He suggested it.
and it never happened. And he never pursued it anymore outside of that comment.
It's really a non issue.
But we gotta make it one.
He suggested it.
and it never happened. And he never pursued it anymore outside of that comment.
It's really a non issue.
But we gotta make it one.
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.
is this DWS' doing? even if its not can we blame DWS anyways? she is fucking useless
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.
Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, has set up a joint fundraising committee with the DNC called the Hillary Victory Fund, which raised $26.9 million through the end of 2015. Sanders has set up a similar joint fundraising committee but Federal Election Commission records show it has not been active, raising a total of just $1,000.
what is someone supposed to answer to a question like "how big will the government be under your presidency?"
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.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.
YESJust 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.
what is someone supposed to answer to a question like "how big will the government be under your presidency?". is there some metric to measure the size of a government, or is that strictly about spending? any reasonable answer would probably require an essay length answer.
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.
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.as opposed to bernie's current campaign .......
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.
I mean the issue here is what degree of interaction does he foresee the US having with the world if his approach will not be isolationist. His varying statements on containing Russia, on reducing US interventions, on destroying ISIS, on when it is and isn't okay to call for regime change - with associated voting, sometimes all in the single debate segment, can come off as inconsistent/unclear; and I think it's because he honestly hasn't really thought about it much. On the whole, I can surmise he sees a more diminished role for the US in leading world affairs, and ymmv on whether that's a good or bad thing, but it's difficult to discern how diminished and what that role would look.
Afghanistan was UN-sanctioned action carried out by a broad coalition and has been the longest US war ever; action in Libya was also [ostensibly] backed by a UN mandate, pressure from allies to act and support from the Arab League.
In the end, it probably won't matter though given foreign policy doesn't seem to matter in this race anyway.
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.
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.
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.
what is someone supposed to answer to a question like "how big will the government be under your presidency?". is there some metric to measure the size of a government, or is that strictly about spending? any reasonable answer would probably require an essay length answer.
Nate has Nevada caucus 50/50 after new poll...
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/nevada-democratic/
itshappening.gif
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.
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.
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.
867 interviews were completed using automated telephone technology and 369 were conducted using
mobile phones.
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.