2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary raised $18 million for the Democratic party; Bernie raised nothing for other Dems.
This is in addition to the similar sums they raised for themselves. ($37M vs. $34M)
How will any Democratic President succeed in office without more Democrats in Congress?
ON EDIT: The Sanders campaign says it "plans" to raise money for the National party.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/02/bernie-sanders-raises-more-than-33-million-in-latest-fundraising-quarter/
Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said Saturday that he raised more than $33 million for his primary campaign in the final quarter of 2015, just shy of the $37 million that Hillary Clinton reported a day earlier.
The take of the Vermont senator, however, lags further behind Clinton's overall haul of $55 million for the past three months, which also included $18 million earmarked for the Democratic party -- money that would help bolster her prospects in the general election. Sanders did not report raising any money for the party during the three-month period.
http://news.yahoo.com/sanders-campaign-says-raised-33m-since-october-170112956--election.html
But Clinton is also helping build the party for the general election. She raised $18 million for the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic parties nationwide in the fourth quarter, putting her total haul for the past three months at $55 million. The DNC money is aimed at helping Clinton in the general election should she win the party's nomination.
Sanders, by comparison, did not raise any money for the DNC last year, although his campaign has said it plans to fundraise on behalf of the national party.
polichick
(37,152 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Only an ideologue would argue against raising money to get MORE elected Democrats into office.
But the Bern must have a magic wand that doesn't require Congress to pass laws.
polichick
(37,152 posts)How did that work out?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Was that when Obama was elected and Ted Kennedy got sick and couldn't vote?
polichick
(37,152 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Lordy.
polichick
(37,152 posts)had quite a different agenda than Dem voters at the time - who got conned and then screwed.
Happily, more and more voters see the game for what it is now.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Just call it "The Money Party!"
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)are the enemy. Blue Dogs roam freely among us then stab us when our backs are turned.
Fuck 'em.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The margin is too slim and always will be.
In the senate there was a clear majority, but one Repug could stop it with a filibuster...not a real one but just by saying he would. And that was our excuse.
But it never worked the other way around...no Dem could say he would filibuster and kill a bill.
Just one excuse after the other...no wonder why we lose all the time.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)the short period of time we were closest. And his vote with the Democrats wasn't reliable.
polichick
(37,152 posts)That's why so many people now see the difference between "Dems" and Dems.
More power to them - the people, that is!
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)And Bernie hasn't been helping to make sure more Dems are.
polichick
(37,152 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)How else do you expect him to carry out his agenda? Why isn't he at least seeking out compatible Dems and helping to support them?
polichick
(37,152 posts)of my donations is going to "Dems" - meaning con artists with a D behind their names - ever again.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Let him decide which other Dems he wants in Congress.
mythology
(9,527 posts)There was exactly 1 Democratic member of the House in the previous session of Congress who voted with the party less that 60% of the time and he voted with the party 59% of the time. That member is in a highly Republican state and was voted out.
In the 112th Congress, 4 Democrats voted with the party less than 60% of the time. Of those, 3 are in highly Republican states and were voted out.
In the 111th Congress where we had the majority, no Democrats voted with the party less than 70% of the time (excepting Kristen Gillibrand who moved to the Senate very early in the term).
In the 110th Congress where we had the majority, no Democrat voted with the party less than 80% of the time.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/114/house/members/
The it is factually undeniable that there is more partisanship in Congress than any time in recent memory. If there are so many "unreliable" Democrats that wouldn't be the case.
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/24/political_partisanship_in_three_stunning_charts_109196.html
The evidence is clear. And it's clear that the parties are simply further apart and more polarized. There simply isn't this large number of "Dems" no matter how much you want to believe that to be true.
We saw how Lieberman turned out after he lost his VP bid.
thesquanderer
(11,991 posts)From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Colemans challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedys illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux
So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).
from http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/
polichick
(37,152 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)And with pre-conditions. Thanks for asking
polichick
(37,152 posts)that the people wanted and corporate "Dems" did not.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)was going no where ... even Bernie recognized that.
polichick
(37,152 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)affordable health care and cover their actual medical expenses, that make under 30k a year? And how many of those snark at ACA without checking it out to see how much more affordable it is, here in Texas. A state that did not take advantage of the Federal buy in.
Because they have been condition to see this program as bad, one way or another, they are fuckin cutting their nose off to spite their face.
I now have a job where I deal with medical insurance claims. I have discussed with so many not having insurance, that would have such an advantage with ACA.
I mean, I do not know what this has to do with your post, but over the last couple months, and seeing the cost of ACA care, I am just shocked as shit at these people that have not taken advantage of it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts).....Fair and universal health coverage. And the distinction of COrporate Democrats on that issue is important. There were Democrats who pushed for it, but got sandbagged by Obama and the other leadership who were determined to kill public insurance in favor of enforced private market mandates.
Institutionally the Democrats have been too corrupt and/or cowardly to push to advance true universal healthcare. The Clintons screwed it up in the early 90s, then abandoned it....Then Obama revived it, but in a bastardized form that combined the Worst of both private insurance and a "socialist" bureaucracy.
Sorry if that sound harsh, but IMO it is unforgivable that the Democrats have never even embraced a compromise system that would offer income-based healthcare as a basic right, without the terms being dictated by private insurance, big pharma and the corporate healthare providers.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)that pass laws for the corporations and 1%. There is a hell of a difference when it comes time to pass laws.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)And there are "dems". The whole thing passed without a single republican vote. The reason we have the current system is because the "dems" wouldn't go along with it. So yeah, there's a difference.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)to one third of our federal government is going to change all of that, this is about more than the presidency and only one candidate...
Equally befuddling things...
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)when it's a proven loser. Corporate democrats suck.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Is...
Wait for it...
You guessed it...
The status quo.
Want change? Start pounding the pavement like I do every Saturday, talk to people, get involved from the ground up, and think about more than just the candidate for president.
This year there is a whole lot of things that matter beyond that.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)You support watered down garbage policies as long as has a crumb for the 99%.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Sure seems like.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)about future generations.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)I also no what I wrote.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)As they will be better "for I"?
I'll wait.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)about future generations.
Noted.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)passed a conservative bill and hoped to have a Republican to blame for it.
rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)I think the major problem with any of these arguments about Sanders not being a democrat or not helping the party is they are very shortsighted. If anyone thinks that raising a boatload of money automatically means we get a democratic congress again is very naive. Did we not pay attention to the last midterm or the election before that? This election can't be bought. Look the the conservatives and the presidential election, they will eventually spend way more money than Dems and we all know how the election will turn out and its not pretty for them. In 2008 we heard a nation that was ready for a progressive agenda and we elected a longshot. We've come a long way but not far enough for most americans and I believe we will see people raise their voice once again and I hope Sanders is the progressive we all know him to be.
comradebillyboy
(10,175 posts)that should help with liberal causes. We don't need more purity tests we need more Democrats even if they are a bit conservative for your taste. We win elections by expanding the party in a two party system.
CAG
(1,820 posts)Tests
CAG
(1,820 posts)My state's congressional contingent rather than all of the d$&@ inhofe clones that fill all of our seats
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)It's a lot easier. Which is why BIll and the cabal took the party from the people and sold the party to corporate Oligarchy.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Sanders has already earned my vote, while Clinton hasn't earned it.
Based on her policies, she's unlikely to earn it.
Raising more money isn't going to change anyone's mind, including mine. Substance is what matters.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)all you've got is an ideologue spouting off.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Not much, and the funding machine for Congress has been busily pumping money for so-called Democrats the entire time.
We need a better message if we want to win Congress.
Bernie's got it.
Hillary may have the cash donations, but she does not have a message.
Not a strong enough one.
Everything she talks about is sort of a watered down version of Bernie's message.
Except for on gun control, and on that one issue, the laws have been proposed and not passed. And Hillary is not going to change that fact.
Because on gun control, the problem is our culture and not just our laws. Does not good to pass laws if the culture does not respect them. And our culture focuses on violence as a means of solving disputes. Just look at the popular movies in our country.
The money to support our Democrats in Congress, with the exception of a few of them, will just continue the trend -- voter apathy, laws that don't fit us and don't solve our problems, corporate rule, a devastated environment and terrible employment relationships between bosses and employees. Supporting our current Congress will not solve any of those problems.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)think that was a heck of a lot.
And I'd post everything else he managed to get through with a hostile Congress but you obviously don't care.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)during the first couple of years and then was stopped by the Republicans.
He did not call on us or the unions to support him strongly. We lost mid-terms in 2010 and 2014. We should have done better than we did.
Obama was handed an opportunity to stand up for working people and fight conservatives like Scott Walker, but he didn't take it.
Obama missed that opportunity to stand for unions and working people because, when he got to D.C., he surrounded himself with Blue dog and relatively conservative Democrats and instead of fighting the conservatives, the right-wing, Obama tried to compromise with them. He could have fought them if he had been willing to attack economic inequality issues and supported working people more.
Bernie is willing to take on the issues and struggle against the right-wing political views that Obama failed to take on.
comradebillyboy
(10,175 posts)now he is the anti-Christ. He's only human and constrained by the environment in which he operates. He actually exceeded my rather low expectations. He certainly has plenty of flaws but his administration has been relatively successful. Little things like fending off a new depression and saving the American auto industry count for a lot in my book.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)obstructed him, and he did not turn to us to really support him. He turned to corporations to support him rather than, say to union members. Union members who were struggling for rights in Wisconsin.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)zalinda
(5,621 posts)When the DNC is unashamedly backing Hillary, why should Bernie supporters want to support likewise candidates down ticket. I hear that really good progressive candidates have been stabbed in the back to get less progressive candidates on the ballot. I can't or won't support that kind of party (think DWS and others) manipulation, when my life is on the line.
Z
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)will amount to nothing.
The election will be decided in 9 months, and Bernie will be stuck with whatever Congress we get. He should be doing everything he can to make sure it's a Congress that will want to work with him -- not the Rethug Congress we have now.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)He has no real inside network in the Democratic Party and thus could never get anything done if elected president.
I doubt he'd be successful in vetoing any legislation that landed on his desk because of the Democratic support that will be required to get such legislation to his desk.
Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Would get a lot done?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I don't see how it would be more effective if he yelled at them from the White House instead of from the floor of the House or Senate.
thesquanderer
(11,991 posts)You don't see how a President can be more effective than a Senator? In being able to negotiate from a position of actually being able to almost automatically bring along the rest of his party? In being able to pretty much single-handedly deliver on his horse-trading proposals? In influencing public opinion? Come on.
rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)HRC supporters like above have been given their marching orders from the establishment and they are afflicted by the same syndrome that faux news viewers suffer from. This site was once really just full of liberals who couldn't stand the noise coming from the other side and came here to discuss real issues like adults. I, Like many others, are continued to be shocked by the constant mindless extremely tired talking points as to why a right of center Democrat should earn my vote in the primary. Are these the same people that bashed BHO in 2008 and feel it's their candidates turn, are they paid by her staff to shake things up, have they already picked their horse and refuse to evaluate any valid criticism?
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the status quo which is that Congress passes legislation that helps the wealthy and corporations but not legislation that helps the ordinary American people, the erstwhile middle class.
I don't.
If money for Congress could solve the problems of our country, we would already be problem-free.
The problem with our Congress is not a lack of campaign funds, but a lack of Democrats who are willing to take on the challenges of the very, very wealthy and stand up for the middle class and for the poor, for small businesses and for working people.
Money is not the problem.
Hillary's money will just further entrench the incompetent in Congress. We need people who are close to and represent the middle class to run against the incompetent members of Congress. Hillary is not going to give her money to unseat Democrats who should not be in Congress.
riversedge
(70,299 posts)infrastructure with the money she has raised---This 50 state strategy will help with the downticket Dems in the coming year.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Meanwhile, nobody in the Democratic Party owes Sanders diddly squat because he doesn't help get Democrats elected all over the country.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)Fact: Bernie Sanders Got More Done in the Senate than Hillary Clinton
https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/fact-bernie-sanders-got-more-done-in-the-senate-than-hillary-clinton/
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)That is a job well done. And much appreciated.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)The take of the Vermont senator, however, lags further behind Clinton's overall haul of $55 million for the past three months, which also included $18 million earmarked for the Democratic party -- money that would help bolster her prospects in the general election.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...Hillary Clinton raised for the Democratic Party as money for down-ticket candidates.
In actuality, some of that money will be spent on Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)So if Sanders wins the nomination, it will be spent bolstering his candidacy. Which would be damned nice of them, considering he spends most of his time criticizing the party and raising no money for Democratic candidates--the only ones, btw, who might possibly help to get any of his plans put into law. He claims he is now a Democrat, yet he is still listed as "I" on the Senate website and doesn't mention the Democratic Party on his own website at all. Very ungracious (and not politically astute, imo). He's using the party for his own personal gain, and kicking them to the curb in the process.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)to help raise funding for the Democratic Party. You make it sound as if Hillary did this all by herself.
Also the Bernie Sanders campaign offered to help raise money for the DNC but was not given a schedule of events.
In other words DWS told the Sanders Campaign this was Hillary spot in the headlines.
So read the entire article and don't pick out the parts you need to try and discredit the Sanders Campaign
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)While Clinton has coordinated with the National Democratic Committee to raise an additional $18 million, Sanders has not replicated those efforts, despite an arrangement with the national party that allows him to do so.
And typical for the amateur campaign we have a Sanders spokeman passing the buck/making excuses/blaming the DNC:
"We remain happy to work with them," Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said Saturday, when asked about joint fundraising efforts. "The party hasn't given us any dates for events."
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)My guess is they didn't want him campaigning for them.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)"Also the Bernie Sanders campaign offered to help raise money for the DNC but was not given a schedule of events."
This was all about DWS wanting to try and discredit Bernie Sanders.
Don't forget Debbie Wassermann Schultz is in the tank for Hillary so any thing she does to discredit the Sanders campaign is good for her candidate,Right?
But it "ain't" working Hillary fans.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)from fundraising for the DNC? I get emails from Hillary asking for money for the DNC, and Hillary has long been a fundraiser for other candidates. Why doesn't Bernie do that?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)While Clinton has coordinated with the National Democratic Committee to raise an additional $18 million, Sanders has not replicated those efforts, despite an arrangement with the national party that allows him to do so.
snip
"We remain happy to work with them," Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said Saturday, when asked about joint fundraising efforts. "The party hasn't given us any dates for events."
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)riversedge
(70,299 posts)initiatives to get the joint fundraising going? They did have time to wonder into Clinton's data --and sue the DNC--which takes money.
rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)You folks have gotten really vicious lately. Is it because everyday that passes this is looking more and more like 2008?
riversedge
(70,299 posts)a fact.
rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)riversedge
(70,299 posts)Hillary Clinton Outraises Bernie Sanders in Q4. Sanders Raises Nothing for Dem Party http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/2/1465523/-Hillary-Clinton-Outraises-Bernie-Sanders-in-Q4-Sanders-raises-nothing-for-Dem-Party ?1451772340 #p2
Cha
(297,655 posts)Gloria
(17,663 posts)to gain access to the voter files, knew THAT process (payment etc.) but can't discuss the dates for joint fundraising?
I call bull on this...
I got one email Months ago from the Senate Committee with his name on it...so, he's got SOME in on the dates for things that go out....I think it's just more excuses from the Devine crowd re: the DNC dates....
BTW, I never signed up for Sanders and yet on DEC 4, 2015 got an email from Sanders' campaign asking for $$
How?
rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)I get a Bernie email about everyday and out of nowhere a few weeks ago I have been bombarded by HRC asking for money when I have shown no desire to support her nomination.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)so it can use it to bribe super delegates instead of using her own funds.
Despicable, I hope not too many are falling for this ruse. One more way the DNC is favoring Hillary.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Any facts to back that up or are we just making it up?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)that back Bernie and are up for reelection, I have a bridge to sell you.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Got it.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)In your next post please tell us how much money you think super delegates that support Bernie will get from the DNC.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Thanks foray least giving up on the made up stuff.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Mail Message
On Sat Jan 2, 2016, 02:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
It sounds like Hillary is actually asking people to donate money to the DNC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=968625
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Accusing Clinton of bribing super delegates is a ridiculous assertion and is more appropriate for Free Republic not DU. Hillary is raising money for the DNC, not bribing folks. Can we stop sinking to this level of discussion please? Please hide this post.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jan 2, 2016, 02:54 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: JHC, just explain why the offending post is in err.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: More unfounded, wild claims worthy of a rightwing troll.
These Sanders supporters are more anti-Clinton that anything else and they need to GROW UP, learn about facts and critical thinking skills
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)That people don't consider a donation from one candidate to another could be a bribe is surprising.
Well at least I'm not a liberal anymore, it seems I have, in someone's opinion improved to being a right wing troll.
Must be many don't think the DNC would use that money to support the super delegates that just happen to back Hillary and are up for reelection. In my world that is a bribe, I may be wrong.
Surprising how many don't understand the games played by politicians.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)I'll tell you this, it takes a lot for me to vote to hide something. This wasn't one of 'em, not even close.
I do know that some of us are sick and tired of the games, the theater, the pay-to-play and the status quo.
Change was in the air in '08. Here we are 8 years later and the scent of change has grown even stronger.
Just my lil ole humble opinion though. There are many here who would disagree.
riversedge
(70,299 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)Poor Sanders and his team couldn't figure out how to get things moving.
And everyone kept it a secret.
Because, you know, political types never, ever, talk about what's going on.
riversedge
(70,299 posts)or placing blame on the DNC will do.
LuvLoogie
(7,028 posts)riversedge
(70,299 posts)to help her achieve her goals. Raising money for them is the way to get them into Congress. Thanks you Hillary. And a note to Sanders--get busy and raise some money for other downticket Democrats. It is the right thing to do NOW! Your staff is not serving you by not getting the arrangements set up.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Bernie was always proud of not being a democrat.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Real hope for a government not completely of the top 1% by the top 1% and for the top 1% will get young people, Democrats and progressive independents to the polls in full force.
Unfortunately for all of us who hate Republicans, money can't buy Hillary love. Just look at all she has spent in New Hampshire and Iowa to date.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)For all the down ballot Socialists
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Let's make Democrats for the 99% again!
rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)You are exactly right! I can't hear anything from the HRC side because its being drown out by the enthusiasm of millennials that have never voted and most progressives who have felt like they've been left at the alter for the last eight years. Voter turnout is what wins sweeping elections, the Democratic party should be very happy that so many people are "feeling the Bern" because this will only help other races where there is a (D) in front of someones name. If HRC supporters are so sure that she will win the nomination and are disgusted in Sanders supporters, tell me why do you waste all your time on DU arguing? It's a done deal right?
Autumn
(45,120 posts)said Saturday, when asked about joint fundraising efforts. "The party hasn't given us any dates for events." Now I wonder why dear old DWS hasn't given them any dates for events? I think I got that figured out.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)No chance they are telling the truth.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)(corrected your typo, there)
Cute!
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)And they can set up events themselves.
I get emails from Hillary asking for money for the party. Why hasn't Bernie been sending similar emails out?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Why does DWS campaign for Republicans?
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)and the House campaign committee, or with individual Democrats.
He says he "plans" to -- not that he can't.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Required for him to work with them, he can't even crash a party if they forget to tell him when and where it is.
And you skipped the second part of the question: why does DWS campaign for Republicans?
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Why doesn't Bernie help them fundraise?
I know nothing about DWS campaigning for Republicans, and you provided no evidence to back your claim. Why should I comment on nothing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Senatorial_Campaign_Committee
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is the Democratic Hill committee for theUnited States Senate. It is the only organization solely dedicated to electing Democrats to the United States Senate. The DSCC's current Chairman is Senator Jon Tester of Montana, who succeeded Senator Michael Bennet following the United States Senate elections, 2014. The DSCC's current Executive Director is Tom Lopach, who is assisted by Deputy Executive Director Preston Elliott.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)any money this year.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)will block him.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)he won't be able to wave a magic wand. He'll have to work with whatever Congress is in office.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)If Bernie doesn't win, I won't spend a penny since there will be no use. If he does, I will happily contribute to worthy Democrats.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)No chance in hell shell get a thing done; her own party doesnt like her, how do you think the Republicans are going to cooperate with her?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)She, unlike Bernie, seems to realize that a Democratic Congress is as important as a Democratic President.
And her own party is strongly in support of her. Her approval ratings are very high among Democrats in general -- just not here in this select group called DU.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Look around you; go on ANY online forum and youll find the MAJORITY of Democratic voices against her. It is ridiculous to think its just here. She is a war hawk and a corporatists and the majority of the party are tired of the Clintons. Additionally, she CANNOT win without independent support and she isnt about to get it.
But keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)But keep telling yourself that the opinions of self-selected keyboarders mean more than the results of scientifically designed polls of random samples of voters, if it makes you feel better.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)Because ALL the people commenting on on-line forums are ALL Bernie supporters with multiple IDs with nothing but time on their hands. Meanwhile, HRC has a proven track record of buying twitter followers and Facebook likes both as a candidate and as SOS.
http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/hillary-clinton-allegedly-has-more-than-2-million-fake-twitter-followers/112810
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/state-department-facebook-likes-spent-630000_n_3541734.html
Also if you think the fact that the House of Saud supporting her isnt going to sink her into a whole pile of stinking shit after they beheaded 47 innocent people today you have another thing coming.
She has too much baggage.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Besides, after the primaries there will be plenty of time to raise money. Until then, all mine goes to Bernie.
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)I find this not giving a crap about the party to be particularly irksome, but somehow unsurprising.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Sigh. But, reading your post made me smile, and ... Breathe out.
I am a Democrat that fights for the Democratic party. We need the support in congress, the Supreme Court, and presidency. We need to be strong. And Sanders has thought of only one person, himself. Taken care of himself. Only about himself.
In so many ways.
It is always, someone else's fault.
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)... but /huggiething. Thanks Sea.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Thanks. I am just not surprised either, but man, I still sit here shaking my head. Amazed at the excuses on this thread.
Hit reply and there will be a bar that allows b =bold, excerpt, link, blockquote, and.... smilies. click on smilies, and you get your choice.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...which raised money for the Iowa Democratic Party.
All three candidates have done other events which raised money for state Democratic parties.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)and he was criticized on this forum by certain vociferous detractors for doing that.
He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)I quit giving to those crooks after the last disastrous midterm where they were totally ineffective. I've always had a problem giving to them, but have, because I live in texas and for some reason the phone only works one way between here in there. I've seen countless candidates that had a shot at beating a republican being totally ignored by the DNC.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)New voters, people who never voted before because they had no reason to believe they could improve America by voting; people who voted for other parties; people who gave up voting when they were tired of hoping for anyone to be a true voice for People, not Corporations....
and he's doing it by the most effective (and also the best use of resources) method: word-of-mouth, grassroots (not astroturf), and populist.
I'll put Bernie's Get Out the Vote against Hillary's $$$$ any day.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Never has. He has always dissed the Democrats.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)Which group are you in?
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)I'm one of the 99% that will be voting for our next President, Hillary Clinton.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Go ahead and vote for the status quo but I don't want to hear you complaining afterwards if she wins and your circumstances deteriorate.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)If you think any politician is going to make your life great you will be disappointed. I am a lifelong Democrat and I think Obama has done an admirable job under difficult conditions. Before The disastrous Bush administration, we had 8 years of peace and prosperity under Bill Clinton. In this election I am voting for the person that is most qualified to be President. For me that is Hillary. I like Bernie. For a Socialist, he's a pretty good guy 😊In the unlikely event that he wins the nomination I would vote for him. I just afraid he's got too much baggage to win in the GE and the last thing we need is a Republican in the White House.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)so-called revolutionary who sat out 10 national elections amd never campaigned nationally until his mid-seventies. If he cared about people, he would have started this decades ago. But he didn't.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)And so far he hasn't lifted a finger to help bring this about. But he has "plans."
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)Inform us where he has always dissed the Dems?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)understand?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Gloria
(17,663 posts)so, how many of them are really Republican leaning? Or how many will vote?
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)and so have registered their displeasure by not registering....until they found a good reason to do so.
modestybl
(458 posts)... Sanders campaigns for progressives like Chuy Garcia in Chicago.
Sanders will boost the prospects of ALL progressive candidates all the way down the ticket by the enthusiasm of his supporters. He beats all Repubs more definitively than HRC, he will bring people to the polls...
The DNC has been nest to worthless ever since Howard Dean stepped down. Never give those jokers any money, and the leadership of DWS should be reason enough not to support that organization.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)signed the fund raising agreement. Why?
comradebillyboy
(10,175 posts)that the Democratic party paid for, not Bernie.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)This simple fact is beyond the comprehension of Sanders, the Sanders campaign, and the majority of Sanders supporters.
rynestonecowboy
(76 posts)but the DNC had a boatload of money for the last midterm and they didn't get squat done. This is going to take a candidate that inspires many non voters or first time voters and a majority of independents to swamp the polls and carry the ticket to a sweeping election. I'm only seeing enthusiasm from one campaign currently and it isn't HRC's.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Hillary has $18 million that proves she's got a good start on having that covered. That's how policies & campaign promises get turned into changes in the real world.
What's Bernie's plan to get Congress to do that? Hmm? The answer is that he has none.
You can have all the enthusiasm in the world, but if it doesn't translate into hard work, votes to elect Democratic candidates & legislation that can be passed in Congress, that enthusiasm is useless. Or worse than useless if it makes you think it's all you need to accomplish something.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)RandySF
(59,224 posts)Then my hunch that he's only using the party for his White House would be true.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Of course he recognizes the need. That's why they're now saying he has "plans" to help other Dems. Whatever that means.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)conservative Democrats.
Hillary's money will go to further entrench the status quo Dems who have utterly failed to inspire voters to even bother to vote.
We need fresh faces and ideas not money. We need voters who think they can actually improve their lives if progressive Democrats win.
We don't need money given to the campaigns of some of the members of Congress now there. Rather, we need to revitalize the Democratic bench in Congress. New faces who got there based on their ideas and not on Hillary's corporate donors' money.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)they won't be in place when he takes office in 2017.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Why did he make a fundraising agreement with the DNC?
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Since this is being tossed about...we would all like to see the actual "agreement".
Especially in light of how SUPPORTIVE the DNC/DWS have been for Bernie...not.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)like I've gotten many times from Hillary, asking for help for other Dem candidates in the Senate and House.
How do you think he'll accomplish his huge promises without more Dems in Congress? He can't pass laws by himself.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Since all the evils of the world are now Bernie's fault, don't ya know.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)But the same thing goes for him. WHOEVER is elected will need a Democratic Congress and should be trying to hep bring that about.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)is a dumb-ass joke. Desperation spawns stretches of imagination.
REALLY wrankled my nerves awhile back when I got a solicitation from the DSCC asking for donations and touting Bernie's accomplishments as justification for donations! WTF?
INdemo
(6,994 posts)that DWS will not get within 10 miles of the Sanders campaign and knowing that DWS is in the tank for Hillary and trying to discredit Bernie Sanders when in fact the DNC is not about to allow the Sanders campaign to raise money for the DNC because Debbie wants Hillary to have all the credit.
Debbie did not supply the Sanders campaign any information about fundraising dates.
Shall we move on here children.
Obviously the Hillary campaign is nervous when they they try to make something out of nothing. Pretty much the
same strategy used by candidates in previous national elections/primaries.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)if he thinks that's the right thing to do, and simply support other Dems.
Why doesn't he support the Senate campaign committee? The House campaign committee? Or any individual Dems?
How do you think he'll get any of his promises and pipe dreams through the current Congress?
Autumn
(45,120 posts)if it were true but the party has used his name to send out fundraising letters.
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)That means everyone associated within the DNC raised the funding and DWS wanted to make sure her gal Hillary was the center of attention
dpatbrown
(368 posts)I do not want any of my donations going to the DNC, not a penny. I haven't since 02, when many Dems voted to invade another country. I became an Independent. That might bother some of you, but it was unacceptable going to war. The Dems, too, knew what they were doing was wrong.
I will work very hard for Sanders, but WILL vote for Clinton, if necessary.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)with the current Congress, because people like you think he can simply wave a magic wand and get legislation passed.
We need more Dems and progressives in Congress, and the critical election is 9 months away. He isn't helping if he hasn't explained that to people like you and asked you to do your part.
dpatbrown
(368 posts)my part is MY part, and that is to get Bernie elected, period. The most Clinton will get from me is my vote, very reluctantly. Excuse me, but I'm an old pro at this, and I understand the possiblilities, just as I do with Clinton. But not to vote for someone because of how he might be received by Congress, is ridiculous. And no, the critical election is one month away. That will be the indicator.
"magic wand" , silly.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)I agree, it's silly to think he has one, but that appears to be the belief of the supporters who don't understand the critical need for a Democratic Congress if he is to accomplish anything more important than naming Post Offices.
dpatbrown
(368 posts)concerning a Dem Congress. I'm not over-looking that. The GOP has caused havoc even since they took control. No matter if it's Sanders or Clinton, if the GOP is there, nothing will happen. That being said, I still wouldn't donate to the DNC, they are corrupt. You get your Dem to Congress, and I will get my Dem to Congress.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)That has completely different leadership, and it's the only org completely dedicated to helping Senate candidates.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)ideological gadflys. This is a narrative Republicans have been desperately trying to push since the last few months of the Carter administration.
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)He's not a Democrat.
jfern
(5,204 posts)The reason he hasn't raised a lot of money for the DNC is that his donors aren't fat cats. Hillary is only raising money from maxed out donors As of the end of quarter 3, Hillary had raised $47 million from maxed out donors. Bernie had raised $700k.
http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/federal/president/2016/Pres16_Q3_Table2.pdf
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)from Hillary to help with the Senate and House campaigns. Bernie could do the same.
Hillary, unlike Bernie supporters, understands how important it is to get more seats in Congress to have even a chance of passing strong progressive legislation.
jfern
(5,204 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)sending their small checks to other Democrats. And if they don't, then he will have a very tough time getting any of his legislation through the current Congress.
jfern
(5,204 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)to his supporters asking for donations to the Senate campaign committee or the House campaign committee, then he would have had some amount of fundraising for them to report.
Instead, his campaign only says that he "plans to."
jfern
(5,204 posts)Because that fund didn't give a dime to anyone else unless someone first maxed out to the Hillary campaign, and Bernie barely has any maxed out donors compared to Hillary.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)fundraising requests from Hillary to help support other Dems. She realizes that she can't do it alone.
jfern
(5,204 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)Just a few hundred fat cats gave the $18 million.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)was in WA recently, and he's also campaigned for other Democrats. So have President Obama and Michelle.
azmom
(5,208 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)And damn good thing he is consistently so far behind in the polls.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)So you resort to a personal attack.
Doesn't seem very logical. Seems rather emotional, really.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)All about one person and one person only. Seems about right. No surprise. None at all. That takes guts to so blatantly use a party, and ask for the vote.
riversedge
(70,299 posts)Democrats to be elected to server in Congress to help pass this proposals. Hillary understands that.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)He'll do fine as President with whatever Congress.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)So yeah, I'll dream on.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Bernie won't have a magic wand to pass legislation with. He needs at least the Senate, and preferably both.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)But it's not like that worked well with Bill Clinton or Obama.
You at have noticed Bernie is drawing in some conservatives and that could be a different strategy. It's not magic. - it's a different type of Democrat.
YMMV
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)You might remember that the origins of the Tea Party were conservatives who were against the corp bailouts. Fundies and whack jobs took over the Tea Party , you'd be surprised who is interested in supporting Bernie.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)He doesn't even present himself as a Democrat, but as an Independent (except for the purpose of this election) so why should they switch parties and vote for other Democrats?
He should be getting out the message that it's not all about him. That Congress matters just as much. But he's not.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)I know I'm not going to convince you of anything, but I wanted to speak out against conventional wisdom about this election
Alfresco
(1,698 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)I am glad that Hillary Clinton is raising money for the party. All Democrats benefit when we have a strong party
Cha
(297,655 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)And he's not been helping with that so far.
basalat
(1 post)All the Democrat politicians who complain about him not helping are far more likely to win with Bernie at the head of the ticket. Bernie can bring in many more Independents and Republicans. He's offering these same Democrat politicians a free ride. They are just so used to grovelling for money that they don't realize which side their bread is now buttered on.
With Mrs Clinton, I can certainly understand the need for money. With her at the head of the ticket, she's so unpopular that these people are going to need to fight much harder to get elected.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)helping them nearly as much as you think.
And they know that, and that's all but a handful of elected super-delegates are supporter Hillary.