she is not running.

She has no desire to raise a billion dollars from "real people." because she has stated she is not running.

I think that, in this case, no means no.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Jeb vs Warren would be dreamy because we'd have nominees for both Parties who voted for Reagan and

Bush. The optics alone are a goldmine. I think Warren understands that. She certainly should.

[AtomicKitten]

31. You're still shoveling horseshit I see.

You don't know how Elizabeth voted and she has not said. You are just making it up.

Your BS debunked here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026101224#post57

[Shoulders of Giants]

2. Its sad that this is what matters and not being the best candidate.

[enlightenment]

4. Exactly.

That we accept this as normal is stomach-churning. Why bother with elections at all? Just ask for proof of their bank account balance and be done with it.

[blkmusclmachine]

9. Voting is purely a dog and pony show. Wasington's kabuki theatre. A total sham.

Etc.

[brooklynite]

6. Would it amaze you to know Walker raised $53 million just for his State re-election campaign?

[MohRokTah]

8. No. I already knew that.

HE won't even be capable of doubling that on a national level.

[winter is coming]

7. Shouting at us doesn't make you more correct. Nor does posting the same thing a dozen times.

It does, however, decrease the likelihood of having your posts read and/or taken seriously.

[Scuba]

10. I'll say it again. IF A CANDIDATE CANNOT MOTIVATE VOTERS, THEY ARE NOT A VIABLE CANDIDATE. PERIOD.

Money is only one way to do that. Policies that help the masses would be another. We should try it.

[ND-Dem]

11. +100. Though the PTB would apparently be OK with very low turnout.

[Oilwellian]

12. Sometimes I wonder if we ever hear ourselves talk (or yell)

This OP title indicates just how sick of a nation we really are.

[HappyMe]

14. I agree.

Nothing remotely about policy, changes to be made, just MONEY.
Having somebody raise an obscene amount of money does not indicate they will be a good President.

[MohRokTah]

28. I didn't pen the Citizens United decision.

Nor have I been a member of Congress who ignored every opportunity to introduce campaign finance reform.

I merely face the facts of national presidential politics as we have been presented in this nation.

It's sad, but true. Nobody who is incapable of raising $1 billion will win the nomination of one of the two parties capable of an electoral victory.

[woo me with science]

13. The malignancy presented as the excuse.

The propaganda purveyors really consider us to be morons.

[HereSince1628]

15. Not seriously, but, 3rd Way Dems plan a candidate able to split the big money, right?

Yet seriously...the thing to remember here is that the Koch and Adelman money doesn't need to be given to the candidate's campaign.

Walker may have been the least effective midwestern governor in history. But, if Walker proved -anything- in his campaigns for governor it is that he knows how to use money without it actually coming into his campaign.

Yes, he's burned up a handful of aides protecting himself from multiple Grand Jury investigations, but that is EXACTLY the kind of guy that the Koch's are looking for...don't ya think?

[MohRokTah]

16. Wrong.

The SuperPAC money is nowhere near as effective as the campaign committee's money.

Not even close. It's a boost for the GOP candidate, but without $1 billion raised by the campaign committee, there is zero viability.

[HereSince1628]

25. I suspect that generality will be tested

and we'll see what holds.

It's also true that one of WJC's working themes for the DLC was don't leave all the big donor money to the republicans.

I think that remains the working theme for the social liberal fiscal conservative wing...

[forthemiddle]

17. Normally, you may be right

But Scott Walker has one thing in his corner that non of the other candidates have......Reince Priebus.
I don't know if that will make a huge difference, but as the head of the GOP he can certainly sway things in Walkers favor.

They have already declared that one of the primary debates will be in Wisconsin, is that a coincidence? I am hearing rumors that the Wisconsin legislature (GOP dominated) will once again move their primary up, so Wisconsin will have more say in the primaries.

Even though Priebus will never endorse one candidate over the other, he and Walker go WAY back.

Just something to ponder.

[Sunlei]

18. lol, republicans have to 'buy' their primary position 'chance' from their 1% donators.

They have to pay 100s of people to dress, make-up, check every word, every step they take so their 'future President' appears good enough to scam for the republican vote.

Perhaps republicans can hit up romney for a 10 million donation?

Doubt it though he's so cheap with his own money, he would never fork over more than the minimum unless there's a profit return.

[MohRokTah]

29. Romney cannot donate $10 million to the GOP.

That's illegal.

[Sunlei]

30. donate to PACs or he can 'buy' 20,000 copies of a republicans crappy $500 online books.

That's Not illegal but its a scam

[jwirr]

19. How many of our Democratic candidates can do that?

[MohRokTah]

20. Right now, I only see one with the network to do so.

And since it appears nobody else has seriously started the process, that one will remain the only one.

[jwirr]

21. Agreed. But truthfully if more than two run in the primary no one would neccesarily be able to

get that much together. We Democrats and others who vote our way just are not that rich. It is hard enough when there is only one running.

Our system is really broken when money can out vote the people.

[MohRokTah]

23. Oh, I agree completely, it's definitely broken.

This is why I hope we can win it because it will all come down to the SCOTUS over the next twenty years and I don't see fat Tony Scalia making it through two terms of Hillary. I also see Kennedy deciding to retire some time in the next eight years, so if you have Hillary replacing Scalia, Ginsberg, and Kennedy, the SCOTUS will be set for the next generation.

In fact, it may get so bad for Roberts that he resigns in disgust because he will not be able to take being the Chief Justice of the most liberal SCOTUS in US history.

[jwirr]

24. Absolutely. Taking back the SCOTUS is the most important issue we have. If an R gets to appoint

even one or two more people we are in a world of hurt. All other issues are dependent on this one.

[NYC_SKP]

26. IF A CANDIDATE (is requird to) RAISE $1 BILLION, THEY ARE NOT A VIABLE CANDIDATE. PERIOD

nt

[MohRokTah]

27. Ignoring the reality of national politics in America doesn't make it go away.

But many on the left will do everything they can to ignore reality.

[davidn3600]

32. In other words, they have to be bought up by the 1% in order to get elected

And we call this a democratic country?

[MohRokTah]

33. This is a democratic republic.

And honestly, it's not as bad as during the robber baron era, just close.

Maybe with a couple of replacements on the SCOTUS over the next 8 years, things will change.