The DNC Reports Lowest Fundraising Since 2003

[Fogdog]

I'm amazed how you can say that all this money is a good thing when it's plain that it means politicians care even less about your needs than that of those who donated the cash.

But call me the delusional one...

I think a level playing field, where campaigns are driven by individual contributions that are held to a reasonably low limit is a good idea. Sanders introduced a bill in the Senate in 2014 that would have led to the repeal of the Citizen's United Ruling. Every Democratic Party Caucus senator supported it. The bill was killed because every Republican Senator did not.

For this reason, among others, ceding elections to Republicans is a really bad idea. There is absolutely no chance that Republicans will take the pledge to forego PAC and corporate money. NONE. Your theory that the public will flock to a liberal candidate if only he swore off PAC and corporate money is practically untested. There are a few election results that show this hypothesis is probably false. Sanders' own run in the Democratic Party primaries for one. A few others along with Sanders failed but not enough to conclusively say it is false. On the other hand, no election results to say it could be true.

I'm all for testing your hypothesis in the primaries. Let candidates decide for themselves, let the electorate choose the Democratic Party candidates to run against opposition parties and we'll see what happens.

I think we'll find that the "pledge" candidates get pasted in primaries. But maybe not. As I said, I'm OK with either result. Are you OK with this?

 

[Padawanbater2]

I'm amazed how you can say that all this money is a good thing when it's plain that it means politicians care even less about your needs than that of those who donated the cash.

But call me the delusional one...

What's even funnier is that corporate Democrats raised more money than Republicans in this last election cycle and still lost

Kinda deflates the argument that Democrats have to take money to be competitive, huh?

Maybe it's just us, but I think if the Democratic leadership made it clear to the American people that they will enact a policy party wide of accepting no corporate contributions or PAC money, and highlight the fact that the Republicans do, and explain this issue how progressives explain it, they could very easily turn that sole issue into gigantic wins across the political board. By continuing the current policy, they simply look slightly less corrupt than Republicans.

GOP base doesn't care about campaign finance reform so Republicans are free to take as much money as they want from corporations and PACs. Democrats have to lend lip service to their base because they do care about it. So they're left with walking the tight rope between their donors and their base, always coming out behind their GOP counterpart.

It is an inherently flawed and unsustainable system of campaign finance. Reform is inevitable.

 

[ttystikk]

I think a level playing field, where campaigns are driven by individual contributions that are held to a reasonably low limit is a good idea. Sanders introduced a bill in the Senate in 2014 that would have led to the repeal of the Citizen's United Ruling. Every Democratic Party Caucus senator supported it. The bill was killed because every Republican Senator did not.

For this reason, among others, ceding elections to Republicans is a really bad idea. There is absolutely no chance that Republicans will take the pledge to forego PAC and corporate money. NONE. Your theory that the public will flock to a liberal candidate if only he swore off PAC and corporate money is practically untested. There are a few election results that show this hypothesis is probably false. Sanders' own run in the Democratic Party primaries for one. A few others along with Sanders failed but not enough to conclusively say it is false. On the other hand, no election results to say it could be true.

I'm all for testing your hypothesis in the primaries. Let candidates decide for themselves, let the electorate choose the Democratic Party candidates to run against opposition parties and we'll see what happens.

I think we'll find that the "pledge" candidates get pasted in primaries. But maybe not. As I said, I'm OK with either result. Are you OK with this?

As @Padawanbater2 stated above, even getting more money than Republicans doesn't seem to help the Democratic Party win.

I agree with him; that running on it as a core plank in their platform and effectively and consistently explaining why it's so critical to democracy as we'd recognize it might get better results.

After all, they're losing their ass now, even with more money.

 

[ttystikk]

What's even funnier is that corporate Democrats raised more money than Republicans in this last election cycle and still lost

Kinda deflates the argument that Democrats have to take money to be competitive, huh?

Maybe it's just us, but I think if the Democratic leadership made it clear to the American people that they will enact a policy party wide of accepting no corporate contributions or PAC money, and highlight the fact that the Republicans do, and explain this issue how progressives explain it, they could very easily turn that sole issue into gigantic wins across the political board. By continuing the current policy, they simply look slightly less corrupt than Republicans.

GOP base doesn't care about campaign finance reform so Republicans are free to take as much money as they want from corporations and PACs. Democrats have to lend lip service to their base because they do care about it. So they're left with walking the tight rope between their donors and their base, always coming out behind their GOP counterpart.

It is an inherently flawed and unsustainable system of campaign finance. Reform is inevitable.

I'm not convinced reform is inevitable; unless the system of cash is actively protested it is politically stable.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I'm not convinced reform is inevitable; unless the system of cash is actively protested it is politically stable.

I think it is, my reasoning being, outside of electing people like Trump, Democrats will continue to lose elections. If not for Trump, if instead it was someone like Pence or Ryan as president, someone much more polished and can play president better, while still maintaining many of Trumps worst qualities and pushing for many of his worst policies, Democrats would lose again in 2018 and 2020.

 

[Fogdog]

As @Padawanbater2 stated above, even getting more money than Republicans doesn't seem to help the Democratic Party win.

I agree with him; that running on it as a core plank in their platform and effectively and consistently explaining why it's so critical to democracy as we'd recognize it might get better results.

After all, they're losing their ass now, even with more money.

If I read you correctly, you are saying we've lost before so losing more is OK.

I'm also reading into what you wrote in your reply that you support the idea of a tops down imposition on all Democratic party candidates to forego legal contributions in primaries and main elections when the Republican opponent will continue to accept all legal contributions. If accepting legal campaign donations from PACs and corporations is such a powerful campaign tactic, then your guys would be a shoe-in for both the primaries and the main elections. I ask, what are you afraid of?

 

[Fogdog]

I think it is, my reasoning being, outside of electing people like Trump, Democrats will continue to lose elections. If not for Trump, if instead it was someone like Pence or Ryan as president, someone much more polished and can play president better, while still maintaining many of Trumps worst qualities and pushing for many of his worst policies, Democrats would lose again in 2018 and 2020.

Can you explain to me how you expect campaign finance reform and many of the other issues you and I agree upon can possibly occur under a Republican-held government?

 

[Fogdog]

What's even funnier is that corporate Democrats raised more money than Republicans in this last election cycle and still lost

Kinda deflates the argument that Democrats have to take money to be competitive, huh?

Maybe it's just us, but I think if the Democratic leadership made it clear to the American people that they will enact a policy party wide of accepting no corporate contributions or PAC money, and highlight the fact that the Republicans do, and explain this issue how progressives explain it, they could very easily turn that sole issue into gigantic wins across the political board. By continuing the current policy, they simply look slightly less corrupt than Republicans.

GOP base doesn't care about campaign finance reform so Republicans are free to take as much money as they want from corporations and PACs. Democrats have to lend lip service to their base because they do care about it. So they're left with walking the tight rope between their donors and their base, always coming out behind their GOP counterpart.

It is an inherently flawed and unsustainable system of campaign finance. Reform is inevitable.

Trump was amazingly good at getting free media attention, wasn't he?

 

[abandonconflict]

Trump was amazingly good at getting free media attention, wasn't he?

Seems that has remained his primary function even since the election.

 

[Fogdog]

Not saying it was a banner year. Am saying that winning the popular vote, narrowly losing in a few states to give the EC to Trump, net gain of two seats in senate, net gain of in control of state legislatures and pretty much across the board, elections were close whichever party won. This idea of a death spiral for the Democratic Party is not worth even a bucket of warm spit.

Despite harrowing election, Democrats make net legislative gain, picking up 4 chambers to GOP's 3
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/11/1595712/-Despite-harrowing-election-Democrats-make-net-legislative-gain-picking-up-4-chambers-to-GOP-s-3

 

[Padawanbater2]

Can you explain to me how you expect campaign finance reform and many of the other issues you and I agree upon can possibly occur under a Republican-held government?

I don't expect any of those issues to be fixed under a Republican held government. I also don't expect any of those issues to be fixed under a Democratic establishment held government. This is where you point to the votes, under GOP control, that Democrats have levied as evidence they actually support them, just not when Democrats hold control.

If people like Pelosi, Clinton, and Feinstein actually support universal healthcare, why do they explicitly say they don't when interviewed by journalists about it? Why isn't universal healthcare part of the Democrats new "Better Deal" plan? Why is a vote in a GOP controlled congress enough to convince you when it has no chance of passing anyway? Wouldn't a better indicator of support in congress be to actually sponsor or cosponsor a bill that outlines it? Why are there still a significant number of house Democrats who have not co sponsored Conyers universal healthcare bill?

 

[Padawanbater2]

This idea of a death spiral for the Democratic Party is not worth even a bucket of warm spit.

"leaving Republicans in charge of 68 chambers and Democrats just 31."

So Democrats picked up 4 chambers, totalling 31, while Republicans picked up 3, totalling 68, and you see that as positive?

This is another part of the problem; delusion

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't expect any of those issues to be fixed under a Republican held government. I also don't expect any of those issues to be fixed under a Democratic establishment held government. This is where you point to the votes, under GOP control, that Democrats have levied as evidence they actually support them, just not when Democrats hold control.

If people like Pelosi, Clinton, and Feinstein actually support universal healthcare, why do they explicitly say they don't when interviewed by journalists about it? Why isn't universal healthcare part of the Democrats new "Better Deal" plan? Why is a vote in a GOP controlled congress enough to convince you when it has no chance of passing anyway? Wouldn't a better indicator of support in congress be to actually sponsor or cosponsor a bill that outlines it? Why are there still a significant number of house Democrats who have not co sponsored Conyers universal healthcare bill?

sorry for ruining the premise of your shitty thread.

while you're here, what do you think of bernie sanders endorsing a public option and 55+ medicare?

and how are men's rights different from women's rights?

 

[UncleBuck]

"leaving Republicans in charge of 68 chambers and Democrats just 31."

So Democrats picked up 4 chambers, totalling 31, while Republicans picked up 3, totalling 68, and you see that as positive?

This is another part of the problem; delusion

let's see here...

dems +4
pubs +3

(+4) - (+3) = +1

yep, that is a positive number.

 

[Padawanbater2]

let's see here...

dems +4
pubs +3

(+4) - (+3) = +1

yep, that is a positive number.

What do you see as positive about Republicans being in control of 68 chambers while Democrats are in control of 31 chambers?

This is an example of what was brought up earlier. You're not an honest person, you can't present your arguments in an honest way.

 

[UncleBuck]

What do you see as positive about Republicans being in control of 68 chambers while Democrats are in control of 31 chambers?

This is an example of what was brought up earlier. You're not an honest person, you can't present your arguments in an honest way.

really? i just did the math. let me do it again for you.

4-3=1

1 is a positive number.

 

[Fogdog]

I don't expect any of those issues to be fixed under a Republican held government. I also don't expect any of those issues to be fixed under a Democratic establishment held government. This is where you point to the votes, under GOP control, that Democrats have levied as evidence they actually support them, just not when Democrats hold control.

If people like Pelosi, Clinton, and Feinstein actually support universal healthcare, why do they explicitly say they don't when interviewed by journalists about it? Why isn't universal healthcare part of the Democrats new "Better Deal" plan? Why is a vote in a GOP controlled congress enough to convince you when it has no chance of passing anyway? Wouldn't a better indicator of support in congress be to actually sponsor or cosponsor a bill that outlines it? Why are there still a significant number of house Democrats who have not co sponsored Conyers universal healthcare bill?

When did Pelosi explicitly say she didn't support universal healthcare? In her words, not in the videos that you like to post that provide you thought guides, she explicitly said she supported universal healthcare. If you are referring to her saying she wasn't supporting the introduction of a bill next year, then I refer you to your own words about a Republican held congress. By the way, Clinton isn't a private citizen and her beliefs are not important. I'm not up on what Feinstein said, so without argument, I'll just cede your point. What those two women who are public officials say is pretty much swamped by a movement in both houses. A majority of house Democrats have signed onto a bill sponsored by Dem John Conyers that would expand Medicare for all in all 50 states. Sanders is working on a version for the Senate, there is nothing to hang a hat onto, but I think it will receive good support.

Believe what you want but what you are saying is patently false.

In your own narrative, it doesn't matter to you what Democrats do. You still bash them. In 2014, when Democrats held a majority in the Senate, they in fact did support the repeal of CU. That is in the Congressional record and not subject to debate. A filibuster by Republicans defeated the measure. By villifying Democrats for entering the measure and being stopped by the opposition, you are trying to have it both ways. If any Democrats HAD voted against the measure, you'd be all over it as proof of BAD Democrats and I'd agree. That every democratic caucus Senator supported the measure and still failed, you claim the same. Simply weak thinking.

 

[Padawanbater2]

really? i just did the math. let me do it again for you.

4-3=1

1 is a positive number.

Is 68 larger than 31?

 

[UncleBuck]

Is 68 larger than 31?

yes, by 37.

and 69 is larger than 30 by 39.

are you getting it yet?

or is it more "I WANT MY ICE CREAM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"?

 

[Fogdog]

@ttystikk and @Padawanbater2 , I've pointed out that there is evidence that rejecting large donations, PAC money and Corporate donations is a poor choice if the objective is to win back Congress. Yet you both maintain a position that the DNC should require all Democrats forego those funds.

Are you OK with the Democrats losing even more seats in the House and the Senate?