... and recycle it through the DNC and back into Hillary's campaign.

And establish a quid pro quo that super-delegates support would lead to future money.

How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/

Does Counterpunch explain where to get magic wands?

A ham sandwich with a D on it will be elected anywhere instead of the Republicans.

He has that kind of pull and coattails.

So yeah, there's a good chance of retaking both House and Senate. Gerrymandering can and will be defeated.

I've had some conversations with some Republican friends.

They will vote for Bernie also, but will vote against Hillary.

on the ballot or voted for a Republican Supreme Court Justice instead of the Democrat.

Some coattails!

than Democrats.

Yeah, put the blame on Bernie.

that 25% of BERNIE SUPPORTERS didn't bother to vote for anyone else or actually voted for a Republican Justice?

like they were supposed to do?

Educate Democrats about their DOWNTICKET ballot, how the hell is Bernie responsible for not educating Wisconsin about the local races?

in the Senate, where only 1 of his other 98 colleagues supports him? Pretty magnetic.

of the two Bernie is far more likely to get something accomplished legislatively, as he doesn't have a deep personal animus against him held by every Republican and half the Democrats

so don't get your hopes up.

Sanders made friends on both sides of the aisle

Clinton made enemies on both sides of the aisle

makes a huge difference

That's why all those elected superdelegates are supporting him...

aisle that only ONE of the other 48 Senators support him. With friends like this...

In both cases, the legislation passed will be defined more by what the senior Senators or Congressmen put together. Hopefully the Democrats will regain the Senate and they will use the committees to write legislation. It will be crafted to be what can pass the Congress AS IT IS.

In 2009, Kennedy led the HELP committee to write its version of the health care legislation - that was combined with the Finance committee's pieces to form the Senate healthcare bill. Kennedy in the Bush years had actually introduced legislation for a single payer plan. During the summer and fall of 2008, he worked on what became the HELP committee legislation. Because in 2009, there was a real opportunity for getting something passed, it was NOT the single payer legislation he wrote years before, at a time where the Democrats could not have passed anything. Both HRC and Sanders have been in the Congress and they know how it works. (This is an advantage that Clinton 1992 did NOT have.)

So, what is the role of the President here? The President can and should set the goals and be a cheerleader for them. In 2009, Obama did push for a healthcare bill -- just as HRC or John Edwards would have. In reality, given that they had the same Congress (which is not certain), I am certain that they would have ended with the same bill. The reason - it required EVERY Democratic Senator to vote for it and that meant any provision whose inclusion would have lost a vote could not be in there -- and unfortunately they needed to keep people like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson on board.

is his own profile.

Read this.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/how-scotus-decision-best-described-citizens-united-steroids-used-state-loopholes

they have raised money for Senate campaigns. The fact is that HRC is using big dollar fundraisers for her own campaign ... and because the top tickets exceed what can legally go to her campaign, they go to the party ... and that does win her some deserved credit.

But, money isn't everything. It is entirely possible that Sanders may have woken up more people who have not bothered to vote for some time. Even if HRC is the nominee, it may well be that her victory margin will include many people voting only because Sanders has convinced them that it is essential they do so. This goes for Senators and Congressmen running as well. Vote, not money win elections.

You might have noticed, on the Republican side, that the amount of money spent has not correlated well with who wins. Obviously, it is necessary to have enough money to be competitive, but Democrats will have that in the general election.

The intrepid "reporting" of Lois Lane at it's finest.........

Trying to fix things?

By the way there is about 3 or 4 other articles about the same thing.

Would you like them?

I don't have time to debunk every single opinion piece from the former Ron Paul/Ralph Nader wing of the Democratic Party.

I think you were thinking of the Bush Family wing of the Democratic Party where you reside.

... because you insinuated that I was crazy...

... and called me a member of the Nader wing of the Democratic Party... who wasn't a Democrat either.

So before you say I insulted you, you should look in the mirror and look for the hypocrite.

3 people who he claims to have financially helped with their candidacy, so now Bernie can claim he did do some down ticket assistance.

so much hypocrisy with so little actual facts.

I think the reason she is on board with a Constitutional Amendment to knock down Citizens United is that she knows it will certainly not be accomplished in her lifetime.

Yep, that just about sums it up.

You say that there are good people in that machine who benefit, so maintain the machine.

Cushy hamster wheels are still hamster wheels.

to pass his legislation?

Or do you think he has a magic wand?

It takes money, not unicorn sparkleponies and farting pixie dust, to win elections. You may not like it, you may think you are above that, but it doesn't make it any less of a reality.

Obscene is.North Carolina and Mississippi. Bernie wrote a fundraising letter Hillary 30 million. Diagnostic views are words, air. Who can and will get congressional support. With action and cash to beat Cruz?

to help other Dems?

The article does not explain that clearly. Do you have another link?

100 guests per event, so 50 couples x 5K = $250 k.

So she would get $250K (approx) from each event. And they said in the article that each event is expected to pull in about $8 million.

that part of the scheme was that a large slice would go to the DNC which would then funnel it into Hillary for President PACs.

Wasn't this a way to skirt the laws limiting individuals to $2700 directly to Hillary?

The article is confusing but that's how I read it.

In other words, when it comes to helping down-ballot Democrats, ya got bupkiss.

has to win this unnecessary Primary fight, costing millions upon millions, but also has to win against the Rethugs in the GE? It's reasonable that her campaign(s) have to be funded, too. Bernie, on the other hand has given exactly $0 to any other Democratic candidates.

Raising money by any and all legal means necessary to defeat R's.

They will.

of Queensbury rules. We also believe in following them with one hand tied behind our back.

Really? I want my voice heard! I want to be able to vote for the candidate of my choice.

and all that usual loser-mentality nonsense, over and over. I think it's right to call Bernie supporters naive, because they demonstrate, through words and deeds, that they expect to win just by virtue of the fact that they're involved. They won't listen to facts about democratic elections being won by majority votes. Their purity matters more than a majority, after all!

Ask him.

support his progressive values. He goes directly to the people who have out raised Hillary's individual contributions. He uses the supporters of his campaign to help get money for these down ticket candidates.

I could never see Bernie smoozing with bigwigs and celebrities to beg for funds. That's not in his DNA.

Like, if Bernie asks for a donation and says he'll split it with one candidate (Flores came to mind recently)

That way, we fund both.

That should do the trick.

Its getting recycled and virtually all of it is going back to Hillary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511749866 

Bernie’s coattails are 190 candidates deep and we're donating directly to bypass the DNC. 

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?4694-Bernie-s-Coat-Tails-Important-List-of-Bernie-Democrats-Running-for-Office 

going to the state parties and the DNC.

In the past, the DNC has taken the lion's share and funnelled that into Hillary’s campaign


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-committee-raised-33-million-222044 

This has already been well discussed here.

And I already sent you the links.

& their super-delegate votes. Last I knew, buying votes is a fine example of corruption... as is money laundering (See DNC, 33 State Democratic Committees & the Hillary Victory Fund).

Save you breath, dear. It's like trying to talk to screaming child or a wall.

would scream when I tried to give her medicine. Facts are like that, they are good for you but sometimes, you just don't want to take them. Being the adult is really hard when you have a lot of screaming children.

Which is obvious to more and more Democrats.

As have many of us.

Ps. See siggy , and visit link to directly support the candidates of your choosing, like we do.

need more Progressives. Without more Progressives there will be no reform in the Dem. Party -- only
more status quo. I think that's one of the reasons why Bernie is doing what he does.

There won't be one if Bernie is the nominee.

Bernie becomes president. He and Elizabeth Warren will have to work hard to
get more Progressive Congresspeople into office during the first two years -- if
not during his entire first term. Don't expect him to get too much done during
his first term. The Repubs. will be fighting hard to stop him in every way they
can.

Welcome to du.

wonder how a 74-year-old guy has that much energy. He needs to win the
presidency first, and then he and Elizabeth Warren will be working together
hard to get more Progressives into Congress. Then they will be able to get
the ball really rolling and make those reforms.

The Republicans will be blocking him all the way, as they are doing with
Obama.

Networks get rich off all that using the People's airwaves and infrastructure.

The Clinton/DNC cabal is a massive FAIL when it comes to getting Democrats elected.

As long as it's Hillary, corporate money in politics is just fine?
It only corrupts other people, not HRC? What a dilemma!!!

Rethugs.

Have you ever heard the saying, if you're going to talk the talk you need to walk the walk.

But we'd be nuts to let them play to a whole different standard.

Bernie is doing quite nicely without the corporate money.

all the way back in January.

Clooney hosted a fundraiser for the Hillary Victory Fund on Friday in San Francisco, which cost as much as $353,000 per couple. When asked to respond to criticisms from Mr Sanders during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday, Clooney did not hold back.

“I think it’s an obscene amount of money,” Clooney said. “The Sanders campaign, when they talk about it, is absolutely right. It’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics.”

“We need to take the Senate back, because we need to confirm a Supreme Court justice. Because that fifth vote on the Supreme Court can overturn Citizens United and get this obscene, ridiculous amount of money out, so I never have to do a fundraiser again,” Clooney said.

I am certain he had that rationalization prepared.

Kinda like saying I am really for freeing the slaves but until the law changes I need that cotton pulled.
It takes a leader to do what's right without a law.

skipping a paragraph without showing that you did so. Pretty sneaky.

I bolded the missing paragraph.

I'm glad someone checked.

I see the thread has been invaded by the CT brigade.

Hillary donated $10,000 to Sanders campaign, where did this come from, not the $27 per person, it came from one of her fund raisers. For those who want to disparage these fund raisers, then disparage Sanders for taking the money which has been donated to his campaign.

It's all a fake outrage. I guess the presidential front runner shouldn't help to raise funds for the down ticket candidates. It's all about an artificial purity scale that won't help anyone get elected. The reality is that Republicans are having no moral compunction in raising money wherever they can for their candidates. I guess that Sanders and his supporters down give a crap about making sure that our down ticket candidates have enough money to be competitive with their Republican opponents.

This election is just downright crazy.

Many couldn't be bothered voting for anyone but Bernie.

high rollers just donate directly to the DNC and its assorted subcommittees, if/since the money is for all DEMOCRATS.

This way they could hang out with a future President, donate to her, and donate to the party at the same time.

Sanders said he wasn't raising any money for Democratic candidates, "No, not in this campaign." SuperPACs are bad, individual contributions good. About revitalizing the Democratic Party, he says, "I think we need a revolution ... in campaign finance, that means overturning Citizens United. For the Democratic Party that means an emphasis on getting more working people, young people, in the political process, depending on small campaign contributions, not big money the way Secretary Clinton is raising it."

The only way to overturn Citizens United is to elect more Democrats. I really don't understand what Sanders is saying here.

against the Rethugs.

Unfortunately, the dollars used to finance campaigns aren't marked "dirty" or "clean." They're marked $27 or $2700. And the more of the latter, the more TV commercials and everything else that can be financed.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

Hillary's is a MUCH smaller number of big, FAT checks from Wall Street and other special interests.

Unless you have a hard breakdown of how much and how many define 'obscene', you are applying very subjective criteria to this. It's your failure to appreciate that some actually like and respect her that I think gives you problems.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

Bernie doesn't. There is a huge difference, and that difference is NOT lost on voters, especially this cycle where Citizens United and Wall St malfeasance is at the core of the campaign (Well, Bernie's anyway)

At least they have their accounting straight, unlike the Bernie campaign, which needs to do a lot more splainin' to the FEC. And they are not taking bizarre little jaunts to the Vatican that only eat up a lot of $27.00 contributions.

Hillary and Clooney are within the law. Bernie's campaign has quite a few questionable activities associated with it that have never been explained.