Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:19 AM Oct 2015

Insiders: Sanders needs big money

This is quite an interesting read and if anything, it speaks volumes about what has happened to us as a country and how we've sold our democracy for the almighty buck. There's something wrong when ones selection of candidates and the issues which they are fighting for, along with their voices, are silenced because money.

This is all the more reason why I support Bernie. Personally I believe that things like the debates themselves should be opened up in a general election between the top dozen political candidates from 12 different parties. I'm sure some will bag on me for saying and believing that but education is the key to knowledge.

It's enough with the selling of our democracy in a system which is rigged so only the ultra rich can play in their little sandbox.

Insiders: Sanders needs big money
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/insiders-bernie-small-donors-214350

Bernie Sanders rails against big money in politics and insists that he doesn’t want an allied super PAC — but the majority of Democrats in early states say he can’t rely on smaller-dollar donors alone if he wants to beat Hillary Clinton.
That’s the assessment of this week’s POLITICO Caucus, our bipartisan survey of the top activists, operatives and strategists in the early states. This week, the Caucus has expanded to include South Carolina and Nevada in addition to our insiders already participating in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The consensus on Sanders’ need for big money was strong: 83 percent of South Carolina Democrats, 62 percent of Nevada Democrats and 54 percent of New Hampshire Democrats said he cannot beat Clinton with only small-dollar donors. Of Iowa Democrats, 40 percent said the same.
Insiders from those states said that at best he could win a contest or two, but the big donations and unlimited contributions that a super PAC brings would be essential if his campaign stretches into the later stages of the primary season.
"Small donors are an important component but if the campaign drifts into the larger more expensive states he will need more dollars than he will receive from just small donors," said one South Carolina Democrat, who like all participants was granted anonymity in order to speak freely.
Agreed an Iowa Democrat, "During the caucus, absolutely. But it's difficult to go deep into the primary without the resources to back a full campaign in several states."


16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
1. Hasn't that been the theme all along? Issues don't count, only money counts?
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:22 AM
Oct 2015

Nauseating. And I am supporting Bernie, because of issues. That is set in stone.

brooklynite

(94,520 posts)
7. Not at all, the theme has been that you need both...
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:48 AM
Oct 2015

...we don't have public campaign funding for Primaries. Bernie has done reasonably well for a campaign that's primarily focused, for the moment, in NH and IA. But when the race expands nationally (particularly Super Tuesday), he'll need much larger reserves. And assuming the nomination, he'll need to scale up substantially to compete with the Republicans. Except that I expect him, as a matter of principle, to accept Federal campaign funds, which will put him at a significant disadvantage.

ibegurpard

(16,685 posts)
9. Clinton has already tapped out many of her donors
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:01 AM
Oct 2015

Bernie can keep going back to them. Superpacs? I relish the chance to run against them. Bernie SHOULD opt out of matching funds though. Like his polling and popularity the fundraising trajectory will only go up. He doesn't need to match the Republicans dollar for dollar.

 

NorthCarolina

(11,197 posts)
2. So, our elections are NOT based on policy, judgement, or knowledge, just ca$h.
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:22 AM
Oct 2015

That's a fine how-do-you-do.

moobu2

(4,822 posts)
3. It will get worse if Bernie Sanders were the nominee
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:31 AM
Oct 2015

A Republican would win and we'll have another generation of a right wing Supreme Court. If Republicans along with Bernie Sanders supporters manage to take Hillary down Bidden will be the nominee and we'll have the same result. If he'll freezes over and Bernie Sanders managed to get himself elected (lol) he would be as in effective as he's been for the last 20+ years since he's been in Washington and nothing would change at all.

moobu2

(4,822 posts)
6. Bernie Sanders isnt even a Democrat and there's no such thing as a Republican Democrat.
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:43 AM
Oct 2015

Hillary Clinton is a great Democrat and is why so many of her colleagues have endorsed her. Where are Bernie's colleagues? Bernie Sanders isnt going to win the nomination much less the presidency thank God.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
15. Who gives 2 shits
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:43 AM
Oct 2015

If Bernie is a dem or not. Who cares? Issues are what matter here, not stupid bullshit toe the political establishment line party crap.
You just illustrated the HUGE difference between those of us who support Bernie and those of you who support Hillary.
To us, issues are what matters. Stuff like party affiliation doesn't.

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
16. Never mind
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:59 AM
Oct 2015

I asked a question, then saw that you had already answered up-thread when you claimed that Bernie hasn't accomplished anything in his career.

That's all I'll need to hear from you, Buhbye.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
14. A Republican would win?
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:41 AM
Oct 2015

You laugh yet I bet you laughed at this time back in 2007 too, didn't you?
Bernie has gotten a lot done in DC and a simple Google search would show you that. Nothing would change at all? You honestly think things would change if Hillary was elected? A polarizing figure who the right absolutely hates more than anybody else in politics? Really? REALLY? Wake up!

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
4. Good old conventional wisdom.
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:33 AM
Oct 2015

Brought to us by the same people who thought he'd be another Kucinich.

Yes, he needs money. But as most of us forced to WATCH all of the TV ads in those expensive markets know, we get hit with far too many, to the point where we're sick and tired of political ads long before it's time to vote. Candidates currently WAY overspend on TV ads.

ibegurpard

(16,685 posts)
8. And here's the goalpost move
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:54 AM
Oct 2015

He matches Clinton in fundraising so now he needs a Superpac. Nope. He has something unlimited money will never be able to buy no matter how vast the numbers...grassroots support and enthusiasm. Trying to buy that for Clinton is like shredding cash.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
10. Exactly. The timing of this announcement by "insiders" says it all.
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:22 AM
Oct 2015

I also read that Hillary has already spent most of the money she raised during the
summer, and read somewhere else that she's already tapped out most of her large
donors. All that money on polling, hiring "experts" to run focus groups, and her ugly
ads have not stemmed the rising tide of The Bern.

I don't know how much Bernie has spent of the money he's raised, but I'm guessing
that he's keeping his powder dry, using mostly volunteers (because people are truly
excited and clamoring to help however they can, in many ways, often spontaneously.

ibegurpard

(16,685 posts)
11. make no mistake
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:26 AM
Oct 2015

Money is an absolute necessity with our completely disfunctional campaign system. But even with Superpacs we won't match the repukes dollar for dollar. Grassroots and volunteers will walk through fire for free. Paid campaign staff are only looking for blurbs on their resumes.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,912 posts)
13. NOTE: "(Some insiders responded before Sanders’ announced his third-quarter haul.)"
Fri Oct 2, 2015, 10:32 AM
Oct 2015

That note was tacked onto the bottom of this story. I think the unspoken implication is that it's possible some might want to revisit their assumptions in light of Sander's record haul which had not yet been reported to all.

The larger point is that this is a read out of conventional wisdom, and I do not knee jerk knock all conventional wisdom, because it becomes conventional for a reason. But these are not conventional times and Sanders is not a conventional candidate.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Insiders: Sanders needs b...