Bernie Sanders

abelenkpe

(9,933 posts) Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:30 PM Feb 2016

Hillary Clinton Is Backed by Major Republican Donors

Hillary Clinton Is Backed by Major Republican Donors

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/hillary-clinton-backed-major-republican-donors.html

An analysis of Federal Election Commission records, by TIME, which was published on 23 October 2015, showed that the 2012 donors to Romney’s campaign were already donating more to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign than they had been donating to any one of the 2016 campaigns of — listed here in declining order below Clinton — Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, or Jim Gilmore. Those major Romney donors also gave a little to two Democrats (other than to Hillary — who, as mentioned, received a lot of donations from these Republican donors): Martin O’Malley, Jim Web, and Lawrence Lessig. (Romney’s donors gave nothing to Bernie Sanders, and nothing to Elizabeth Warren. They don’t want either of those people to become President.)

Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who is even moderately attractive to big Republican donors.

In ascending order above Clinton, Romney’s donors were donating to: John Kasich, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Jeb Bush. The top trio — of Bush, Cruz, and Rubio — together, received around 60% of all the money donated for the 2016 race by the people who had funded Mitt Romney’s 2012 drive for the White House.

(snip)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously? Is this for real?

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Clinton Is Backed by Major Republican Donors (Original Post) abelenkpe Feb 2016 OP

Not surprised at all. earthside Feb 2016 #1

doesn't take a forensic accountant to see that HRC would accrue more benefits to the rich nashville_brook Feb 2016 #2

And they would MUCH prefer Clinton losing to republicans than Sanders beating them. arcane1 Feb 2016 #3

I wonder farleftlib Feb 2016 #7

Given their choices C_U_L8R Feb 2016 #4

The corporate establishment as a whole might choose to back Hillary if Trump is the Republican nominee AZ Progressive Feb 2016 #5

Certainly bodes well for the spectacular-expected return on their "donations". n/t libdem4life Feb 2016 #6

Not surprising at all BernieforPres2016 Feb 2016 #8

Love that! abelenkpe Feb 2016 #10

The oligarchy funds campaigns of the establishment partys. No surprise. Ivan Kaputski Feb 2016 #9

Key paragraph Depaysement Feb 2016 #11

earthside

(6,960 posts)

1. Not surprised at all.

Reply to abelenkpe (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:35 PM

Feb 2016

Since you cannot believe a word that comes out of Hillary's mouth, she will undoubtedly be (if heaven forbid she became president) quite protective of the privileged elite one-percent.

She is one of them, after all.

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)

2. doesn't take a forensic accountant to see that HRC would accrue more benefits to the rich

Reply to abelenkpe (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:37 PM

Feb 2016

than anyone else in the field. just look at the first Clinton admin with financial deregulation. the strategy is to get Ds to do what Rs can't get away with.

arcane1

(38,613 posts)

3. And they would MUCH prefer Clinton losing to republicans than Sanders beating them.

Reply to abelenkpe (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:51 PM

Feb 2016

"Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who is even moderately attractive to big Republican donors. "

At some point, we each have to ask ourselves: "exactly whose side am I on?"

farleftlib

(2,125 posts)

7. I wonder

Reply to arcane1 (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:28 PM

Feb 2016

how the Hillary fans will spin this because no matter how cut and dried the evidence is that she's a DINO and serves herself first, her corporate donors second and us last, they can splain it away. And she doesn't serve us so much as she serves us up.

I know whose side we're on.

C_U_L8R

(45,014 posts)

4. Given their choices

Reply to abelenkpe (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:22 PM

Feb 2016

any reasonable person would have to vote
for Hillary or Bernie. You've really got to be
a half-wit to vote for Trump, Cruz or Rubio.
I think we'll be welcoming a lot of new
Democrats this year.

AZ Progressive

(3,411 posts)

5. The corporate establishment as a whole might choose to back Hillary if Trump is the Republican nominee

Reply to abelenkpe (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:24 PM

Feb 2016

Hillary is Ms. Wall Street, after all. She just takes positions she pretends to be for and gets her what she wants. That is what they want.

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)

6. Certainly bodes well for the spectacular-expected return on their "donations". n/t

Reply to AZ Progressive (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 03:27 PM

Feb 2016

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)

8. Not surprising at all

Reply to abelenkpe (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:38 PM

Feb 2016

As journalist Christopher Hedges said, and I am paraphrasing, the genius of Bill Clinton was that he moved the Democratic Party so far right they became the Republican Party and moved the Republican Party so far right they became insane.

abelenkpe

(9,933 posts)

10. Love that!

Reply to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:11 PM

Feb 2016

Republicans are insane. Cannot believe Trump is their front runner!

Ivan Kaputski

(528 posts)

9. The oligarchy funds campaigns of the establishment partys. No surprise.

Reply to abelenkpe (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 04:45 PM

Feb 2016

This is how we do it in Russia too. CCCP

Depaysement

(1,835 posts)

11. Key paragraph

Reply to abelenkpe (Original post)

Tue Feb 23, 2016, 05:31 PM

Feb 2016

"Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric is liberal, but her actual actions in politics have been conservative, except for her nominal support for liberal initiatives that attracted even some Republican support, or else that the Senate vote-counts (at the time when she was in the Senate) indicated in-advance had no real chance of becoming passed into law. In other words: her record was one of rhetoric and pretense on a great many issues, and of meaningful action on only issues that wouldn’t embarrass her in a Democratic primary campaign, to attract Democratic voters."

Reply to this discussion