That woman in a white shirts is the real leader of the progressive wing of the Senate Democrats. She knows what she is talking about w/r/t her signature issues, and she stumps and fund-raises for her fellow ranks.
Elizabeth Warren in Chicago stumps, fund-raises for Duckworth
THAT is the difference, people.
April 30, 2015 to be exact, so he, his campaign manager and his team have had more than a year to learn exactly how the nomination process works, and heās still complaining about it. If heās that slow on the uptake, Iām even more glad he wonāt get anywhere near the Presidency, he would have ended up an unsuccessful one-term President that would have tanked liberal policies in the mind of the electorate for at least a generation.
All that, yes, and he is hoping and praying that HRC gets indicted.
So what was Clintonās fundraising in April like?
Politifact says that the reason why Clooney was able to claim that the fundraiser he hosted put most of its money into "down-ticketā candidaets is because, while the Victory for HIllary Fund grabs every penny of the first $2700 that people donate, most of the wealthy donors are maxed out for Hillary and so most of money collected at the Clooney dinner went to candidates other than Hillary.
So again; what was Clintonās OWN campaign fundraising total for April?
ā¦crickets!
Bernie just either canāt accept defeat or he has ulterior motives?
Heās beat like an old rug, like a big bass drum and he and his team know it so what else is at play here? Heās hurting his reputation and any chance he may have had at having sway within the Party, so nothing really makes sense but the old standby, $MONEY$
I have been told repeatedly that he personally canāt keep the donations but his surrogates can soak up the cash and who knows where the cash flows after that? I wouldnāt have originally thought such things but months of watching Sanders and team in action and his current actions have made me see him as just another politician and we all know that many of them run to gain personally with no hope whatsoever of ever winning, cough~~~cough Ron Paul and son.
Super delegates and regular delegates are in line with the general Democratic voters and none of them are going to switch at the last second and defy themselves just to fulfill Sanders scam. Itā¦ISā¦NOTā¦HAPPENING!
Follow the money and be leery of the shell game and slight of hand.
You understand that I am pro-Clinton too. And Iām doing it not because she is lesser of two evils ā I actually think she is a politician worth voting for. This did not preclude me from liking and his positions Sanders at the beginning of the primary. I just always thought she has a better chance of being elected and as time went by I got convinced that she would get us much closer to Sandersā goals than he would. In addition I came to appreciate her understanding of both goals and ways of achieving those goals compared to those of Sandersā.
So in many respects I am as much a resident of Hillary country as others here. But I lurked here long enough during this election season to know that many of the people in this country have been open minded towards Bernieās ideas and are more than open to reasonable discussion.
You have, I believe, misunderstood both sanders and fivethirtyeight.
They are talking about winning delegates sufficient to get a majority of ALL delegates and so WIN the nomination outright: 2,383.
Sanders is talking about what he needs to win a simple majority of pledged delegates and so trigger a brokered (he called it ācontestedā) convention where the vote of the superdelegates counts -they donāt matter if someone gets 2,383 of the pledged delegates.
While not easily doable it is still possible and that is the figure that Sanders is talking about, not the 2,383 majority of all delegates, which would require him to win 90+ of all delegates (if he still can by any calculation).
Of course he called for Obama to be primaried. If he somehow won the nomination and then became POTUS he would hope to be primaried as well.
The main lives for the democratic process, which includes open and loud debate at all turns in the process.
In fact, his legacy is assured. To claim that he should stop fighting for his cause (hint: in HIS eyes, POTUS is rather minor, albeit important thing) is to deny him his legacy.
Since the supers had already gotten behind Ckinton and this current scenario was almost inevitable from the day he first announced, how can you somehow notice it only now?
Sanders always intended to fight for the nomination all the way to the floor, even if he had only 10% of the delegates or even 5%. That was his stated goal (by calling it the start of a āpolitical revolutionā) a year ago and he hasnāt changed in the slightest since.
Clinton and the Party are simpatico, if she gains-the Party gains and that is how it has to be in order for the Party to accomplish anything.
It is not a donations war between Sanders and Hillary alone. We are trying to regain both sides of the house and to work further down ticket than that, because todays local Democrat race winners are tomorrows leaders.
Sanders and his people made quite the big deal about his fund raising and the crowds that he drew, and yet, he is being overwhelmed in the categories that actually matter and count.
Bragging rights regarding strictly donations are just about meaningless but bringing in big bucks and spreading it all around so that a wide swath of Democrats win, that is priceless!
I donāt have an answer for you question but here is a side comment: after supposedly getting maximal contributions from that group of donors, Clinton went out to continue fundraising for down-ticket candidates. Did Sanders do anything similar?
Youāre familiar with the Hillary Victory Fund, of courseā¦
I donāt have to link anything to you because you already know all about it, right, and how it works?
Nudging up against āfair-useā?
Iāll post some insight that George Clooney offered-- and a bit of self-deprecating wit too.
From the Guardian:
On NBC, Clooney, who said he would fundraise for Sanders if he won the nomination, rejected accusations from some protesters that he was a ācorporate shillā.
āThatās one of the funnier things you could say about me,ā he said.
He said that most of the money he had helped raise for Clinton would actually go to down-ticket Democrats running for Congress. If a Democratic president could get the right justice appointed to the supreme court, he argued, then the US could again begin to separate money from politics.
āWe 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.ā
The actor added that he does not enjoy the fundraisers, and linked the work of his foundation, which traces the wealth of corrupt politicians, to that of the Panama Papers and the supreme court case. āI think Citizens United is one of the worst laws passed since Iāve been around.ā
Clooney also showed a willingness to meet pro-Sanders protesters in San Francisco halfway ā or at least to indulge in some self-deprecation with them āTheir T-shirts said, you know, āYou sucked as Batman,āā he said.
āAnd I was like, āWell, you kind of got me on that one.āā
What has to be done this election cycle monetarily-- has to be doneā
to keep from being out-Koched-- especially now-- downticket.
jw1
That didnāt address my point out all, you know.
You did not get the gist of my comment: it was sarcasm regarding a democratic socialist applying one set of rules to himself and a different set of rules to others.
And how would you call a political revolution which relies on the āestablishmentā instead of turning out all those millions of supporters who did not vote before?
See, Les? This is how scrolling fails 
My mistake I had not seen that.
Even so, that still works out to about 66% (including Indiana). 66::33 = 33% margins on average.
