Reply With Quote
And then get slaughtered in the general election when all the money runs to Rubio.
Bernie Raised a Record-Breaking $3 Million in 24 Hours Following Iowa Caucus
The surging grassroots campaign powered by small donors has broken its one-day fundraising record.
Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign had its best small-donor fundraising day yet following Monday night’s photo finish with Hillary Clinton in Iowa’s caucuses. The campaign brought in $3 million, and four out of 10 givers were new donors.
“I think the significance is, for folks who did not think Bernie Sanders could win, that we could compete against Hillary Clinton — I hope that that thought is now gone,” Sanders told CNN on Tuesday morning.
The fact that Sanders is not just raising the funds needed to compete in the next primary and caucus states, but apparently is growing his donor base signals the contest for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination will continue well into March. More than 1,000 delegates are at stake the first Tuesday in March.
Sanders has continually railed against the country’s corrupt campaign finance system, in which a handful of wealthy supporters reach out to their networks and expect their candidate, if elected, to mirror their interests. Sanders says that wealth- and class-based bias is why Congress does not pass domestic legislation favored by the working- and middle-classes.
Sander, in contrast, is showing the country an alternative to that model—a national movement fueled by millions of donors giving an average of $29, the figure he cited in his Iowa caucus night speech. What’s especially noteworthy about his donor base is the vast majority of donors are nowhere near maxing out under the legal limit. They can keep giving in dribs and drabs, adding up to millions, as long as the Sanders campaign keeps making progress.
“Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign is funded by small donors who gave an average of about $29 each in the past year while Hillary Clinton has relied on the wealthy to bankroll her presidential bid, new financial disclosure reports reveal,” the campaign said in a press release accompanying its January 31 Federal Election Commmission report.
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...ter1050072&t=6
And then get slaughtered in the general election when all the money runs to Rubio.
Potentially yes, but I think mainstream Democrats and liberals will gravitate towards Bernie. Plus, Rubio has to prove he can win the minority vote.
90% of BigFinance money went to Romney in 2012, he got slaughtered.
Bernie's not going to raise $1 billion like Obama did.
the billionaires have a piss poor record getting their hand-picked s elected.Bernie's not going to raise $1 billion like Obama did.
We'll see if Hillary's BigFinance PACs can destroy Bernie.
Holy , boutons actually believes in American elections. No more ed and un able?
Sanders subtweets Clinton: “You cannot be a moderate and a progressive"
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10907792...te-progressive
bad read
American voting is a charade, a scam. The politicians do whatever their donors want them to do, with insignificant nod to what their voters want (and what they campaigned on).
No WH Dem will get ANY progressive legislation passed as long as Repugs control Congress and SCOTUS.
Bernie will veto more Repug than Hillary, who will veto less Repug than Bernie, while Hillary will sign a bunch of really nasty Repug bills, just like Bill did, and get only tiny, insignificant progressive "incremental" amendments in.
Bernie is of course in a class by himself.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-04-2016 at 07:33 AM.
S bag news
Goldman Sachs chief Lloyd Blankfein: Sanders candidacy a 'dangerous moment'
The head of Goldman Sachs said on Wednesday that Bernie Sanders' insurgent candidacy "has the potential to be a dangerous moment."
In January, Sanders was asked by Bloomberg Politics to list an example of corporate greed, and he listed Blankfein.
“I don’t take it personally since we never met," Blankfein responded.
But he added that Sanders' attacks on the "billionaire class" and bankers could be dangerous.
“It has the potential to personalize it, it has the potential to be a dangerous moment. Not just for Wall Street not just for the people who are particularly targeted but for anybody who is a little bit out of line,” Blankfein said. “It’s a liability to say I’m going to compromise I’m going to get one millimeter off the extreme position I have and if you do you have to back track and swear to people that you’ll never compromise. It’s just incredible. It’s a moment in history.”
Blankfein avoided saying whether he supported former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, though both Clintons have long ties to Blankfein and to Goldman Sachs, which has been a heavy donor to Bill Clinton's charity work.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...sanders-218689
Criminal Inside Trader news
Wall Street Billionaire Appears to Be Genuinely Puzzled by Bernie Sanders' Populist Crusade Against the Richest 1%
Multi-billionaire Stephen A. Schwarzman says he’s puzzled by the amount of discontent apparently felt by other Americans these days
He’s worth $12 billion, give or take a few hundred million. He is a poster boy for Wall Street success and self-esteem and cluelessness. He’s the co-founder, chairman, and CEO of the Blackstone Group, one of the world’s largest financial firms, specializing in private equity, hedge funds, and mergers. He’s a Republican, and his life has been going pretty well for him lately, as it has for decades.
But he freely admits (or pretends to admit) that he doesn’t understand why the rest of America isn’t just as content as he is. On January 21, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Schwarzman spoke to a gathering of his peers who run the world about his perception of the US presidential election campaign:
“I find the whole thing astonishing and what’s remarkable is the amount of anger whether it’s on the Republican side or the Democratic side…. Bernie Sanders, to me, is almost more stunning than some of what’s going on in the Republican side. How is that happening, why is that happening?”
One clue to “why is that happening,” a clue Schwarzman presumably noticed last October, wasthe $39 million fine Schwarzman’s Blackstone Group advisors had to pay for bilking customers. Blackstone entered into a “consent agreement” with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finding that “it breached its fiduciary duty” to its customers. The consent agreement, admitting no guilt, is a tactic often used by corporate shysters to cut their losses when caught with their hands in other people’s pockets. Blackstone’s “cooperation” with the SEC was cited as a reason the SEC fined the company only $10 million.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/wall...ter1050151&t=6
http://www.alternet.org/economy/wall...ter1050151&t=6
Robert Reich: The Real Reason Hillary Won't Effect Change, but Bernie Could
the second view about how presidents accomplish big things that powerful interests don’t want: by mobilizing the public to demand them and penalize politicians who don’t heed those demands.
Teddy Roosevelt got a progressive income tax, limits on corporate campaign contributions, regulation of foods and drugs, and the dissolution of giant trusts – not because he was a great dealmaker but because he added fuel to growing public demands for such changes.
It was at a point in American history similar to our own. Giant corporations and a handful of wealthy people dominated American democracy. The lackeys of the “robber barons” literally placed sacks of cash on the desks of pliant legislators.
The American public was angry and frustrated. Roosevelt channeled that anger and frustration into support of initiatives that altered the structure of power in America. He used the office of the president – his “bully pulpit,” as he called it – to galvanize political action.
Could Hillary Clinton do the same? Could Bernie Sanders?
Clinton fashions her prospective presidency as a continuation of Obama’s. Surely Obama understood the importance of mobilizing the public against the moneyed interests. After all, he had once been a community organizer.
After the 2008 election he even turned his election campaign into a new organization called “Organizing for America” (now dubbed “Organizing for Action”), explicitly designed to harness his grassroots support.
So why did Obama end up relying more on deal-making than public mobilization? Because he thought he needed big money for his 2012 campaign.
Despite OFA’s public claims (in mailings, it promised to secure the “future of the progressive movement”), it morphed into a top-down campaign organization to raise big money.
In the interim, Citizens United had freed “independent” groups like OFA to raise almost unlimited funds, but retained limits on the size of contributions to formal political parties.
That’s the heart of problem. No candidate or president can mobilize the public against the dominance of the moneyed interests while being dependent on their money. And no candidate or president can hope to break the connection between wealth and power without mobilizing the public.
(A personal note: A few years ago OFA wanted to screen around America the movie Jake Kornbluth and I did about widening inequality, called “Inequality for All” – but only on condition we delete two minutes identifying big Democratic donors. We refused. They wouldn’t show it.)
In short, “the real world we’re living in” right now won’t allow fundamental change of the sort we need. It takes a movement.
Such a movement is at the heart of the Sanders campaign. The passion that’s fueling it isn’t really about Bernie Sanders. Had Elizabeth Warren run, the same passion would be there for her.
It’s about standing up to the moneyed interests and restoring our democracy.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-pol...e-bernie-could
30 years of speeches
https://www.facebook.com/berniesande...5757774145894/
The Des Moines Register: Newspaper Calls for Audit of Results of Iowa Democratic Caucuses
Editorial: Something smells in the Democratic Party
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/sto...arty/79777580/
"establishment" is the new version of maverick
Elizabeth Warren Rushes to Bernie Sanders’ Defense Against Wall Street CEO Attack
Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Wall Street an Goldman Sachs, just called Bernie Sanders “dangerous.” Elizabeth Warren is having none of it.
In an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box, Blankfein called the Senator’s rise “a dangerous moment,” and suggested his presidency would be harmful to Wall Street. Sanders’ campaign message has been very critical of the financial sector, saying Wall Street’s business model is “fraud,” and he has promised to break up too-big-to-fail banks by bringing back the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 to lessen the damage of another economic meltdown.
Sanders also wants to implement a small sales tax on all Wall Street transactions to simultaneously pay for tuition-free college while discouraging the kind of high-frequency trading that creates instability in financial markets.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) just came to Sanders’ defense, saying he’s right to criticize the behavior of big banks like Goldman, which reaped record profits off of the financial crisis and resulting bailout.
“He thinks it’s fine to prosecute small business owners, it’s fine to go hard after individuals who have no real resources, but don’t criticize companies like Goldman Sachs and their very, very important CEO — that’s what he’s really saying,” Warren told International Business Times.
“When Blankfein says that criticizing those who break the rules is dangerous to the economy, then he’s just repeating another variation of ‘too big to fail,’ ‘too big to jail,’ ‘too big even to prosecute,’” Sen. Warren added.
Warren has made a name for herself as the toughest Wall Street watchdog in the U.S. Senate.
Shortly after she was sworn in, Warren made headlines after numerous hearings in which she grilled top Federal Reserve officials and officials at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, chastising them over their kid-gloves treatment of Wall Street bankers who broke the law.
She recently put out a detailed report detailing multiple instances in which the Obama administration was too soft on corporate crime.
Elizabeth Warren has yet to endorse a candidate in the Democratic primary.
http://usuncut.com/politics/elizabet...goldman-sachs/
Come on, Liz, you've been effectively on Bernie's side for years, now announce it formally.
Democratic establishment starts to gang up on Sanders
Democratic lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol are turning their fire on Bernie Sanders as he marches toward a big win in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary.
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a supporter of Hillary Clinton, warned that Sanders could drag down Democratic candidates running for the House and Senate if he wins the nomination.
“I believe it could have real serious down-ballot consequences,” Connolly told The Hill.Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), who is one of the biggest Republican targets in the 2016 election cycle, suggested his cons uents would view Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist, as too extreme.
“I’m not comfortable with it at all,” Peters, who has endorsed Clinton, said of the prospect of Sanders heading the ticket.
“He certainly wouldn’t match my district very well,” Peters added. “People in my district are looking for pragmatic, problem-solving leaders and he would not fit that bill. Some on the Republican side, I think, would be equally objectionable to my district as well.”
Other pro-Clinton Democrats dismiss Sanders’s leadership credentials, with that criticism coming even from members of the clubby Senate. Sanders is a great advocate, those Democrats say, but not nearly as qualified as Clinton to serve as commander in chief.
“Bernie has been here for 25 years. Lots and lots of people in Congress know Bernie well. We like Bernie, we admire Bernie. But of the almost 200 members of Congress who are Democrats, I think two of them have endorsed Bernie Sanders,” said Sen. Claire McClaskill (D-Mo.), a Clinton booster.
“This is about leadership. It’s about who can bring people together and accomplish the things we all want.
McCaskill said congressional Democrats don’t have much faith in Sanders’s ability to get things done if elected president “because he’s not been able to move the needle in 25 years in Congress.”
Such comments have generated strong pushback from Sanders allies on Capitol Hill, who accuse their Democratic colleagues of using scare tactics.
“Campaign operatives of hers and some surrogates continue to promote the at ude that we should be dismissive. That it can’t be done. That he’s no qualified,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, who has endorsed Sanders.
He said McCaskill’s approach “evokes the ghost of [former Wisconsin Sen. Joseph] McCarthy [R].”
“It’s red-baiting and you’ll probably see more of that unfortunately, but I don’t think it’s going to stick.”
When asked about Grijalva's comments, McCaskill emphasized that she likes Sanders personally.
"I love Bernie, and the values that he and Hillary share are so important to all Americans, that electability really matters," she said.
Grijalva and Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) are the only two Democrats in Congress to have endorsed Sanders. They are the co-chairmen of the Progressive Caucus.
Clinton, meanwhile, has won the support of 150 out of 188 House Democrats and 39 out of 46 Senate Democrats, according to a tally kept by The Hill.
The sniping between the two presidential camps has raised fears of a nasty primary battle that could drag on until the Democratic convention, which is scheduled for the end of July in Philadelphia.
Democrats are worried because “the mean-ness of the attacks back and forth has gone up,” one Democratic senator said Thursday.
“Is this going to play out all the way until the convention? That’s what Secretary Clinton did in 2008. She went all the way until June against Obama,” the lawmaker said. “If Bernie does the same thing, you know, these attacks keep escalating.”
Sanders has vowed to fight to the end, and is making good on his promise by leaving behind a staffer in Iowa to fight for every delegate.
"We are in this for the long haul," Sanders said just before the caucuses began Monday night.
For supporters of Clinton, her razor-thin victory in the Iowa caucuses Monday night has created fresh anxiety about her ability to avoid a prolonged fight with Sanders.
While the consensus among Democrats supporting Clinton is that she’ll perform better in the primaries after New Hampshire, they’re not sitting back and waiting for their campaign to catch fire.
Instead, they’re sharply questioning Sanders’s electability and leadership qualifications.
“I think Bernie’s terrific as an advocate. There’s a difference between a strong community advocate and being someone who can get things done,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who has campaigned extensively for Clinton.
McCaskill said Republicans are chomping at the bit to run against Sanders.
“The Republicans won’t touch him because they can’t wait to run an ad with a hammer and sickle,” she told the New York Times.
Such rhetoric against Sanders has angered his supporters.
Ellison said Republicans would unload vicious attacks on the Democratic nominee no matter who it is.
“That kind of thinking presupposes that they’re not going to try to rip the skin off of any Democratic nominee. I don’t know when us Dems are going to figure out the Republicans are trying to beat us,” he said.
“The day will never come when the Republicans will say, ‘You know what? Your Democratic presidential nominee is just fine.’ ”
Ellison flipped the argument of Clinton allies that Sanders is not practical by praising his willingness to stick to principle.
He said Clinton has far many more endorsements because her campaign made it a high priority to collect them early.
With polls showing Sanders enjoying a 2-1 lead over Clinton in New Hampshire, some Democrats are beginning to wonder what it would mean if he won the race.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who represents a reliably liberal Manhattan district, said a Sanders nomination could provide a “fresh face” for the party — or result in utter disaster.
“His candidacy, were he the nominee, could conceivably be a real problem down-ballot. It could be a big loser because people are still terrified by the word ‘socialist,’ et cetera. Or not,” Nadler said.
“One of the reasons I’m supporting Hillary is that I don’t want to take that gamble,” he added.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...-up-on-sanders
When even the allegedly pro-people Democratic party establishment is vehemently against the honestly, repeatedly, demonstrably pro-people, America is ed and un able.
boutons, the Democratic establishment knows that even though Bernie is honest, likable, for the people, etc - his plan to tax so highly is never going to fly (with Congress or the American people). Little ole me would be protesting in the streets before I am taxed at that level. The government is wasteful, inefficient, corrupt, inept - they should not be deciding how I spend most of my money - I should. And no matter how deceitful, corrupt, lying, etc. that Hillary is, they feel that she has a better chance in a general election.
i'm aware... i'm just referring to the hot-button term that's the flavor of this election
Did Hillary really say, "HONESTLY, ...Sanders is the only person who would characterize me a woman running to be president ... as exemplified as the ESTABLISHMENT." It never ceases to amaze me how this woman can stand in front of Americans and say such rubbish and not get called out by the media. I'd LOL if it weren't so pathetic.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
