Hillary to Launch Campaign This Weekend With ‘Insane’ Fundraising Push
Source: The Daily Beast
Hillary Clinton will announce her presidential campaign this Sunday, sources in the Clinton operation tell The Daily Beast.
After that, the nascent campaign will embark on a fundraising push that the Clinton camp says will dwarf anything seen in the history of presidential politics.
They are going to raise in one week what some Republican presidential candidates are going to raise the entire cycle, said one Clinton aide.
Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/10/hillary-to-launch-campaign-this-weekend-with-insane-fundraising-push.html
I was briefed to be prepared for this about a month ago.
For those who will disdain the amounts involved, ask yourself what you would have your preferred candidate do differently. We can't abruptly change the Constitution to ban private constructions; and standing on principle will result in not have the financial resources that will be needed to eventually compete with the Republicans.
Renew Deal
(81,873 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 10, 2015, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)
"Our fundraising is INSANE!!!"
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)For Wall Street and the MIC!
She's giving it all away!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)in your opinion?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"Conan, what is best in life?"
"Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women." - Conan the Barbarian
If money is speech (their rules), let us yell loudest!
I guess most of you don't remember life under Nixon or Reagan or Bush or another Bush. We cannot self-destruct and hand our enemies victory! They have 2 out of 3 branches and a majority of gerrymandered states. Time to turn the tide.
By any means necessary!
BeyondGeography
(39,380 posts)No one who finds the Clintons appalling will forgive you anyway.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,380 posts)I remember when you went away for awhile. Glad you're back for the upcoming wars.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)The big money is here to stay, methinks. It evidently is more addictive than any Class 1 drug.
She won't be getting any money from me, no matter what happens. Have Jamie Dimon pawn his presidential cuff-links or something.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)What gives? Just really "concerned"? Or is there something more going on here?
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)The power of each Party lies in the balance of the Supreme Court.
RW Fascists have known since Reagan that the SC was their path to RW rule in America.
The RW has dismantled the rights of American citizens that we disgust over today, by sending it through the SC.
They have used the power of the SC to decide in their favor, everything from religion, voter rights, money to political elections, LGBT, immigration, corporate power over people & tax evasion, how we travel & move & speak, & what we watch or read, our prison systems, and they have even chosen a President for us.
To have a shot at balancing back this Nation to a place of reason in a country of, by, & for its people, we need to dissolve the RW selected power of the Supreme Court.
THAT IS WHAT THE 2016 ELECTION IS TRULY ABOUT, BOTTOM LINE.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251402402
Lochloosa
(16,068 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 10, 2015, 02:45 PM - Edit history (1)
George II
(67,782 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)However we also need a serious number of coattail wins in our legislature to make a liberal SC Judge be ever nominated once chosen by the President. The process is determined by a shift in power from Pres through Congress & Senate.
SCourt is the big prize, most definitely.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Since most donors give in proportion to the odds of winning, Hillary will and should accumulate a war chest that even Kockroaches cannot threaten.
We have to elect a democrat ... let's not gamble the chance away on some lesser known. Also, remember, no matter how liberal one may think a "candidate" is, if elected, that person moves to the center. Look what happened to Obama.
djean111
(14,255 posts)thing, we would have realized that Obama is no Liberal.
Good to see the acknowledgement that the important thing is money, and not policy, though.
Really, eBay the presidency. Have a telethon. Keep a running total on the big sign in Times Square. Be honest about it.
Don't waste time on two hundred advisers to figure out what campaign blather to spout.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)we live in a media age where reaching people costs money and even a small error can be magnified and be catastrophic.
So, money may not be the be all and end all, it is absolutely necessary and not necessarily evil.
Would you rather have a candidate that has identical views as you but is waiting for the next donation to come in for bus fare while the opposition is blasting airwaves defining him/her as evil?
However, I must hand it to the Hillary haters. If Hillary managed to rain several tons of gold bricks in your yard, you'd complain that your lawn got damaged.
djean111
(14,255 posts)A distinction that seems to be really difficult for some people.
In addition, it looks like Hillary supporters have managed to corner the market on hyperbole - gnashing teeth, hair on fire, HATERS!!! - violent (and a bit vengeful, LOL) group, indeed.
merrily
(45,251 posts)between lacking bus fare and billions of dollars in "hard" and "soft" money.
So is "Hillary haters."
So is complaining about Hillary no matter what.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Thank you
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Of course, that need to believe in a thing called "GOD" would probably be a prerequisite
merrily
(45,251 posts)inequality, you hire over 200 people who are very well off.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)I can see 2016 election going into a trillion or more and just not for President, other races included. The Billionaire Club United and foreign campaign donations. Citizen United has destroyed the USA's political environment and "we the people" don't mean a hill of beans to the 1-2%ers.
Also, voter suppression laws will rampantly go on the extreme rise. Will HRC if she becomes President along with (hopefully) a Dem Senate try and undo Citizen United - I believe so.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)withing a few weeks, so we can stop talking about maybe's, what if's, dream candidates.
merrily
(45,251 posts)"Smart." and "Good for her." Now, people who are much less well heeled and much less well funded than Hillary are wrong not to have announced yesterday.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)The reasons people are declaring now has something to do with declaration of donations and fund raising.
I also heard Sanders was going to declare, probably for similar reasons.
It should be a good race.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Hillary and/or her camp have announced several dates for her announcement, ranging from the first of this year, to March, to April, to July and now back to April. So, all those dates probably have benefits and disadvantages.
When you declare affects fund-raising in many ways, some that advantage the candidate and some that do not. But none of us knows what the motives of the candidates are.
For example, after the email kerfuffle, many commentators noted that Hillary could not have campaign surrogates addressing because, technically, she had no campaign yet. They speculated that would make her announce soon. Were they right? I that why the date got moved back from July to April again? Was that their speculation or something they came up with after talking off the record with Hillary and her advisors? I have no idea.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)The Supreme Court changed the climate of our elections with their decisions.
Complaining about raising vast sums of money is the equivalent of complaining that we must breathe.
This will be a 5.5 to 6 billion dollar election.
If we can't compete, then we should just surrender everything to the Republicans.
merrily
(45,251 posts)(meaning, the Daily Beast story, not brooklynite)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Before Hillary, Obama was the person who held the record for funds raised.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Also, it seems that someone from her campaign was the source of the info. This may have been their way of framing the fundraising before anyone else does.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Anything more would be a surrender to neoliberal corporatism!!!!
FSogol
(45,527 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)I think that it's great that a candidate on the Democratic side will be able to amass as much money as the Republicans. The presidential run will cost way over a $1B and Democrats tend to lag behind in fundraising. There are enough RW billionaires to finance their candidate of choice, we need to be competitive.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)I should start out by saying that I have no special hatred for Hillary that I don't have for any other "mainstream" politician. Almost all mainstream politicians suck. However, she did vote for the Iraq War, the biggest blunder of my lifetime. That makes her unqualified to be president in my opinion (and of course Joe Biden as well). However, most people have short memories and will forgive her (I won't). She also has the corporate lobbyists backing her because she supports a lot of their policies. She may be a D to the Republicans F, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel. You yourself don't even seem to support her. Your reasoning here seems to be a Machiavellian real politic reasoning, and not because you believe she will be great. I actually think she will win the whole election, but that doesn't mean I support her. I understand her potentially being the "lessor of two evils" but my votes will go to people I support (especially considering I don't live in a swing state). I haven't given up on society yet enough to vote for the least offensive corporate stooge war supporter.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Anyway, Hillary's been fundraising for some time.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)since the Supreme Court screwed the pooch.
The Koch Brothers have already set up 800 million dollars to spend.
I'll bet their wallets will screech open for Republicans and vomit up more cash.
dolphinsandtuna
(231 posts)That's where my money is going.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)If I had to vote for one of them, it would probably be Hillary though, because she would be less likely to grope women she just met.
dolphinsandtuna
(231 posts)Biden is competent. Hillary is not:
Healthcare during her DH's administration.
Foreign Affairs - Libya hellhole, all hail Apartheid Israel, Arab Spring.
Mess of 2012 campaign administration.
Courageous nuder sniper fire. Oops, maybe not.
Also, Biden supporters don't engage in smear campaigns, ex: your post.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)And Biden groping women is a fact, not a "smear campaign." That actually has nothing to do with politics. Its simply a man not respecting boundaries.
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/yfmksi/the-audacity-of-grope
And all those things you just mentioned are things Biden is involved in. He is the VP. For the record, I won't be voting for either Hillary or Biden in the primary. So I don't care about getting in this apple vs oranges debate when I'm not a supporter of either side. Ultimately both are centrists who if run, will reach out to the corporations for funding. Both voted for the Iraq War. Both didn't support gay marriage until it was politically convenient. True, both are better than most Republicans, but that's all they have going for them.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)He is a TERRIBLE candidate.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,367 posts)I'm guessing I'm too "small potatoes", based on previous donations to candidates.
Not anywhere near Wall St.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)She will probably win the primary, but it won't be with my help.
TekGryphon
(430 posts)On Facebook, at work, and among friends I see a lot of enthusiasm for Hillary. Yet as surely as the aristocrats convince conservatives to go to the voting booth for bigotry and narcissism, so too have they been hard at work trying to convince people to stay home with their "both sides are the same" fallacy.
Will Hillary be perfect? Hell no, but neither was Obama and I LOVE the job he's done despite the constant hand-wringing from self-proclaimed "purists" here on DU. I notice those same "purists" have now transferred their hatred to Clinton, just as smoothly as they have on Fox News and Drudge Report.
Y'all can go ahead and sit this election out, but I think I speak for a lot of people here when I say: "I DON'T GIVE A F***."
I'll donate enough for the both of us and hit the pavement besides.