Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:46 PM

Cheese Sandwich (9,086 posts)

Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders top donors compared

source: opensecrets.org

142 replies, 35500 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

142 replies	Author	Time	Post
Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders top donors compared (Original post)	Cheese Sandwich	Apr 2015	OP
k&r	polichick	Apr 2015	#1
+1. K & R	appalachiablue	Apr 2015	#2
Really has nothing to do with Hillary or Sanders.	NCTraveler	Apr 2015	#3
Exactly. The way the system is setup today unless you have money for your campaign you will face an	still_one	Apr 2015	#8
Somehow it needs to be gotten a hold of.	NCTraveler	Apr 2015	#12
That all depends on who is included in your definition of "we".	staggerleem	Apr 2015	#124
I saw this chart yesterday	arikara	Apr 2015	#130
Reforms determined by whom tho?	fadedrose	Apr 2015	#20
Hillary's donors -- all corporate and law firms that	JDPriestly	Apr 2015	#57
He is a senator from VT...	Agschmid	Apr 2015	#62
You really think that's the reason?	MattSh	Apr 2015	#84
It sure is a BIG part of it.	Agschmid	Apr 2015	#85
You don't think most of them know she is no longer a New York Senator and is now powerless?	A Simple Game	Apr 2015	#97
Are you aware open secrets reports groups INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL DONATIONS by their employer?	emulatorloo	Apr 2015	#70
Not entirely	Depaysement	Apr 2015	#79
Yep, there are two columns. Individual. PAC.	emulatorloo	Apr 2015	#83
Believe it or not	Depaysement	Apr 2015	#89
Hillary=corporations Sanders=unions	RoccoR5955	Apr 2015	#78
You are so right. The apples (1%) love HRC and the oranges (99%) love Sen Sanders.	rhett o rick	Apr 2015	#120
Bernie has more supporters with less money	fadedrose	Apr 2015	#4
Actually, Bernie has LESS supporters with less money...	brooklynite	Apr 2015	#9
This is why I won't withhold my funding from Bernie, I'm not a 1%er but	Autumn	Apr 2015	#17
Whether you're a 1%er or not, you can't give more that $2700 for the Primary period.	brooklynite	Apr 2015	#22
Every little bit counts.	Autumn	Apr 2015	#27
So that is why the largest dollar contributor on those two lists is for $2700, right?	salib	Apr 2015	#46
Read the fine print...	brooklynite	Apr 2015	#50
It is more subtle than that.	salib	Apr 2015	#59
Good points.	BlueMTexpat	Apr 2015	#88
Hillary has no poor supporters?	CreekDog	Apr 2015	#16
It's a matter of what you call "poor"	fadedrose	Apr 2015	#26
You're speculating that Hillary has NO LOW INCOME supporters?	CreekDog	Apr 2015	#31
I'm not running and it's not up to me to "beat" her	fadedrose	Apr 2015	#33
So now you're running away from your statement that Hillary has no low income supporters?	CreekDog	Apr 2015	#37
Sorry, I am never "Right"	fadedrose	Apr 2015	#39
H. Clinton represents the 1% banksters no matter how you try to twist it.	rhett o rick	Apr 2015	#121
Most of the poor will be devastated - no, decimated, actually - by a GOP president.	freshwest	Apr 2015	#142
Bernie's said that he'll base his decision whether or not to declare himself a candidate ...	staggerleem	Apr 2015	#126
How come I'm not on Bernie's list?	mmonk	Apr 2015	#5
In effect, these lists show who we're REALLY voting for	Maedhros	Apr 2015	#6
Eeyup. You have it in one.	hifiguy	Apr 2015	#45
That's the choice I've been looking for. Go, Bernie!!	JEB	Apr 2015	#104
... yep	840high	Apr 2015	#67
Souls are being sold to the highest bidding banksters.	L0oniX	Apr 2015	#109
In this part of the campaign, we vote with our wallets.	staggerleem	Apr 2015	#128
If a small number of bigots can raise $800K in a week for a discriminatory pizza restaurant,	Maedhros	Apr 2015	#132
The first four comparison tells you all you need to know and I didn't need	Autumn	Apr 2015	#7
I will vote for Bernie too	MissDeeds	Apr 2015	#21
When you consider this	Autumn	Apr 2015	#25
Same here	MissDeeds	Apr 2015	#28
I do see a trend	Douglas Carpenter	Apr 2015	#10
these are individuals lumped by where they work?	KittyWampus	Apr 2015	#11
Yes	emulatorloo	Apr 2015	#73
So it's just the people who work for the unions?	treestar	Apr 2015	#90
Not exactly	Depaysement	Apr 2015	#77
Whats good for Goldman is good for me!	bunnies	Apr 2015	#13
It should be clear by now that such considerations	whatchamacallit	Apr 2015	#14
Hillary's donors are a who's who of corporations responsible for the financial collapse	LittleBlue	Apr 2015	#15
Well THAT tell me a WHOLE lot. 1 (maybe 2 if you count U. CA) out of the top 20	kelly1mm	Apr 2015	#18
Says it all really...	truebrit71	Apr 2015	#19
I just noticed your avatar	arcane1	Apr 2015	#34
Thanks!	truebrit71	Apr 2015	#68
see? the numbers don't lie: Hillary is on the side of workers, and the so-called lefty Sanders	MisterP	Apr 2015	#23
I remember this every time --	Hell Hath No Fury	Apr 2015	#24
This should be a headline article	sadoldgirl	Apr 2015	#29
K & R !!!	WillyT	Apr 2015	#30
Recommended and bookmarked. nt	NYC_SKP	Apr 2015	#32
I'm not on the list!	William769	Apr 2015	#35
No doubt about who Hillary works for.	bvar22	Apr 2015	#36
Don't forget to	theaocp	Apr 2015	#38
k&r!!	PowerToThePeople	Apr 2015	#40
MUST SEE: 4/8/15 Comedy Central panel @ 12:12	proverbialwisdom	Apr 2015	#41
Crap Comparison	flying-skeleton	Apr 2015	#42
Why?	mmonk	Apr 2015	#43
Excellent question	BrotherIvan	Apr 2015	#117
Yes and no	dreamnightwind	Apr 2015	#86
You miss the point, being that big money banksters love HRC and common people support	rhett o rick	Apr 2015	#122
The facts do not lie.	Maedhros	Apr 2015	#127
For sure one thing this shows is Bernie can't raise enough money	boston bean	Apr 2015	#44
If Bernie were to win the primary, which is certainly possible without billions	salib	Apr 2015	#47
He would lose all his principled supporters of course.	boston bean	Apr 2015	#49
Why?	salib	Apr 2015	#58
Because he would then be "beholden" to the 1%.	boston bean	Apr 2015	#72
So, you are saying that he cannot raise money without being beholden to the 1%?	salib	Apr 2015	#100
You're argument would be with other Bernie supporters	boston bean	Apr 2015	#141
How is it possible to win the Primary without several hundred million dollars?	brooklynite	Apr 2015	#52
Primaries are not THAT expensive. Please, you do the research this time.	salib	Apr 2015	#61
Your defeatist, self-fulfilling prophecies are uninspiring.	Maedhros	Apr 2015	#129
And Republicans go unlisted?	world wide wally	Apr 2015	#48
I never vote for Republicans. Ever.	99Forever	Apr 2015	#95
Here's Mitch McConnell's Career Profile:	Maedhros	Apr 2015	#131
Then go vote Republican	world wide wally	Apr 2015	#134
These are career numbers from 1989-2014,	Maedhros	Apr 2015	#136
If Bernie is going ot run in a 5 to 6 billion dollar election, he better find more donors.	Agnosticsherbet	Apr 2015	#51
Hillary's sugar daddies	sulphurdunn	Apr 2015	#53
Posted without comment.	Sissyk	Apr 2015	#110
Huh, my peeps are number 7	Babel_17	Apr 2015	#54
Where is Bernie's lobbyists meetings listed.	Thinkingabout	Apr 2015	#55
He's fabulous	zentrum	Apr 2015	#56
Oh yeah and Bernie is SOOOOOO going to beat Jeb with those figures!	VanillaRhapsody	Apr 2015	#60
Because it's all about who can raise the most money on Wall Street.	Comrade Grumpy	Apr 2015	#63
and how are you going to get elected without it in the CURRENT environment?	VanillaRhapsody	Apr 2015	#64
Why bother to have an actual election?	JEB	Apr 2015	#105
BECAUSE WE can effect that outcome...	VanillaRhapsody	Apr 2015	#108
Catch-22.	JEB	Apr 2015	#111
No it isn't...	VanillaRhapsody	Apr 2015	#112
That is why Bernie can win without the dirty money.	JEB	Apr 2015	#114
No that is why Bernie cannot win without becoming a Democrat....	VanillaRhapsody	Apr 2015	#115
The arithmetic tells me that Hillary will not be looking	JEB	Apr 2015	#116
Which one of those two has been the presumptive nominee since 2004?	truebrit71	Apr 2015	#69
well like I said...that's Idealism.....	VanillaRhapsody	Apr 2015	#81
It's really sad that it's all about the money. nt	cyberswede	Apr 2015	#80
Yes sad....but there is no way around it at this moment in time....if WE want to change it	VanillaRhapsody	Apr 2015	#82
So that is $10 million for HRC...gee where does the extra $1,990 million come from!?	Rex	Apr 2015	#65
k/r if Sanders runs	840high	Apr 2015	#66
Run, Bernie, RUN!!!	mother earth	Apr 2015	#71
If he gets the nomination, those same donors will back him	BainsBane	Apr 2015	#138
If he gets elected, there will be actual change, not pre-election lip service. He's the real deal.	mother earth	Apr 2015	#140
To the Greatest Page.	woo me with science	Apr 2015	#74
How dare Democrats sell their souls to the very ones that almost destroyed the USA in 2008.	L0oniX	Apr 2015	#113
One column is individual donors. The other column (PAC) is what the company donated.	emulatorloo	Apr 2015	#75
Shhhh	kjones	Apr 2015	#91
Bundling.	mmonk	Apr 2015	#92
Very telling. nt	valerief	Apr 2015	#76
And to think the Republicans decided to wipe out unions to cut off the Dems money.	Spitfire of ATJ	Apr 2015	#87
And I will support with honor and workhard for the one that wins the primary	LynneSin	Apr 2015	#93
That's a very hard truth.	delrem	Apr 2015	#94
says it all, doesn't it? nt	antigop	Apr 2015	#96
inevitable Hillary is inevitable	warrprayer	Apr 2015	#98
Oh for crying out loud...stop picking on poor Hillary Clinton	davidpdx	Apr 2015	#99
Kicked!	ibewlu606	Apr 2015	#101
Yep, she's a true champion of the middle class.	Jester Messiah	Apr 2015	#102
That is a stark difference....	blackspade	Apr 2015	#103
Democrats selling souls for money to win. Got it.	L0oniX	Apr 2015	#106
Maybe we should just get Sothbey's to hold the auction.	JEB	Apr 2015	#107
I want everyone to read this.	paulbibeau	Apr 2015	#118
Well that's just awkward!	Fearless	Apr 2015	#119
No doubt, this is telling.	lark	Apr 2015	#123
KNR.	DirkGently	Apr 2015	#125
And I suspect that a comparison with Senator Warren's donors would show the same thing.	totodeinhere	Apr 2015	#133
Man you're messing up the popular fiction narrative	Savannahmann	Apr 2015	#135
That Sanders list certainly isn't from a major presidential campaign	BainsBane	Apr 2015	#137
Of course, there is absolutely, firmly, surely, no quid-pro-quo expected.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Apr 2015	#139

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:47 PM

polichick (37,151 posts)

1. k&r

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:50 PM

appalachiablue (39,466 posts)

2. +1. K & R

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:50 PM

NCTraveler (30,481 posts)

3. Really has nothing to do with Hillary or Sanders.

Comparing apples to oranges. What it does display is the desperate need for campaign finance reform.

Reply to this post

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:52 PM

still_one (89,173 posts)

8. Exactly. The way the system is setup today unless you have money for your campaign you will face an

Uphill battle

Public financing of elections would be nice, but unfortunately they will find ways around it

Reply to this post

Response to still_one (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:57 PM

NCTraveler (30,481 posts)

12. Somehow it needs to be gotten a hold of.

We are paying a huge price for this. Something we all pretty much agree about.

Reply to this post

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 01:25 PM

staggerleem (469 posts)

124. That all depends on who is included in your definition of "we".

If "we" means DUers, or the left in general, then of course, you're correct.

If you extend that "we" to include people who can actually DO something about campaign finance reform, then your statement holds very little water.

Reply to this post

Response to still_one (Reply #8)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 02:01 PM

arikara (5,562 posts)

130. I saw this chart yesterday

This morning I heard on the radio that Hillary wants to reform campaign contributions.

Sure she will.

Reply to this post

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:10 PM

fadedrose (10,044 posts)

20. Reforms determined by whom tho?

They get worse if the SCOTUS gets their hands on a campaign reform case or a vote counting case (Bush/Gore/2000).

People don't need just to be more educated. What they do have to do is be more interested in who their representatives are and who they are really working for. How do you wake them up so that they realize that knowing about their state and federal politicians is not boring and election reform should not be left to "smarter" people.

Smarter people are sometimes more crooked and that's why they're so hard to catch than the average dumb crook. And these are the folks who decide what reforms they will allow.

Reply to this post

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #3)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 06:12 PM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

57. Hillary's donors -- all corporate and law firms that

represent corporations.

Bernie's donors -- labor unions.

Has nothing to do with Hillary or Sanders?

Their donors define them.

Hillary is sponsored by corporations. Sanders is sponsored by unions -- by workers.

What side are we on?

I'm with working people because I worked during my life.

Reply to this post

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #57)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 06:28 PM

Agschmid (28,749 posts)

62. He is a senator from VT...

She was a senator from NY... Where a whole bunch of those companies are based.

I understand why you want to make the comparison but there are some holes when you just put them side by side.

Reply to this post

Response to Agschmid (Reply #62)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 01:18 AM

MattSh (3,714 posts)

84. You really think that's the reason?

Reply to this post

Response to MattSh (Reply #84)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 01:19 AM

Agschmid (28,749 posts)

85. It sure is a BIG part of it.

Trust me I feel the same way as you...

Reply to this post

Response to Agschmid (Reply #62)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 08:42 AM

A Simple Game (9,214 posts)

97. You don't think most of them know she is no longer a New York Senator and is now powerless?

Funny if they are so gung-ho about supporting liberals you would think they would throw a few bucks Bernie's way.

But keep telling yourself it's only because she was a Senator if it stops you from realizing why they are really giving her all that money. And while you are at it tell yourself if she wins this time she would never think of repaying their generosity in the off chance they may contribute to her reelection campaign.

Myself... I will stick with who the unions back.

Reply to this post

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #57)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 08:58 PM

emulatorloo (43,243 posts)

70. Are you aware open secrets reports groups INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL DONATIONS by their employer?

when I make a contribution, I have to list my employer.

My contrib is then listed under my employer on open secrets.

My employer didn't give the money, I did.

The big numbers above are from individuals.

Reply to this post

Response to emulatorloo (Reply #70)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 10:12 PM

Depaysement (1,835 posts)

79. Not entirely

It includes PAC money too. And most of the non-PAC money from say, Goldman, comes from high net worth folks, not hundreds of admins writing $50 checks.

And none of that money is going to Bernie. Ever.

Reply to this post

Response to Depaysement (Reply #79)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 10:42 PM

emulatorloo (43,243 posts)

83. Yep, there are two columns. Individual. PAC.

Nonetheless the big dollar amts are in the individual column.

As to income of individual donors, I don't know if there is a way to actually figure out or not. I know it is logical to think high net worth folks are giving the max they can give as individuals. On the other hand I don't think we can rule out the idea that there are liberal democrats working at Goldman Sachs who aren't high net worth who donate to Democrats.

as to Senator Sanders, if Goldman was based in Vermont I would imagine some people who work there might donate to Bernie. But I think you are absolutely right about the PAC money.

My money is going to Bernie if he decides to run.

Reply to this post

Response to emulatorloo (Reply #83)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 05:25 AM

Depaysement (1,835 posts)

89. Believe it or not

There are a few people at those firms who make most Manny Goldstein look like Ted Cruz. They are in the shadows. But the vast majority are third way at best.

Reply to this post

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #57)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 10:04 PM

RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)

78. Hillary=corporations Sanders=unions

Give me unions any day over corporations!

Reply to this post

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 12:41 PM

rhett o rick (55,981 posts)

120. You are so right. The apples (1%) love HRC and the oranges (99%) love Sen Sanders.

When H. Clinton met with Goldman-Sachs (and received $400,000) I doubt she told them to be nice to the American people.

We need change and HRC does not represent change.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:50 PM

fadedrose (10,044 posts)

4. Bernie has more supporters with less money

and Hillary has no supporters with less money

but there are more average Joes on Bernies list which translates into more people which means more votes.

Depends on the machines and how much time Bernie gets on TV and how many crucial endorsements he gets.

Thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Response to fadedrose (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:53 PM

brooklynite (89,624 posts)

9. Actually, Bernie has LESS supporters with less money...

...because the cost of funding a campaign in Vermont is orders of magnitude lower than funding one in NY, so he's never needed to find them. The question is: will be be able to find ENOUGH supporters with less money to fund an 18 month national campaign?

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:03 PM

Autumn (43,412 posts)

17. This is why I won't withhold my funding from Bernie, I'm not a 1%er but

I will give till it hurts along with my vote and anything his campaign needs done.

Reply to this post

Response to Autumn (Reply #17)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:16 PM

brooklynite (89,624 posts)

22. Whether you're a 1%er or not, you can't give more that $2700 for the Primary period.

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #22)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:20 PM

Autumn (43,412 posts)

27. Every little bit counts.

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #22)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:40 PM

salib (2,116 posts)

46. So that is why the largest dollar contributor on those two lists is for $2700, right?

Reply to this post

Response to salib (Reply #46)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:53 PM

brooklynite (89,624 posts)

50. Read the fine print...

Those are aggregate totals over multiple elections. They also include additional contributions (same limit) for the General Election phase.

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #50)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 06:19 PM

salib (2,116 posts)

59. It is more subtle than that.

From the source:
"This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 2009-2014. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00000528&type=I

Thus, while it is an interesting comparison, it is not indicative of the organization's direct contributions. Of course, it also does not discuss all the Citizens United dark money that has been and will be a part of this Presidential election.

Reply to this post

Response to salib (Reply #59)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 05:11 AM

BlueMTexpat (15,204 posts)

88. Good points.

Thank you!

Reply to this post

Response to fadedrose (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:03 PM

CreekDog (46,192 posts)

16. Hillary has no poor supporters?

we should avoid making things up.

Reply to this post

Response to CreekDog (Reply #16)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:20 PM

fadedrose (10,044 posts)

26. It's a matter of what you call "poor"

and what I call "poor."

I don't think that $95,000 is middle class.

Some people on SS, SD, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance, below-cost-of-living jobs, people who were wiped out by college loans or health costs, would be considered "poor" to me.

Many will vote Democratic because they trust Democrats to look after these social programs, but .....

Let me know how many of these votes she'll get AFTER she answers questions as to what to do about these social programs. And tax cuts for the rich, etc. There's a lot of Wall Street contributing on that list. Will she lose their support if she supports these programs, and if not, will it be because they know she's winking at them with a not-to-worry expression about agreements made beforehand.

No proof, just a bit of speculating, which is not the same as making things up. What else do you want to talk about?

Reply to this post

Response to fadedrose (Reply #26)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:34 PM

CreekDog (46,192 posts)

31. You're speculating that Hillary has NO LOW INCOME supporters?

no wonder you don't have proof. because what you've said is ridiculous.

she has overwhelming support among Democrats, and that includes a lot of lower income people.

sheesh.

if you really want to beat her, you better step up your game because this kind of nonsense is not gonna cut it.

Reply to this post

Response to CreekDog (Reply #31)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:41 PM

fadedrose (10,044 posts)

33. I'm not running and it's not up to me to "beat" her

And my mind goes the way it wants to. Even when I talk myself into or out of something, feelings are not something one can control. I have a nagging discomfort and I'm not enjoying the game, and I have no idea of what you mean by my thinking the way I do is not going to cut it.

Cut what? If she wins, I don't get my way. So what? The sun will still rise, birds will sing, flowers will bloom. It won't be the first time I didn't get my way. Not to worry about me, CreekDog, and I love dogs, even muddy from the creek.

Maybe I'm not 100% pleased with your thinking either, but am not asking you to change. Your mind is your own and you can think or say what you want. I expect the same courtesy in return because, frankly, I can't change even if I wanted to

Reply to this post

Response to fadedrose (Reply #33)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:53 PM

CreekDog (46,192 posts)

37. So now you're running away from your statement that Hillary has no low income supporters?

I'm asking you to be right when you say something.

If you're suggesting taking the party down a different direction, your statements should be correct or why bother listening to you?

Reply to this post

Response to CreekDog (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:58 PM

fadedrose (10,044 posts)

39. Sorry, I am never "Right"

Don't listen to me. Nobody said you had to reply to my posts.

You are FREEEEE to stop answering.

Okay I am a liar, have it your way. But if I am a liar, how could you even believe me when I say I am a liar....

See ya....you are taking me much farther from Mrs. Clinton than I was when I posted about the contributors. Is that a lie? hmmm.

You are a human lie detecter. Hanging around with the wrong crowd? Ooops, I didn't say that, I didn't mean it.. Am I lying ?

This is fun.

Reply to this post

Response to CreekDog (Reply #16)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 12:44 PM

rhett o rick (55,981 posts)

121. H. Clinton represents the 1% banksters no matter how you try to twist it.

The big money owns the Corp-Media that spouts their propaganda.

Reply to this post

Response to CreekDog (Reply #16)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 05:41 PM

freshwest (53,661 posts)

142. Most of the poor will be devastated - no, decimated, actually - by a GOP president.

Count me among her 'poor' supporters along with almost everyone else I know.

Not adding for you, as I'm sure you know this, but anyone who misses the gravity of that verb:

*decimate

: to destroy a large number of (plants, animals, people, etc.)

: to severely damage or destroy a large part of (something)

*Full definition: DECIMATE transitive verb

1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of

2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from <poor as a decimated Cavalier — John Dryden>

3a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population>

b: to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession>

Raise that to 47% of us, as Mittens did; or even more, as Cruz and his father said. Most of us know the plans the GOP has for us. They don't hide it now, emboldened by 2010 & 2014.

They want us dead.

Not even to mention what their intentions are for women and all minorities who don't want to live under plantation conditions.

Reply to this post

Response to fadedrose (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 01:33 PM

staggerleem (469 posts)

126. Bernie's said that he'll base his decision whether or not to declare himself a candidate ...

... partly on how much money it looks like he'll be able to raise.

Given that Hillary's "average" donor seems to be contributing a factor of 10 more than the average Bernie donor, prospects don't look bright. Can Bernie attract 10x more donors than Hillary, to even the score? I guess we'll see.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:50 PM

mmonk (52,589 posts)

5. How come I'm not on Bernie's list?

Because my funds are limited but have contributed. I like the company I keep though.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:50 PM

Maedhros (10,007 posts)

6. In effect, these lists show who we're REALLY voting for

when we cast our ballot for Hillary or Bernie.

For my own part, I will not cast a ballot for Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper, or JPMorgan Chase.

I'd gladly cast a ballot for the Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union, Teamsters Union, United Auto Workers and the National Education Association.

Reply to this post

Response to Maedhros (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:24 PM

hifiguy (33,688 posts)

45. Eeyup. You have it in one.

Truth.

Capital versus the workers. Not a hard choice. Go, Bernie!!

Reply to this post

Response to hifiguy (Reply #45)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 10:46 AM

JEB (4,748 posts)

104. That's the choice I've been looking for. Go, Bernie!!

Reply to this post

Response to Maedhros (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 06:41 PM

840high (17,196 posts)

67. ... yep

Reply to this post

Response to Maedhros (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 11:02 AM

L0oniX (31,493 posts)

109. Souls are being sold to the highest bidding banksters.

Reply to this post

Response to Maedhros (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 01:38 PM

staggerleem (469 posts)

128. In this part of the campaign, we vote with our wallets.

As I stated above, I've heard Bernie say at least a dozen times that he won't run if he can't raise the cash to put up a competitive campaign.

So, pry 'em open, friends - give what you can, as often as you can, because based on the above Senator Sanders will need 10x more donors than Ms. Clinton.

Reply to this post

Response to staggerleem (Reply #128)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 02:12 PM

Maedhros (10,007 posts)

132. If a small number of bigots can raise $800K in a week for a discriminatory pizza restaurant,

I think committed liberals can raise some money for Bernie.

And, while I'm certain there were shenanigans involved, don't forget that Obama was able to raise significant funds from Internet contributions: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/15/exclusive-obamas-2012-digital-fundraising-outperformed-2008/

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:51 PM

Autumn (43,412 posts)

7. The first four comparison tells you all you need to know and I didn't need

to go any further. Very eye opening. That's why I will vote for Bernie.

Reply to this post

Response to Autumn (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:13 PM

MissDeeds (7,499 posts)

21. I will vote for Bernie too

I just hope he decides to run.

Reply to this post

Response to MissDeeds (Reply #21)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:19 PM

Autumn (43,412 posts)

25. When you consider this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026507043

Running or not, he has my vote. He's the one hammering it home, he's the one who has been speaking truth while Hillary has been silent, playing coy and safe knowing all the while she was going to run for President

Reply to this post

Response to Autumn (Reply #25)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:30 PM

MissDeeds (7,499 posts)

28. Same here

I'll write his name in if I have to. Never again will I hold my nose and vote for someone whose only virtue is "the lesser of two evils". Bernie has earned my respect and my vote.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:55 PM

Douglas Carpenter (20,226 posts)

10. I do see a trend

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:56 PM

KittyWampus (55,894 posts)

11. these are individuals lumped by where they work?

Reply to this post

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #11)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 09:05 PM

emulatorloo (43,243 posts)

73. Yes

You gotta list your employer when you make a donation. Then individual donations are reported on opensecrets under the name of your employer.

Which is why this OP doesn't prove what the poster thinks it proves

Reply to this post

Response to emulatorloo (Reply #73)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 05:27 AM

treestar (82,106 posts)

90. So it's just the people who work for the unions?

Reply to this post

Response to KittyWampus (Reply #11)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 10:04 PM

Depaysement (1,835 posts)

77. Not exactly

Some of it could be company PAC money too. All of the Wall Street companies on Hillary's list have PACs that gave to her.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:57 PM

bunnies (15,859 posts)

13. Whats good for Goldman is good for me!

amirite?!

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 03:58 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

14. It should be clear by now that such considerations

are, unfortunately, of no interest to this site. Thanks for keeping it real.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:01 PM

LittleBlue (10,362 posts)

15. Hillary's donors are a who's who of corporations responsible for the financial collapse

Gross

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:09 PM

kelly1mm (4,512 posts)

18. Well THAT tell me a WHOLE lot. 1 (maybe 2 if you count U. CA) out of the top 20

funders for HRC are liberal leaning. As to U. CA, why are they one of the top contributors to a NY Senate race at all?

I will bookmark and remember this list anytime anyone chimes in with how liberal/progressive HRC is.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:10 PM

truebrit71 (20,805 posts)

19. Says it all really...

....

Reply to this post

Response to truebrit71 (Reply #19)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:42 PM

arcane1 (38,613 posts)

34. I just noticed your avatar

Reply to this post

Response to arcane1 (Reply #34)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 07:06 PM

truebrit71 (20,805 posts)

68. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:17 PM

MisterP (23,730 posts)

23. see? the numbers don't lie: Hillary is on the side of workers, and the so-called lefty Sanders

gets all his money from Wall Street!

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:19 PM

Hell Hath No Fury (16,327 posts)

24. I remember this every time --

I remember this every time Hillary tries to repaint herself as an economic populist.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:32 PM

sadoldgirl (3,431 posts)

29. This should be a headline article

in the MSM, and include all the donors for Bush as well.

Sigh, sometimes I just need to dream a bit.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:33 PM

WillyT (72,631 posts)

30. K & R !!!

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:34 PM

NYC_SKP (68,644 posts)

32. Recommended and bookmarked. nt

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:47 PM

William769 (53,745 posts)

35. I'm not on the list!

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:53 PM

bvar22 (39,909 posts)

36. No doubt about who Hillary works for.

Also no doubt about who Bernie represents.

No brainier for me, and should be a No Brainer for every American who Works for a Living.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 04:54 PM

theaocp (4,162 posts)

38. Don't forget to

compare the donors of the actual election when it comes. Should be enlightening.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:02 PM

PowerToThePeople (9,610 posts)

40. k&r!!

Go Union!

Proud to say I am an IAM member.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:03 PM

proverbialwisdom (4,959 posts)

41. MUST SEE: 4/8/15 Comedy Central panel @ 12:12

http://www.cc.com/full-episodes/94k1z4/the-nightly-show-april-8--2015---walter-scott-shooting---rand-paul-2016-season-1-ep-01038

MORE: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-make-public-higher-ed-tuition-free-reform_loans-protect-pell-grants

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:03 PM

flying-skeleton (659 posts)

42. Crap Comparison

In today's climate, it would be impossible to get elected without massive amounts of monies, no thanks to the republican supreme court stooges. A more viable comparison would be to compare Hillary against a republican contender.

Reply to this post

Response to flying-skeleton (Reply #42)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:07 PM

mmonk (52,589 posts)

43. Why?

Reply to this post

Response to mmonk (Reply #43)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 11:14 AM

BrotherIvan (9,126 posts)

117. Excellent question

Reply to this post

Response to flying-skeleton (Reply #42)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 03:25 AM

dreamnightwind (4,775 posts)

86. Yes and no

The figures are for their Senate campaigns, not POTUS. Granted, a Vermont Senate race takes a lot less money than a New York Senate race. So you have a point, to a point.

But it's a very real difference between the two that transcends the size of their states, and anyone who knows anything about the two of them knows the truth of that. You can argue that she is more electable than Berniie, but IMHO it would be ridiculous to argue that Bernie and Hillary would have similar funding demographics for a POTUS campaign, they are two very different politicians who are far apart ideologically. The donor list looks to me like an excellent reflection of who their respective base is.

Reply to this post

Response to flying-skeleton (Reply #42)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 12:49 PM

rhett o rick (55,981 posts)

122. You miss the point, being that big money banksters love HRC and common people support

Sen Sanders. Saying that it takes money to win an election doesn't have anything to do with who represents who. HRC represents the big money banksters.

Interesting that you ask for a comparison between HRC and Jeb for example. What I believe you'd find is that they are BOTH sponsored by the big money banksters. That's the point. If you don't want a president that is owned by Wall Street, then pick someone other than Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

Reply to this post

Response to flying-skeleton (Reply #42)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 01:35 PM

Maedhros (10,007 posts)

127. The facts do not lie.

Equivocate all you want, but your candidate is bought and paid for.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:22 PM

boston bean (35,745 posts)

44. For sure one thing this shows is Bernie can't raise enough money

to run for president.

I'm sorry, but that is the reality of politics today. He would be run out of town on a rail, with no way to fight back against the republicans.

Reply to this post

Response to boston bean (Reply #44)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:46 PM

salib (2,116 posts)

47. If Bernie were to win the primary, which is certainly possible without billions

What would prevent him from raising enough after that?

Reply to this post

Response to salib (Reply #47)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:47 PM

boston bean (35,745 posts)

49. He would lose all his principled supporters of course.

Reply to this post

Response to boston bean (Reply #49)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 06:13 PM

salib (2,116 posts)

58. Why?

Reply to this post

Response to salib (Reply #58)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 09:01 PM

boston bean (35,745 posts)

72. Because he would then be "beholden" to the 1%.

Reply to this post

Response to boston bean (Reply #72)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 10:09 AM

salib (2,116 posts)

100. So, you are saying that he cannot raise money without being beholden to the 1%?

Seems rather defeatist.

Reply to this post

Response to salib (Reply #100)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 05:11 PM

boston bean (35,745 posts)

141. You're argument would be with other Bernie supporters

who feel that is the case.

Reply to this post

Response to salib (Reply #47)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:56 PM

brooklynite (89,624 posts)

52. How is it possible to win the Primary without several hundred million dollars?

I'm being serious here: I keep hearing that all he has to do is "get his message out". Once he leaves Iowa and NH (which are small enough for retail politics), the additional Primaries come quickly, in multiple numbers, and the States are much bigger. You need funds for TV, staff and volunteer expenses, etc. You can't campaign in California on a shoestring.

Reply to this post

Response to brooklynite (Reply #52)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 06:26 PM

salib (2,116 posts)

61. Primaries are not THAT expensive. Please, you do the research this time.

Also, tables turn quickly in the primaries with early victories, in this case in locations and size that certainly play well to Bernie's style.

We all have seen momentum become the deciding factor.

And, yes, with momentum one can win California without "hundreds of millions", or at least make it close enough that California is a wash.

Now, back to the original question, if he wins the primary why won't he be able to raise the funds required (as the Democratic nominee)?

Reply to this post

Response to boston bean (Reply #44)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 01:38 PM

Maedhros (10,007 posts)

129. Your defeatist, self-fulfilling prophecies are uninspiring.

Either give up and go along to get along, or fight.

I know which way you've chosen. I want to fight.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:47 PM

world wide wally (21,591 posts)

48. And Republicans go unlisted?

Reply to this post

Response to world wide wally (Reply #48)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 08:08 AM

99Forever (14,524 posts)

95. I never vote for Republicans. Ever.

Why would they need to be listed? We know they are sellouts.

Reply to this post

Response to world wide wally (Reply #48)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 02:04 PM

Maedhros (10,007 posts)

131. Here's Mitch McConnell's Career Profile:

Mitch McConnell (R) (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00003389&type=I)

Contributor - Total:
Blackstone Group $242,700
Kindred Healthcare $221,950
Humana Inc $214,152
Peabody Energy $173,500
Elliott Management $171,700
JPMorgan Chase & Co $166,050
Citigroup Inc $161,650
Goldman Sachs $156,425
Brown-Forman Corp $150,350
General Electric $146,125
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $141,550
UST Inc $129,100
UBS AG $127,900
United Parcel Service $122,021
FMR Corp $121,350
Altria Group $120,000
Ashland Inc $118,558
Alliance Resource Partners $115,150
AT&T Inc $112,000
FedEx Corp $106,600

Over roughly the same time frame (1989 - 2014), it looks like Mitch has actually taken less money than Hillary. Some of the contributors are the same (Citigroup, Goldman Sachs), but Hillary seems to receive more money from media corporations (Time Warner, Cablevision Systems, 21st Century Fox) and Mitch gets more from health insurance and energy companies.

So - what is your point? From what I see, Hillary is much, much more beholden to Wall Street than is Mitch.

Reply to this post

Response to Maedhros (Reply #131)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 02:15 PM

world wide wally (21,591 posts)

134. Then go vote Republican

But first, you might want to consider that Hillary is running in 50 states and McConnell only runs in Kentucky. Do you think that may be a factor in the amount of contributions?

Reply to this post

Response to world wide wally (Reply #134)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 03:14 PM

Maedhros (10,007 posts)

136. These are career numbers from 1989-2014,

not 2016 presidential numbers.

And no, I won't vote Republican.

Unfortunately, the facts speak for themselves: Hillary is a creature of Wall Street. No amount of equivocating or obfuscating can change that.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:55 PM

Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)

51. If Bernie is going ot run in a 5 to 6 billion dollar election, he better find more donors.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:58 PM

sulphurdunn (6,891 posts)

53. Hillary's sugar daddies

are pretty much the same ones who bankrolled Mitt Romney.

Reply to this post

Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #53)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 11:04 AM

Sissyk (12,665 posts)

110. Posted without comment.

On Wed Apr 15, 2015, 10:11 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary's sugar daddies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6507721

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This post is just plain rude. "Hillary's sugar daddies"??.. and then add in Mitt Romney to make it seem like the post isn't sexist, to cover his tracks. Remain forever hopeful that DU recognize this poor attempt to get away with it.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 15, 2015, 10:19 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: How do you, alerter, know that this poster added Mitt Romney to make it seem like the post isn't sexist? Can you read their mind? Maybe he feels they both have the SAME "sugar daddies", which is a well-known, used phrase. I DISAGREE with the member but don't think they deserve a hide over this. We would have better luck getting rid of the majority of the sexist, racist, etcs, if we started alerting on things that truly need to be alerted on.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yeah... just a little bit over the line with the sexism. No place for that on DU.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't like or agree with post. I can't vote to hide all rude post.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: What the actual fuck? "Sugar daddies? Sweet Jesus that's stupid

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 05:59 PM

Babel_17 (5,400 posts)

54. Huh, my peeps are number 7

Lol, and no, I don't mean Time Warner.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 06:07 PM

Thinkingabout (30,058 posts)

55. Where is Bernie's lobbyists meetings listed.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 06:10 PM

zentrum (9,865 posts)

56. He's fabulous

…and she's a Larry Summers kind of pol.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 06:20 PM

VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)

60. Oh yeah and Bernie is SOOOOOO going to beat Jeb with those figures!

I so believe THAT!!!

Reply to this post

Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #60)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 06:31 PM

Comrade Grumpy (13,184 posts)

63. Because it's all about who can raise the most money on Wall Street.

That's who I want to represent us.

Reply to this post

Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #63)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 06:33 PM

VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)

64. and how are you going to get elected without it in the CURRENT environment?

See thats because you are an idealist not a realist.....

Jeb Bush will have a HUGE war chest of it....because he is STILL so far behind Hillary Clinton's astronomical polling numbers....and SHE is the reason he is able to raise so much money....its the opposition to HER (Sheldon Adelson I am looking at you)....Until we manage to get at least 2 branches of Govt again there is really nothing that we can do about the money in politics....that's the reality such that it is...

Reply to this post

Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #64)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 10:56 AM

JEB (4,748 posts)

105. Why bother to have an actual election?

Whoever raises the most money can just buy the position. Damn near there now.

Reply to this post

Response to JEB (Reply #105)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 11:00 AM

VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)

108. BECAUSE WE can effect that outcome...

but raising money is the lay of the land right now....you don't have to like it...it just is...You want that to change...then get a Democratic President a willing Congress and/or Senate. Its just that simple.

Reply to this post

Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #108)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 11:06 AM

JEB (4,748 posts)

111. Catch-22.

Reply to this post

Response to JEB (Reply #111)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 11:07 AM

VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)

112. No it isn't...

There are far more of us then there are Republicans....its Arithmetic.

Reply to this post

Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #112)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 11:09 AM

JEB (4,748 posts)

114. That is why Bernie can win without the dirty money.

Reply to this post

Response to JEB (Reply #114)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 11:11 AM

VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)

115. No that is why Bernie cannot win without becoming a Democrat....

its still arithmetic...

Unless you want it to be an even bigger longshot!

Reply to this post

Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #115)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 11:13 AM

JEB (4,748 posts)

116. The arithmetic tells me that Hillary will not be looking

after my interests.

Reply to this post

Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #60)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 07:07 PM

truebrit71 (20,805 posts)

69. Which one of those two has been the presumptive nominee since 2004?

And which one represents the common folk?

Reply to this post

Response to truebrit71 (Reply #69)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 10:19 PM

VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)

81. well like I said...that's Idealism.....

wishing doesn't make is to...

Reply to this post

Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #60)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 10:16 PM

cyberswede (26,117 posts)

80. It's really sad that it's all about the money. nt

Reply to this post

Response to cyberswede (Reply #80)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 10:21 PM

VanillaRhapsody (21,115 posts)

82. Yes sad....but there is no way around it at this moment in time....if WE want to change it

we have to do more...much more than electing a Presient....that is only one leg on a three legged stool.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 06:35 PM

Rex (65,616 posts)

65. So that is $10 million for HRC...gee where does the extra $1,990 million come from!?

IF she is going to spend 2 billion dollars...where does the rest come from? That is only .1% so I don't think that is all the money!

Curious where all the money is going to come from.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 06:40 PM

840high (17,196 posts)

66. k/r if Sanders runs

he'll get my money.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 09:00 PM

mother earth (6,002 posts)

71. Run, Bernie, RUN!!!

Reply to this post

Response to mother earth (Reply #71)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 03:53 PM

BainsBane (52,852 posts)

138. If he gets the nomination, those same donors will back him

but then none of you will give a shit.

Reply to this post

Response to BainsBane (Reply #138)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 05:03 PM

mother earth (6,002 posts)

140. If he gets elected, there will be actual change, not pre-election lip service. He's the real deal.

And THAT is precisely why he will provide a real challenge to the inevitable oligarchy candidates.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 09:10 PM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

74. To the Greatest Page.

Says it all.

Reply to this post

Response to woo me with science (Reply #74)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 11:07 AM

L0oniX (31,493 posts)

113. How dare Democrats sell their souls to the very ones that almost destroyed the USA in 2008.

I just don't get it. These rich 1%'s forced us to bail them out and now the Democrats push for a 1%'r for POTUS. It's fucking crazy. I'll be disappearing from this place and come back later to see the wounded under the bus after the ownership of this country becomes more clear.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 09:17 PM

emulatorloo (43,243 posts)

75. One column is individual donors. The other column (PAC) is what the company donated.

So you are kinda comparing apples to oranges.

If I make a personal donation, I have to list my employer. Then it is reported on open secrets under my employers name, even though it is my money.

The big numbers in your list are from individual people. It does not surprise me that Democrats work at some of these companies.

Reply to this post

Response to emulatorloo (Reply #75)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 05:34 AM

kjones (1,053 posts)

91. Shhhh

Stop making sense!

Reply to this post

Response to emulatorloo (Reply #75)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 06:21 AM

mmonk (52,589 posts)

92. Bundling.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Tue Apr 14, 2015, 09:27 PM

valerief (53,235 posts)

76. Very telling. nt

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 03:38 AM

Spitfire of ATJ (32,723 posts)

87. And to think the Republicans decided to wipe out unions to cut off the Dems money.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 07:13 AM

LynneSin (95,337 posts)

93. And I will support with honor and workhard for the one that wins the primary

This country is running great now and I will not enable a republican into the White House.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 07:15 AM

delrem (9,688 posts)

94. That's a very hard truth.

Some don't like to hear it being told.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 08:27 AM

antigop (12,778 posts)

96. says it all, doesn't it? nt

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 09:41 AM

warrprayer (4,734 posts)

98. inevitable Hillary is inevitable

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 10:07 AM

davidpdx (22,000 posts)

99. Oh for crying out loud...stop picking on poor Hillary Clinton

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 10:33 AM

ibewlu606 (160 posts)

101. Kicked!

Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is NOT the answer. This graphic shows who would really be a "champion" for everyday Americans.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 10:36 AM

Jester Messiah (4,711 posts)

102. Yep, she's a true champion of the middle class.

And you know how you get to be champion... by beating the bejeezus out of everyone else.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 10:45 AM

blackspade (10,056 posts)

103. That is a stark difference....

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 10:58 AM

L0oniX (31,493 posts)

106. Democrats selling souls for money to win. Got it.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 11:00 AM

JEB (4,748 posts)

107. Maybe we should just get Sothbey's to hold the auction.

Um, I mean election.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 12:03 PM

paulbibeau (743 posts)

118. I want everyone to read this.

The top contributor to HRC is Citigroup. Back in 2012, they gave Romney more than twice as much money as Obama.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000071&type=P&sort=A&cycle=2012

Shouldn't that bother people?

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 12:38 PM

Fearless (18,421 posts)

119. Well that's just awkward!

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 01:19 PM

lark (22,748 posts)

123. No doubt, this is telling.

Bernie's top supporters are all union, Hillary's are banks and Wall St. and their ilk. Glad to see there weren't a lot of MIC on her list. What I wonder is will the PTB ever allow anyone like Bernie to be president? Obama had Wall St. backing and wasn't keen on unions and still isn't, so they let him in. He is more of a faux leftist, centrist, but what would happen to a true leftie? I know the msm would dog Bernie day and night, just like they did with Carter. Only it'd be 10x worse today than what Carter experienced decades ago because of the rancid and rapid consolidation of the media.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 01:31 PM

DirkGently (12,151 posts)

125. KNR.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 02:15 PM

totodeinhere (12,722 posts)

133. And I suspect that a comparison with Senator Warren's donors would show the same thing.

We desperately need either Elizabeth or Bernie to run. This must not be a Clinton coronation as much as some people around here seem to want it to be. When then Senator Obama ran he was strengthened by a hard fought primary campaign. We need the same thing this time arund.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 02:15 PM

Savannahmann (3,891 posts)

135. Man you're messing up the popular fiction narrative

The fiction is that Hillary is for the people man, not for the rich and shameless. I'm going to suggest you delete this thread so we can go back to talking about how if Hillary loses, the Republicans will get a Supreme Court Justice on the bench who makes Robert Bork look liberal.

Granted, nobody believes the popular fiction narrative, but still. Facts like this are a horrible thing to do to the true believers.

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 03:52 PM

BainsBane (52,852 posts)

137. That Sanders list certainly isn't from a major presidential campaign

All major candidates get big money behind them due to the nature of the campaign finance system. That combined with the fact Clinton is from NY so has NY business backing her, just like Franken will have money from Cargill, 3M and Medtronic, major MN companies. You want a presidential candidate to run with Sander's war chest? That means GOP victory. If you want to do something about the role of money in politics, focus on that rather than pretending it is all about Hillary Clinton. Defeating Clinton will do exactly nothing to decrease the role of big money. This is a problem far more serious than financing presidential elections. It influences elections at all levels, how representatives vote, and even the writing of elections. The best way to avoid dealing with the issue is to pretend it all hinges on defeating Clinton. She was defeated in 2008. What happened to the role of money since? It only increased, which is precisely what will continue to happen as long as you continue to make it all about stopping one person from being elected.

identifying the symptom rather than the disease is pointless and in fact it reinforces the problem. What we need is a constitutional amendment requiring public financing. Are you willing to work for that? Or is all you care about is stopping a lone woman from becoming president?

Reply to this post

Response to Cheese Sandwich (Original post)

Wed Apr 15, 2015, 04:03 PM

Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)

139. Of course, there is absolutely, firmly, surely, no quid-pro-quo expected.

Those banksters and corporate bosses are giving it to her due to their love of democracy.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)