-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Democratic Primary Debate VI: Raid Time 2/11 9PM EST
- Thread starter dramatis
- Start date
- Status
? The article said the DNC made that change (quietly) months ago, but it's only now becoming more widely known, so it isn't a reaction to the debate.
The biggest takeaway from that article for me was the Hillary Victory Fund - $27 million poured in and being distributed to 33 local Democratic committees. People want to know why caucus members support the "establishment" candidate? Because she's been savvy enough to share the wealth and gain (buy) their loyalty across the party.
Even when Sanders outearns Hillary in individual donations, how much of that goes to local races and helping down-ticket nominees? Call it dirty politics or a symptom of a system gone wrong, but don't act surprised if the DNC is more willing to help a nominee who's raising millions for local candidates vs. a nominee who has set up the exact same joint fundraising program (so he's not ideologically opposed to a "victory fund") and raised only $1,000 for it, according to the article.
If Bernie wants more local support, he'll have to smile for the cameras and attend a few joint fundraising efforts to show he can direct his millions in small donations to others and not just to himself.
Same thing, it happened a while ago ("last couple of months") but is only being talked about now.
is this DWS' doing? even if its not can we blame DWS anyways? she is fucking useless
eh, if nothing else, it calls into question his understanding of political realities and calls into question his allegiance to the party/whether he's a team player. you could make a compelling case that people already know he doesn't care about the party or providing realistic solutions--and I wouldn't disagree--but it just underscores those problems with his candidacy just a little bit more.
if this primary (for the Democratic nomination, let's not forget) gets turned into a referendum on Obama's presidency... calling for Obama to be primaried will not help you win that referendum.
excelsiorlef
Member
It never happened because he didn't have the power to make it happen.
The Sanders campaign also has a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559
I'm not sure how much the campaign has raised for the DNC, though.
The Sander's campaign also coordinates with grass roots groups who back him, such as Democracy for America.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-2016-fundraising-dnc-215559
I'm not sure how much the campaign has raised for the DNC, though.
The Sander's campaign also coordinates with grass roots groups who back him, such as Democracy for America.
exmachina64
Banned
I can't believe he's only raised $1000 for downticket races.
Can we not pretend to know what goes on behind closed doors?
From the Washington Post article:
Again, I don't think the DNC is likely to be as supportive of a nominee who earns money for other groups rather than for down-ticket and local candidates... though of course Hillary's operation isn't pure benevolent selflessness either, because her campaign and the DNC have a say in which local candidates receive the fund's support.
The above isn't a criticism of Sanders, since part of his message is that he's not part of the big party money apparatus, but people seem surprised that he isn't getting more support from local candidates or that Hillary is collecting endorsements while ignoring that hey, local Democrats need money just as much as the next candidate, and while Sanders is talking about the corrupting influence of big money in campaign fundraising (while raising amd spending millions for his own campaign), they're kind of being left high and dry. Hillary might get Wall Street money, but Wall Street money is better than no money at all for local races.
You can't bemoan the role of money in getting people elected while ignoring that... money gets people elected, including allies and supporters. More coordinated efforts to get individual donors to give to the DNC (lol) or local candidates would earn him some goodwill.
Just big enough to ensure that no American starves or goes bankrupt due to medical bills. Just big enough to ensure that people of all color can walk the streets without fearing for their lives. Just big enough to protect the majority of the country from the predations of the super rich. Just big enough to take care of the soldiers we sent to fight and die for America.
He could have done a whole thing and turned the question into a positive, but oratory and extemporaneous speaking are not exactly Bernie's strong suit.
Dixon's Jet
Banned
If he does that they will start to rail against him harder as a dreamers candidate, which was even done before to Obama in 2008 by the Clinton's.
He has to speak extremely carefully when debating with a Clinton. They don't play fairly.
And it's always better to avoid platitudes. He's wise to stick with the economy for most answers.
NullPointer
Member
YES
And as the military is a part of government I'd have to assume that the Republicans are also all for expanding it as well.
Hydrophobic
Member
All numbers, no quantifiers. 'My government will be approximately 32.5'
as opposed to bernie's current campaign .......
Dixon's Jet
Banned
Going after wall street is a phenomenal message. Who else says it as forcefully as Sanders? In many ways it'll kill a few birds with one stone, pardon that crude phrase I can't think of any other. The disturbing hyper growth at the top is a great illness which will hinder a real change of the status quo. We seek a reversion to purer politics.
Yeah, I missed that in the article. Tired.
I definitely understand where those local candidates are coming from. Sander's campaign raises a lot of money from a large pool of small dollar donors. It really isn't set up to fundraise in the traditional manner.
I think it does point to a potential future method of raising money for campaigns, though. Someone just has to figure out a way to attract donations to organizations that support many candidates, rather than just one candidate. The grass roots groups allied with Sanders such as Democracy for America already do this to a limited extent, but they would need to be scaled up dramatically. At this point, Sanders is probably doing more to promote those groups than the other way around.
DataStream
Member
Indeed. I'd love for a debate moderator to ask "If elected, who are 3 people you would consider as being representatives to the UN and why". I do find his generalities troubling (along with his seemingly unwavering support of Israel). But I found it refreshing to hear someone with national awareness actually call out Kissinger for being the disgusting fuck that he is; regardless of whether it was a tangential point or one that many people won't even understand unless they are a serious wonk.
I'm not in the camp that thinks terrorist attack = GOP win, but I do think another Paris or San Bernadino (IMO only if it was more - for lack of a better word - marketably terrorist, say with a youtube manifesto posted of the killers beforehand) will require answers that are tangible and not philosophical.
It's not too difficult to switch the oratory from going overboard and qualify it with "but this isn't about having the government manage every part of your lives and pay for everything. It's about minimum guarantees. Basic health and education and safety so we don't have to worry about our families going sick or hungry or being poisoned or shot. It's about a fair playing field in politics so that the richest voices don't drown out the smaller ones, and everyone has a chance to be heard. After that, the rest is up to you."
Balance the safety net argument with the American narrative of individual responsibility and control over your destiny to appeal to those who don't like the idea of the state running everything (or the potential for state corruption).
Of course, it's easy to come up with responses and talking points well after the debate is over, but it seems like both candidates are having some issues with finding messaging that works, even outside the debates.
Are you serious?
Using "wall street" the way Bernie has been using it is the ultimate platitude. It's quite literally a textbook definition -- "used too often to be interesting or thoughtful".
balladofwindfishes
Member
It's not playing fair to bring up nothing Bernie says he will do, he will actually do?
Bernie is a dreamer. That's not really being unfair.
Zok310
Banned
as big as they were when they bailed out wall street with billions of tax dollars.
Nate has Nevada caucus 50/50 after new poll...
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/nevada-democratic/
itshappening.gif
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/nevada-democratic/
itshappening.gif
lastflowers
Banned
First time ever my father is going to caucus. Having lived in Texas for years, his political activity was relegated mostly to online discussions and with college faculty. I'm glad he's deciding to be more proactive now that he lives in Nevada
Macho Madness
Member
Nate is using that poll? That poll? The poll that sampled Republicans? The poll with more loaded questions than your typical Fox News interview? Okay.
Sanders may be surging in Nevada. But using that poll as evidence is shaky at best.
Sanders may be surging in Nevada. But using that poll as evidence is shaky at best.
lastflowers
Banned
:lol if true
Battersea Power Station
Member
For what it's worth, I currently see this on the page:
And I read that at whatever point they rated it 50/50, it was because of the lack of data (maybe a coin flip chance is the default?) and not due to the poll. Maybe they removed that last update -- dunno why I can't see it.
Macho Madness
Member
No, it still shows the update with the TargetPoint poll, which I guess Nate weighted heavier than the rest because it's newer?
As I said before, it's very possible that Sanders is tied with Hillary in Nevada. I wouldn't doubt it for a second. But not this poll. It's junk. It's especially weird of Nate to do this when he doesn't even rate the pollster.
As I said before, it's very possible that Sanders is tied with Hillary in Nevada. I wouldn't doubt it for a second. But not this poll. It's junk. It's especially weird of Nate to do this when he doesn't even rate the pollster.
lastflowers
Banned
No, it still shows the update with the TargetPoint poll, which I guess Nate weighted heavier than the rest because it's newer?
As I said before, it's very possible that Sanders is tied with Hillary in Nevada. I wouldn't doubt it for a second. But not this poll. It's junk. It's especially weird of Nate to do this when he doesn't even rate the pollster.
a majority of which were done through automated machines:
The results may be accurate, but weighting this poll highly seems circumspect. That being said, I'm a relative newbie when it comes to this stuff, so I could be wrong.
I wouldn't read too much into the polling.
There is a yuge increase in registrations, so it's difficult to call anything.
https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog...-registration-2015-may-presage-caucus-turnout
Nevada's Democratic Caucuses Are A Week Away And We Don't Have A Clue Who Will Win
There is a yuge increase in registrations, so it's difficult to call anything.
More voters registered in Nevada last year than in 2007 and 2011 combined, indicating a heightened level of activism as the caucuses and elections loom.
-----------------------------------------------
The numbers: In 2007 there were 41,482 new voters registered. In 2011 there were 42,097. In 2015 there were 92,053 new registrations.
https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog...-registration-2015-may-presage-caucus-turnout
Nevada's Democratic Caucuses Are A Week Away And We Don't Have A Clue Who Will Win
Here's a nice chart with info about the 2008 superdelegates I couldn't find earlier:
Although it's interesting to note that most didn't switch their support from Hillary to Obama. They hadn't yet pledged when they chose Obama.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/
Although it's interesting to note that most didn't switch their support from Hillary to Obama. They hadn't yet pledged when they chose Obama.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked