Every time I read about the Kochs and their ilk buying political ads, I commit to spending another hour convincing people to vote Democrats into state and federal office.
2
The Republican Party is in meltdown now with an overheated and toxic candidate at the top of its ticket. Trying to keep the damage from falling lower on the down ticket people is a recognition of reality from the donors.
They created this situation which is dangerous for the country. The big donors encouraged the delusions of the birther movement, the bigotry against the first black president, and the amped up negative politics against immigrants, women's rights, and minorities. When Sarah Palin, an obviously unqualified person was added to McCain's ticket, he lost all integrity as a candidate.
She was a heat-seeking missile just like so many other headliner Republicans and like Fox, Limbaugh, et al. The problem is that the GOP base truly believes the lies and garbage, and now have elected a candidate that mirrors their paranoid delusions.
Georgia is turning more purple, although that moment is not yet. But the hostility for minorities, immigrants, and women by the GOP as well as Republican governors who have attacked women's rights, not expanded Medicaid, and penalized their citizens with their right-wing purist ideology are reflecting a harsh, bigoted and mean-spirited Republican Party.
They created this situation which is dangerous for the country. The big donors encouraged the delusions of the birther movement, the bigotry against the first black president, and the amped up negative politics against immigrants, women's rights, and minorities. When Sarah Palin, an obviously unqualified person was added to McCain's ticket, he lost all integrity as a candidate.
She was a heat-seeking missile just like so many other headliner Republicans and like Fox, Limbaugh, et al. The problem is that the GOP base truly believes the lies and garbage, and now have elected a candidate that mirrors their paranoid delusions.
Georgia is turning more purple, although that moment is not yet. But the hostility for minorities, immigrants, and women by the GOP as well as Republican governors who have attacked women's rights, not expanded Medicaid, and penalized their citizens with their right-wing purist ideology are reflecting a harsh, bigoted and mean-spirited Republican Party.
2
There are increasing numbers of Republican Senators in trouble.. It is an open question if third party funds help. It may be a bad year for Republican's.
2
Realistic?
"There are two critical races in 2016. The first is the Democrats taking back the Senate with a super majority."
I assume "super majority" means 60 -- enough to end a filibuster. (Short of that, there's not much difference between a simple majority (51) and any higher number.)
Right now, the Democrats have 46 Senators (counting Bernie). All they need to do is add 14 in this election, in which roughly 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for grabs.
Is there really someone out there who thinks a "super majority" in the Senate is attainable for the Democrats? A simple majority, maybe, but not a "super majority."
The real question is this:
If someone in your neighborhood was known for publicly suggesting that the Democrats might attain a "super majority" in the November election, would you be guilty of negligent parenting if you failed to advise your 14-year old daughter that she should cross to the other side of the street if she were out walking and saw him coming the other way?
"There are two critical races in 2016. The first is the Democrats taking back the Senate with a super majority."
I assume "super majority" means 60 -- enough to end a filibuster. (Short of that, there's not much difference between a simple majority (51) and any higher number.)
Right now, the Democrats have 46 Senators (counting Bernie). All they need to do is add 14 in this election, in which roughly 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for grabs.
Is there really someone out there who thinks a "super majority" in the Senate is attainable for the Democrats? A simple majority, maybe, but not a "super majority."
The real question is this:
If someone in your neighborhood was known for publicly suggesting that the Democrats might attain a "super majority" in the November election, would you be guilty of negligent parenting if you failed to advise your 14-year old daughter that she should cross to the other side of the street if she were out walking and saw him coming the other way?
I just watched a video of Trump addressing the NRA. He told them that Hillary was "not equipped" to be president. He repeated that she was Not. Equipped. to be president. Do you think think they got his point?
8
As this article shows, although some Republicans are wary of Trump, they are not idle. First, the Presidency is not the end-all-be-all in terms of controlling the agenda for the next four years. Even on the issue of picking the next Supreme Court Justice, we've seen how much a Republican-controlled Congress can dominate the process.
Second, the Democratic Party may have grown over-confident at the seeming disarray of the Republican Party and the supposed unelectability of Trump. Judging by the rancor by some Democrats toward each other, you would think whoever wins the Democratic nomination will automatically be President.
The likes of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio already made the mistake of underestimating Trump. The man may be despicable, but he is a clever opportunist who knows how to tap into a motivating anger among conservative voters. If the Democrats keeps the infighting up, we will all be in for a very rude surprise come November.
Second, the Democratic Party may have grown over-confident at the seeming disarray of the Republican Party and the supposed unelectability of Trump. Judging by the rancor by some Democrats toward each other, you would think whoever wins the Democratic nomination will automatically be President.
The likes of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio already made the mistake of underestimating Trump. The man may be despicable, but he is a clever opportunist who knows how to tap into a motivating anger among conservative voters. If the Democrats keeps the infighting up, we will all be in for a very rude surprise come November.
3
I don't want Donald Trump anywhere near the White House, unless he is taking one of those guided tours any citizen can take with an admission ticket...
Retaking the senate is of paramount importance for Democrats...With the senate, President Clinton (or Sanders) could move Executive & Judicial nominations through easily....
Retaking the senate is of paramount importance for Democrats...With the senate, President Clinton (or Sanders) could move Executive & Judicial nominations through easily....
8
If mega-donors are called investors, the question becomes what return they are looking for.
3
And are we Democrats seizing defeat from the jaws of victory with our unwarranted feud between Hillary and Bernie, largely at the instigation of Bernie? Folly! While we easily remember the failures of Karl Rove in 2012 when his PAC won not a single victory with candidates he supported, it's a new world and desperate situations demand desperate measures. The Kochs and Rove will NOT be denied. The Democrats in the House cried "Shame, shame, shame" at Republicans for the arm-twisting that led to a defeat for the anti-discrimination bill two days ago. I cry shame over our own party's willful self-destruction. Must we follow the ignorant over the cliff?
12
I don't believe for a minute donors are shifting their money down-ticket to distance themselves from Trump. Trump is just the populist puppet the Republicans will use to bring us four more years of disastrous trickle-down policies. The "outsider" showed us his political hand with his supreme court nominees. So the Republican leadership is slow to support Trump? What does he want to do, really? Tax cuts for the rich. Done. Ultra-conservative Supreme Court. Check. His populist rhetoric merely conceals the same old policies meant to increase income-dispairity. Can he really build a wall? No. Deport millions? Not really. But the promise of his Xenophobic policies is very effective at drawing in the angry white guys, effective enough that they'll vote yet again for the very policies that have kept their wages depressed. The Republicans want it all--Congress and the White House. Keeping their distance from Trump gives them plausible deniability in case it doesn't work out and there's a backlash on the racist, misogynistic rhetoric. But if it does, they can turn back all of the Obama administrations accomplishments, and secure the Supreme Court for another generation or two. Is Trump a radical ready to pull down the system and rebuild it to support the little guy? No, but he plays one on T.V.
7
The republican party will perform whatever act necessary to maintain whatever control and power it can get. Trump has been compared to Frankenstein where interestingly enough Frankenstein was a creation made from different people. Here is another antidote to how Trump is like Frankenstein...being made of different people. The news agencies report that Trump answers his phone "masquerading" as his publicist. I suggest otherwise. I believe that he is soooo split personality that some part of him IS his own publicist. Listen to his conversations where in one breath he says he will do one thing and then, in the next breath...if you watch the expressions on his face change...he says the exact opposite. His alternate personalities come pouring out right in front of your face but because he does it so much, he just looks like a political butterfly, uncommitted, doing whatever necessary to gain control. He is saying all of these different things because he is all of these different people.
3
Sheldon Adelson doesn't care about America women, men, children or anything else "American"as a country... only it's military and economic might. Oh yea, he might care about its money.
Adelson supports the republicans because he perceives the republicans supporting the Jewish State more than the democrats. Sheldon believes in choices that "my old immigrant Jewish neighbors would have made. They would not have let a few disagreements with Republicans void the importance of siding with the political party that better supports liberal democracies like Israel".
So, Adelson, who is now 82, is basing his support for the republicans from the perspective of his "old immigrant Jewish neighbors" who have now long since died...like the United States is still in the early 1900s and whatever the republican party was then...still exists today.
His physical and mental health has seriously deteriorated to the point his Dr. wife doesn't want him to focus on more than one thing at a time.
This is what happens when someone with billions of dollars, is aged, not all present, but makes decisions that influence the life of millions of others. He is buying the United States Republican Party in an ill conceived attempt at using its military and economic might to favor the Jewish state...Israel.
American's be damned. He only cares about Israel.
Adelson supports the republicans because he perceives the republicans supporting the Jewish State more than the democrats. Sheldon believes in choices that "my old immigrant Jewish neighbors would have made. They would not have let a few disagreements with Republicans void the importance of siding with the political party that better supports liberal democracies like Israel".
So, Adelson, who is now 82, is basing his support for the republicans from the perspective of his "old immigrant Jewish neighbors" who have now long since died...like the United States is still in the early 1900s and whatever the republican party was then...still exists today.
His physical and mental health has seriously deteriorated to the point his Dr. wife doesn't want him to focus on more than one thing at a time.
This is what happens when someone with billions of dollars, is aged, not all present, but makes decisions that influence the life of millions of others. He is buying the United States Republican Party in an ill conceived attempt at using its military and economic might to favor the Jewish state...Israel.
American's be damned. He only cares about Israel.
3
If Republican "Investors" are shifting their funds from the Presidential candidate over to the Senate Races, they obviously have the idea that Don Trump will likely lose the November election. They are after all "Investors" most likely expecting some influence after making their names and contributions known. The "Investors" are likely trying to promote their own ideological agenda and not necessarily acknowledging approval of the Candidates platform.
7
They may also be playing wait-and-see. Just because they are not throwing their full weight behind Trump now, doesn't mean their SuperPACs won't start pumping money into Trump's campaign in August, September, and October.
1
The Democrats can prevent the Republicans from controlling the Presidency and both houses of Congress if Hillary beats Trump or if the Democrats take back either the Senate or the House. Since the chances of taking back the House are close to nil, and Republican donors reportedly have shied away from the Presidential race, that leaves the close Senate races as the battlegrounds. Donors to both parties appear to have figured this out.
2
This may not be the explanation:
"Hundreds of millions of dollars that Republican groups had been poised to spend in the 2016 presidential election are now increasingly likely to move into Senate and House races, as many big donors look to distance themselves from ...Trump."
Many big donors are reportedly dissatisfied with Trump, but they'd all come around eventually -- if they felt Trump needed their money. I think they believe Trump (with the help of Adelson and a few other big donors) can finance the Presidential campaign without their help, and so they're better off focusing on Senate/House races so that the Democrats don't take back either house.
It's quite possible that the Republicans will end up in control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, which means a lot of conservative legislation will get passed. Indeed, that outcome seems most likely to me. If Trump wins and the Republicans retain their present control of both houses of Congress, that's exactly what we'll have.
Needless to say, the Democrats need to help Hillary try to beat Trump. Slightly less obviously, the Democrats shouldn't devote a lot of effort to House races, since they have almost zero chance of taking back the House. Taking back the Senate strikes me as a more likely possibility. They should concentrate their resources and efforts on that (and on winning the Presidency, of course, though the odds of that don't look very good at the moment).
"Hundreds of millions of dollars that Republican groups had been poised to spend in the 2016 presidential election are now increasingly likely to move into Senate and House races, as many big donors look to distance themselves from ...Trump."
Many big donors are reportedly dissatisfied with Trump, but they'd all come around eventually -- if they felt Trump needed their money. I think they believe Trump (with the help of Adelson and a few other big donors) can finance the Presidential campaign without their help, and so they're better off focusing on Senate/House races so that the Democrats don't take back either house.
It's quite possible that the Republicans will end up in control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, which means a lot of conservative legislation will get passed. Indeed, that outcome seems most likely to me. If Trump wins and the Republicans retain their present control of both houses of Congress, that's exactly what we'll have.
Needless to say, the Democrats need to help Hillary try to beat Trump. Slightly less obviously, the Democrats shouldn't devote a lot of effort to House races, since they have almost zero chance of taking back the House. Taking back the Senate strikes me as a more likely possibility. They should concentrate their resources and efforts on that (and on winning the Presidency, of course, though the odds of that don't look very good at the moment).
3
Would there even be "Trump Democrats" if Bernie Sanders were the nominee? I think not.
2
Trump claimed he was the only pure, unbought candidate, because he was self-funding. He is no longer self-funding, so I guess he is just as bought as the others. Trump expressed disdain for super PACs, yet he has one supporting him. He chastised Hillary for her ties to Goldman Sachs, yet he hired a former Goldman Sachs partner as his finance manager. he's changed his position on taxes, minimum wage, Muslim entry into the US, abortion & gun rights. Like the buildings with his name on them, that he DOES NOT OWN, but merely licences his name, Trump is a false facade.
6
For those who want to "feel the Bern" start with electing liberal dog catchers in your community and go from there. With Trump the nominee for the Republicans, they can now focus on the House and Senate races. The Democrats are hamstrung until after the convention, and will have to play catch up.
Social progress in this country has come at a dear cost to many, indeed some have given their lives to advance the social equality so many of us now take for granted. The election of Trump with his misogynistic and racist views, will help to rapidly reset the clock to the good old days of the 1950's when women and blacks knew their place.
Sanders is now becoming a destructive force. With his speech in California, he made it crystal clear he is running against the Democratic Party as well as Clinton. He wants to change a Party he has been a member of for only a few months. Change takes patience and hard work. Right now just holding the status quo with a Republican controlled Congress is a Herculean task. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that Sanders political agenda would remain just that were he to be elected. For those who will stay home if Clinton is the nominee, what happens to this country if Trump is elected will be partly your responsibility. Just as Nader contributed to the election of George Bush.
I urge Sanders supporters to listen to the wisdom of Lennon's profound "Revolution". "You tell me you got a real solution, well you know we'd all love to see that plan"
Social progress in this country has come at a dear cost to many, indeed some have given their lives to advance the social equality so many of us now take for granted. The election of Trump with his misogynistic and racist views, will help to rapidly reset the clock to the good old days of the 1950's when women and blacks knew their place.
Sanders is now becoming a destructive force. With his speech in California, he made it crystal clear he is running against the Democratic Party as well as Clinton. He wants to change a Party he has been a member of for only a few months. Change takes patience and hard work. Right now just holding the status quo with a Republican controlled Congress is a Herculean task. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that Sanders political agenda would remain just that were he to be elected. For those who will stay home if Clinton is the nominee, what happens to this country if Trump is elected will be partly your responsibility. Just as Nader contributed to the election of George Bush.
I urge Sanders supporters to listen to the wisdom of Lennon's profound "Revolution". "You tell me you got a real solution, well you know we'd all love to see that plan"
8
There's an echo chamber for many of the Sanders supporters, and their bubble is pretty impervious to anything beyond their enmity for Hillary Clinton. The sad thing is that her voting record is almost identical to Sanders; the Democratic Party platform already reflects most of the policies that they identify only with Sanders; and the true danger of a fascist, bigoted and ignorant Donald Trump that is looming over the country doesn't even register with them. They are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic basically.
Whether inadvertent or not, Mr. Law accurately describes big donors as "investors", and as wanting a "return" on their investment. When you invest in stocks, you own them. When you invest in real estate you own it. When you invest in politicians you .... (get the drift?)
10
Bernie Sanders could make a huge contribution to helping the Party that has given his presidential campaign shelter by shifting the enormous sums he has raised, including a few of my dollars, to supporting down-ticket Democratic candidacies. In so doing, he could avoid supporting Hillary directly, but still reinforce progressivism in the US Congress.
How about it, Bernie? For the country?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
How about it, Bernie? For the country?
www.endthemadnessnow.org
12
To John,
Agreed. In fact there was some news coverage, and talk within the Sanders campaign, of the following: Clinton secures the nomination by virtue of delegates in June. Sanders can still push for a more progressive platform. He would have in the neighborhood of maybe $40 million left. That gets dedicated to Senate races, and he continues to help Democrats raise money for those races. If the Dems get control of the Senate, he would become chair of the Budget Committee. Pretty powerful spot for him - better than VP.
Agreed. In fact there was some news coverage, and talk within the Sanders campaign, of the following: Clinton secures the nomination by virtue of delegates in June. Sanders can still push for a more progressive platform. He would have in the neighborhood of maybe $40 million left. That gets dedicated to Senate races, and he continues to help Democrats raise money for those races. If the Dems get control of the Senate, he would become chair of the Budget Committee. Pretty powerful spot for him - better than VP.
3
What about Hillary? She's taken some steps to share her donations with down-ticket candidates, but my impression is that the vast majority has been (and will be) used to fund her own campaign. Since Hillary has far more money than any other candidate, she can make a bigger difference.
Indeed, if it appears down the road that Hillary's chances of winning are very small but that the Democrats have a realistic chance to take back the Senate (any effort to take back the House would be a fool's errand), the Democratic Party should very seriously consider:
1. Diverting the bulk of Hillary's money to down-ticket Democratic candidates.
2. Leaving Hillary and the Democratic House candidates with only the bare minimum to spend.
Indeed, if it appears down the road that Hillary's chances of winning are very small but that the Democrats have a realistic chance to take back the Senate (any effort to take back the House would be a fool's errand), the Democratic Party should very seriously consider:
1. Diverting the bulk of Hillary's money to down-ticket Democratic candidates.
2. Leaving Hillary and the Democratic House candidates with only the bare minimum to spend.
1
They've done everything they can to tilt things against him. A vote for her is simply more of the same. It would be worse under Replublicans, but after weathering a primary season where everyone spent all their time trying to convince everyone how you never stood a chance and despite all that you make it as close as it is. If they had started without the bias, he would be winning right now. He owes them nothing, and the price of the fix is the ennui and disgust of his supporters on election day.
1
Not sure this commenter gets it:
"If you want more obstruction, more social and political regression, go ahead and refuse to vote for Hillary."
If Trump wins, it will be the Democrats who engage in "obstruction," not the Republicans, who will control the Presidency and (probably) both houses of Congress. Obstruction will seem like a good thing to the Democrats then, even if it takes the undemocratic form of filibustering (in which the minority obstructs the majority).
"If you want more obstruction, more social and political regression, go ahead and refuse to vote for Hillary."
If Trump wins, it will be the Democrats who engage in "obstruction," not the Republicans, who will control the Presidency and (probably) both houses of Congress. Obstruction will seem like a good thing to the Democrats then, even if it takes the undemocratic form of filibustering (in which the minority obstructs the majority).
2
If Trump wins and the Democrats don't take back the Senate (there's no real chance they'll take back the House), the GOP will have the Executive and Legislative branches. That means a lot of legislation will get passed that Democrats won't like, and that, in turn, means the Democrats had better take back the Senate.
2
“A lot of our donors were investors in either campaigns or super PAC activity on behalf of specific presidential candidates who are no longer in the race, and that investment opportunity has been taken away,” he said.
Yes, that's what our elections have become, investment opportunities. Investors seek high ROI for their bucks, so better purchase Senate seats this cycle since a reliable Presidential rubber stamp appears to be unavailable.
Yes, that's what our elections have become, investment opportunities. Investors seek high ROI for their bucks, so better purchase Senate seats this cycle since a reliable Presidential rubber stamp appears to be unavailable.
3
The calculus seems pretty simple here. The Democrats have the numbers (potentially) and the Republicans don't. To the extent that Democrats can mobilize that potential, they have a very good chance of taking back the Senate. The Republicans don't have that potential and will rely on traditional attack ads, which proved ineffective with Trump, but it's all the Republicans have.
So the Democrats need to mend their internal fences quickly and focus on getting out the vote from now until November. Badgering and pointing fingers at Sanders' supporters is a losing strategy. It's time for them to get the honey out and start focusing on the bigger picture.
Republicans are already ahead of the curve in this regard.
So the Democrats need to mend their internal fences quickly and focus on getting out the vote from now until November. Badgering and pointing fingers at Sanders' supporters is a losing strategy. It's time for them to get the honey out and start focusing on the bigger picture.
Republicans are already ahead of the curve in this regard.
4
Democrats would do well in doubling down in supporting means for recovering House (unlikely as it seems) and Senate(likely), given that the presidency without rational support of Congress is for nigh. Of note, although some republicans are trying to distance themselves from disaster Trump, there are more similarities with him than disagreements; his unpredictability and aggressive nonsense, fed by an arrogant stance based on ignorance, gives them pause of course. Too late though for buyer's remorse.
3
I will continue to send money to Bernie until the California primary plays out. If he loses then we deserve to have Trump or Clinton and whatever comes with that.
Meanwhile, the Koch Brothers are trying to defeat Catherine Cortez-Matos to replace Sen. Reid here in Nevada. Time will tell if we Bernie people can pull this one off, especially since she feels Bernie should apologize for the incident in Las Vegas. She is good but not made of the same stuff as the old guy from Vermont.
Meanwhile, the Koch Brothers are trying to defeat Catherine Cortez-Matos to replace Sen. Reid here in Nevada. Time will tell if we Bernie people can pull this one off, especially since she feels Bernie should apologize for the incident in Las Vegas. She is good but not made of the same stuff as the old guy from Vermont.
3
This article and Thomas Edsall’s Wednesday article should be required reading for progressives, especially people still focused on just the presidential race. Anyone who thinks the system needs fundamental change, that money is a corrupting force, that campaigns should not be hedge fund investments and the government is not supposed to be run like a corporation,, should be looking to the state and local races if they want to make a real difference.
Conservatives have been successful for decades at increasing their control over policy nationally by “investing” in incremental change locally. The effort may be better funded in this election cycle but it isn’t new. Progressives should have more respect for the cumulative effect of incremental change.
Conservatives have been successful for decades at increasing their control over policy nationally by “investing” in incremental change locally. The effort may be better funded in this election cycle but it isn’t new. Progressives should have more respect for the cumulative effect of incremental change.
13
THIS is why we have such long, dirty political campaigns in America. The press is competing for these BIG, democracy-destroying $$$ and will do anything, most notably not reporting real news, to get in on the gravy train. People who want to restore democracy in America have one simple action to take. Vote only for socially conscious democrats and independents in every election, at every level of government including judges and dog catcher, for the foreseeable future. All that BIG democracy-destroying money can buy is OUR votes. Let's elect people who will collect those wasted BILLIONS as taxes to support OUR social safety net and infrastructure.
3
Another factor in this, one that the Democrats should pay attention to but aren't: There's a major generational problem in Congress right now. As in, the average age of Congressmen has been going up at a rate of about 0.5 years per calendar year. What that means is that younger people have practically no representation in Congress: There are 14 Senators under age 50, and only 1 under age 40. In the House, there are only 3 under age 35, and 19 under age 40.
I don't consider it a coincidence that it's those under age 35 are the ones that are most likely to believe their views are not in any way represented in government. And the Republicans have been doing more to recruit younger people into their party leadership than the Democrats have, even though the younger generation overwhelmingly supports Democratic policy positions on social issues.
I don't consider it a coincidence that it's those under age 35 are the ones that are most likely to believe their views are not in any way represented in government. And the Republicans have been doing more to recruit younger people into their party leadership than the Democrats have, even though the younger generation overwhelmingly supports Democratic policy positions on social issues.
9
I would agree that the Senate is getting a bit long in the tooth, but remember that the Constitution tends to incentivize that. The rules are to join the House, you have to at least 25, to join the Senate, you have to be at least 30, and to be President, you have to be at least 35. There are varying additional rules concerning citizenship and length of residency, but those minimum age requirements tend to push up the age of various congressional members.
2
The Republicans are apparently going to let the Trump saga play out. What many seem to have forgotten, is that the general electorate is much more centrist than those who vote in the Republican primaries. This could be a case of the devil or the deep blue sea for the GOP. If Trump wins the presidency, they have a potential disaster on their hands. If his candidacy hands the presidency to Hillary, there will be sharp knives and recriminations, also a potential disaster.
In my view this is a shame, because there are things in the mainstream GOP that are worth discussing. Having said that, a people get the leadership they deserve. It appears its time for a housecleaning.
In my view this is a shame, because there are things in the mainstream GOP that are worth discussing. Having said that, a people get the leadership they deserve. It appears its time for a housecleaning.
2
Trump would bring the needed housecleaning to both parties. It appears that is about the best we can do. Hillary and her flock of neocons and Wall Street buddies is not better than Trump. Maybe worse, for the likelihood of more wars.
I see only two possibilities: either the Democratic establishment and NYT really live in an illusory world or they try to create an illusion to keep up the spirits of their base supporters. The Republicans are poised to take control of both the presidency and Congress. They will line up behind Trump. They would be idiots not to do so. But they also want to make sure that they retain control of Congress. The Democratic party is in a deep hole that it has dug for itself. Congratulations!
6
"Romney 2012 in a landslide."
How did that work out for you?
How did that work out for you?
1
I agree the prognosis is much better for the Republicans. Not sure whether the Times doesn't get this, gets it but wants to put on a happy face for its readers, or simply disagrees. Frankly, I doubt it disagrees.
Much can change between now and November, but it presently appears to me that the Republicans will control the Presidency and both houses of Congress, just as you predict. While the Presidential election might be close, it presently appears to me that Trump will win it easily -- not by LBJ/Reagan/Nixon landslide proportions, but handily.
Much can change between now and November, but it presently appears to me that the Republicans will control the Presidency and both houses of Congress, just as you predict. While the Presidential election might be close, it presently appears to me that Trump will win it easily -- not by LBJ/Reagan/Nixon landslide proportions, but handily.
2
Not good, not good at all. But what can you do if the Democrats are screwing themselves so badly?
I hope the congressional seats in Ohio change to Dem, but it will be close. Senator Portman (R) has $15 million set aside for campaign ads in addition to $1.8 million already spent. The Senate Majority PAC has reserved $9.5 million in airtime for our past 1 term, Governor Ted Strickland (D), who was basically fired. If the Dems want to win back the congress they need to present or develop better candidates and not just recycle them. I plan to vote straight ticket dems this year but come on! we need Dem candidates that don’t need injections of bajillion dollars to get elected.
4
The problem stems from the degree to which money itself has been allowed to dominate our political system, as well as the length of time we've come to allow campaigns to run. Imagine that the current presidential campaign has been ongoing for 15 months now, and it's still 5 1/2 months until the election. Allowing (tolerating) that will tend to push up campaign costs, because each candidate must maintain a staff and keep his/her presence in the news media. We could lower those costs a lot if we did nothing more than limit campaigns to 6 months even. (e.g. you campaign for a couple of months, you have a mega-primary to determine who runs in the general, you have a 'convention', you have another couple of months to campaign for the general, you have the general election, and everybody goes home) We've tried to limit campaign funding, only to be thwarted because according to the Supreme Court, money is free speech somehow (sad the reverse isn't true "Umm...I'd like to pay my rent with a 12 hour diatribe against the rising costs of rents."), and it's very unlikely that simple public funding is going to be acceptable in the current political environment, so limiting the campaign length is increasingly seeming to be the only viable solution left.
1
Both Trump and Sanders have shown that money isn't as powerful as message (Sanders) or cleverly manipulating and controlling the news cycle (Trump). It will be interesting to see if any other candidates can duplicate their success using these two methods.
7
I feel like they've already been doing this for years now...
See: states like Kansas and North Carolina, which were quite literally bought and paid for by greedy money-hoarding billionaires.
As always, republican operatives (backed by big money) are always one step ahead of the democrats, which is why democrats are always able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, no matter that they have all the ideas, many of which a majority of the country - including brainwashed republican voters - actually agree with.
Some folks think it's a big deal that democrats keep winning the White House, but guess what? It doesn't matter one bit that a democrat is president, when the rest of the government is made up of right-wing bought-and-paid-for republican puppets, including on the state level, where folks like Scott Walker and John Kasich can destroy unions single-handedly, and Real Uhmuricans like Rick Snyder can personally poison the citizens of his state, and then they all get away with it scot-free, and oftentimes get reelected or even mount a bid for the presidency.
Money might not be able to buy happiness, but it sure can buy a state.
See: states like Kansas and North Carolina, which were quite literally bought and paid for by greedy money-hoarding billionaires.
As always, republican operatives (backed by big money) are always one step ahead of the democrats, which is why democrats are always able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, no matter that they have all the ideas, many of which a majority of the country - including brainwashed republican voters - actually agree with.
Some folks think it's a big deal that democrats keep winning the White House, but guess what? It doesn't matter one bit that a democrat is president, when the rest of the government is made up of right-wing bought-and-paid-for republican puppets, including on the state level, where folks like Scott Walker and John Kasich can destroy unions single-handedly, and Real Uhmuricans like Rick Snyder can personally poison the citizens of his state, and then they all get away with it scot-free, and oftentimes get reelected or even mount a bid for the presidency.
Money might not be able to buy happiness, but it sure can buy a state.
9
So the majority of big money donors will be for Hillary Clinton, and the democrats will again cry that republicans abuse campaign financing.
The hypocrisy continues. That is why everyone should start to "feel the Bern!"
The hypocrisy continues. That is why everyone should start to "feel the Bern!"
9
From the article:
The Koch Brothers had "pledged to spend nearly $900 million on the 2016 election".
It has spent $12.4 million.
It has earmarked $30 million more.
$42 million is not $900 million.
The fact is, the Koch Bros are sitting this one out. They've yanked their money.
The reason: They are furious at the R-Party. They've had a deal with the R's: We will fund you in exchange for these laws. The Kochs told them exactly what they wanted: who, what, when, where, why and how.
Instead they got an R-Party bent on destroying Obama, on passing no laws, on doing nothing. "The Party Of NO!". The "Party Of Stupid". The Party of ultra-sounds, fixated on female anatomy.
That wasn't the deal.
The clincher was the Party of Do-Nothing, doing nothing to stop Dim Don, a man who revolts them.
The Kochs are sitting this one out. That "pledged money" is going back into their vast non-profit empire, back into their "educational" arm.
Trump is a disaster for the Republicans, but he represents and is in agreement with everything that that "Party of Stupid" stands for: No plan, no work, no focus, no future, just keep sneering and smacking the women and poor around and letting their rich buddies foot the bills.
How bad is it?
Even the Koch Brothers have had enough of them.
The Koch Brothers had "pledged to spend nearly $900 million on the 2016 election".
It has spent $12.4 million.
It has earmarked $30 million more.
$42 million is not $900 million.
The fact is, the Koch Bros are sitting this one out. They've yanked their money.
The reason: They are furious at the R-Party. They've had a deal with the R's: We will fund you in exchange for these laws. The Kochs told them exactly what they wanted: who, what, when, where, why and how.
Instead they got an R-Party bent on destroying Obama, on passing no laws, on doing nothing. "The Party Of NO!". The "Party Of Stupid". The Party of ultra-sounds, fixated on female anatomy.
That wasn't the deal.
The clincher was the Party of Do-Nothing, doing nothing to stop Dim Don, a man who revolts them.
The Kochs are sitting this one out. That "pledged money" is going back into their vast non-profit empire, back into their "educational" arm.
Trump is a disaster for the Republicans, but he represents and is in agreement with everything that that "Party of Stupid" stands for: No plan, no work, no focus, no future, just keep sneering and smacking the women and poor around and letting their rich buddies foot the bills.
How bad is it?
Even the Koch Brothers have had enough of them.
9
koch and non profit in one sentence
thats funny
thats funny
1
The electorate is as mad now as it was in 2008. They bought the GOP party line in 2010 and 2012 and gave them the house and the senate only to see the middle class slip further in income and opportunity and the rich pay less and less taxes.
Congress has a 60% plus disapproval rating. If we let anonymous Super PAC money buy this election we have only ourselves to blame. This is our opportunity to take back the Supreme Court and get this "dirty" money out of politics. Make every corporation and individual who donates do so publicly. Every ad tied to the individuals and corporation that support it.Then you will know who stands for what. The money will regulate itself.
Congress has a 60% plus disapproval rating. If we let anonymous Super PAC money buy this election we have only ourselves to blame. This is our opportunity to take back the Supreme Court and get this "dirty" money out of politics. Make every corporation and individual who donates do so publicly. Every ad tied to the individuals and corporation that support it.Then you will know who stands for what. The money will regulate itself.
12
This is another reason to re-energize and support Democratic candidates in state and Congressional races. If you want more obstruction, more social and political regression, go ahead and refuse to vote for Hillary. You'll get what you deserve, and no room for whining. Republicans=anti-social, anti-progress, anti-women, anti-child-, anti-basic rights. They are the theocratic oligarchy.
24
You forgot to add mercantilist and greedy, but I agree.
1
Let me whine, ChesBay. Your Democratic party is as exclusive and as committed to rule by old men's money as is the Republican party. The refusal to vote for Hillary is a lancepoint of the Demo Central Committee aimed at reinforcing party control over its disenfranchised. Your language is provocative and aggressive and yet you feel aggrieved.
1
To DornDiego: Where were you in 2000? Have you already forgotten Ralph Nader, Florida, and the election of Bush? If you refuse to vote for Clinton if she is the nominee and wake up to a President Trump after the election, exactly what has that refusal done to advance liberal policies? It isn't about compromising principles, it is about compromise. With Clinton, there is a at least a chance social progress will be maintained. If Trump is elected, it is welcome to the 1950's.
1
Looks like the Kochs and Adelsons are at a loss this time around. They lost their 100 millions in a fool's endeavor. Now Trump is a sure loser, so why spend good money over bad. Trump should know. Koch and Adelson are much better businessmen than Trump. They are real, shrewd billionaires who know the, ' the art of the deal ' 100 times better than Trump. So they have shifted their focus to Senate and House races because getting a majority would clip the wings of a Democratic President. Then they can still hold the Country to ransom. The Republicans will have to support the demagogue against their better judgement to prevent the complete splintering of their Party in total disarray. But this short term solution is sure to backfire.But the Kochs and Adesons wont make the same mistake twice and their money going to the Senate and House races is more likely to yield higher returns. Or maybe Trump's xenophobia, bigotry, misogyny, narcissism and a foul mouth is just too vile - even for them!
3
People can sit and bemoan the Citizens United decision 'till the cows come home but as long as this ruling is in place, Democrats that want to win elections will have to use the rules to their advantage or go down with the ship spouting their purer than Caesar's wife platitudes.
Republicans are correct in shifting their attention to down ballot races. Democrats should do the same; hold their nose; and manipulate the system as it exists today for every cent they can raise to recapture the Senate at all costs. Why?
While I support HRC and believe she will win the Electoral College, it's important for any sane person to hedge their bets and make sure than Democrats control the Senate in 2017. If that means taking financial contributions from every financier that is playing both sides against the middle, then I say, "so be it."
If Sanders people want to sit on their thumbs and guarantee the next 2 - 3 Supreme Court justices are Scalia-like clones, then that predominantly 18-29 year old demographic should have to spend the greater majority of their adult lives putting their daughters on Air Canada flights to terminate first trimester pregnancies in Toronto or Vancouver not to mention undoing 40 years of progressive legislation.
Do I believe Citizens United was a correct decision: absolutely not! Until Citizens is reversed, however, I hope that Democrats are smart enough to use every financial utensil available in the kitchen including the sink.
Republicans are correct in shifting their attention to down ballot races. Democrats should do the same; hold their nose; and manipulate the system as it exists today for every cent they can raise to recapture the Senate at all costs. Why?
While I support HRC and believe she will win the Electoral College, it's important for any sane person to hedge their bets and make sure than Democrats control the Senate in 2017. If that means taking financial contributions from every financier that is playing both sides against the middle, then I say, "so be it."
If Sanders people want to sit on their thumbs and guarantee the next 2 - 3 Supreme Court justices are Scalia-like clones, then that predominantly 18-29 year old demographic should have to spend the greater majority of their adult lives putting their daughters on Air Canada flights to terminate first trimester pregnancies in Toronto or Vancouver not to mention undoing 40 years of progressive legislation.
Do I believe Citizens United was a correct decision: absolutely not! Until Citizens is reversed, however, I hope that Democrats are smart enough to use every financial utensil available in the kitchen including the sink.
48
Citizens was correctly decided - but overbroad.
Why?
Because the underlying law allowed the federal government to }{selectively!} fine and jail people, human beings, for the grave sin of making a political documentary.
By the way, the NY Times is a corporation.... and no, 'the press' in the first amendment is not a special carveout for news media... it meant and means printed word..the Times doesnt have more rights to speech than the guy cranking out pamphlets in his garage - kind of a thing, back in the day.
Citizens United is most strongly opposed by people who havent read the case, or who otherwise don't think the 1st Amendment prohibits jailing people for political speech.
Why?
Because the underlying law allowed the federal government to }{selectively!} fine and jail people, human beings, for the grave sin of making a political documentary.
By the way, the NY Times is a corporation.... and no, 'the press' in the first amendment is not a special carveout for news media... it meant and means printed word..the Times doesnt have more rights to speech than the guy cranking out pamphlets in his garage - kind of a thing, back in the day.
Citizens United is most strongly opposed by people who havent read the case, or who otherwise don't think the 1st Amendment prohibits jailing people for political speech.
1
To Jim,
I agree that the Democrats should take full advantage of everything Citizens United allows. The stakes are too high not to.
But, your gratuitous slap at Sanders' supporters is off key. As of May 1, they've contributed somewhere over $200,000,000. I think the Dems should also be smart enough to learn something from that, too. A strong progressive message resonates with millions of donors. Even if it's only "27 bucks" a pop.
I agree that the Democrats should take full advantage of everything Citizens United allows. The stakes are too high not to.
But, your gratuitous slap at Sanders' supporters is off key. As of May 1, they've contributed somewhere over $200,000,000. I think the Dems should also be smart enough to learn something from that, too. A strong progressive message resonates with millions of donors. Even if it's only "27 bucks" a pop.
2
Those who walk with trump will be forever tainted.
trumps showed again yesterday why, even disregarding his bigotry, racism, misogyny and demagoguery, he is temperamentally and intellectually unfit for office. The Egypt air crash has no determination of cause. But trump jumped to conclusions and started trying to pin blame on the President of the United States for the crash of an Egyptian plane flying from France. No serious leader would ever make such unfounded and patently ridiculous public statements.
trumps showed again yesterday why, even disregarding his bigotry, racism, misogyny and demagoguery, he is temperamentally and intellectually unfit for office. The Egypt air crash has no determination of cause. But trump jumped to conclusions and started trying to pin blame on the President of the United States for the crash of an Egyptian plane flying from France. No serious leader would ever make such unfounded and patently ridiculous public statements.
17
I'm certain the dark money Republican donors will fall in line if they think they have a chance of beating Clinton. But those who put stock in horse race polls before the conventions are mistaken. At this point in 1980 Jimmy Carter was easily beating Ronald Reagan n the polls (Bernie Sanders please take note) and we know how that election turned out. As Trump gets defined (even on his own terms) his unacceptability to the majority of voters will be manifest.
2
I don't know what is worse, the fact that this is legal or the fact that it is talked about with such nonchalance. Money, according to the Supreme Court, is speech. The problem with that, of course, is that It makes sure the average voter remains speechless.
12
No amount of advertising would convince me to vote for the reactionary theocratic Republican Party. The mere fact that these donors feel they can get the electorate to vote for their candidate demonstrates the little respect they have for the intelligence of the American public.The Democratic Party cannot compete with Republican Fat Cats, that seek to protect their control over Congress & the Senate.What the Democrats must do is spend their money on educating the public,that their votes are being bought, & what little respect they have for their constituents.
8
"What the Democrats must do is spend their money on educating the public,that their votes are being bought"
Don't you mean brainwashing rather than educating?
Don't you mean brainwashing rather than educating?
5
Charles,
I get your point, that advertising is indeed a form of Brain Washing, However, we must enlighten the public that to be aware of the little respect that Political Advertising has for their intelligence, and rather than accept what they advertise, question & research it.Both Parties are guilty of using fear rather than fact in their advertising.
I get your point, that advertising is indeed a form of Brain Washing, However, we must enlighten the public that to be aware of the little respect that Political Advertising has for their intelligence, and rather than accept what they advertise, question & research it.Both Parties are guilty of using fear rather than fact in their advertising.
The difference between educating and brainwashing is that one is evidence-based and the other is fact-free.
Republican members of Congress are going to need all the money they can get with that albatross, Donald Trump, hanging down around their neck, for as Coleridge mused:
And a good south wind sprung up behind;
The albatross did follow,
And every day, for food or play,
Came to the mariners' hollo!
In mist or cloud, on mast or shroud,
It perched for vespers nine;
Whiles all the night, through fog-smoke white,
Glimmered the white moon-shine.
"God save thee, ancient mariner!
From the fiends, that plague thee thus! –
Why lookst thou so?" "With my crossbow
I shot the albatross."
And a good south wind sprung up behind;
The albatross did follow,
And every day, for food or play,
Came to the mariners' hollo!
In mist or cloud, on mast or shroud,
It perched for vespers nine;
Whiles all the night, through fog-smoke white,
Glimmered the white moon-shine.
"God save thee, ancient mariner!
From the fiends, that plague thee thus! –
Why lookst thou so?" "With my crossbow
I shot the albatross."
4
This sounds like classic bet-hedging. With Trump on the ticket the GOP is worried, as they should be, that America just maybe doesn't quite agree with Mr. Trump's "ideas" about national or foreign policy.
If they can't have the White House looks like they'll try and have enough seats to shutdown the government again with reckless abandon. Nice to see democracy firing on all cylinders.
If they can't have the White House looks like they'll try and have enough seats to shutdown the government again with reckless abandon. Nice to see democracy firing on all cylinders.
7
Here's what I don't get. Why would anyone who cannot support Trump vote for someone who does support Trump? It would seem to me that the minute a candidate for the House or Senate says, "I support Trump for President" they are telling us who they are. So if you vote for a declared supporter of Trump you are asking for everything Trump stands for.
12
Your post would seriously confuse a republican voter.
That's the reason why someone who cannot support Trump would vote for someone who does support Trump.
That's the reason why someone who cannot support Trump would vote for someone who does support Trump.
3
There are two critical races in 2016. The first is the Democrats taking back the Senate with a super majority. The second critical race is the Democrats taking back the House. The GOP has had six years during which the Congresses have been the most inefficient and non-productive since just before the outbreak of the Civil War; Time for a change.
Do your homework; find the races for the Senate and the House where your political contributions can make a huge difference. Take the Senate and Take back the House.
Do your homework; find the races for the Senate and the House where your political contributions can make a huge difference. Take the Senate and Take back the House.
50
You got that right! Count me in to add to the GOP misery. And for our relief.
3
I agree those are important, HEP, but horrible damage is being done by Koch brothers et al operatives at the local level, including judges. WE must get rid of all of them.
2
Considering American Crossroads' and the Kochs' track record, this is just throwing good money after bad.
4
Republicans currently control both houses of Congress and 68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers, the highest number in the history of the party. That's not a bad track record.
1
It doesn't take much strategy to maintain paralysis, and that is just how the money likes it.
11
Well said, gridlock forever....
Why not the entire system has been for sale to some of histories most ignorant bidders for a while now. Let's keep the ignorance flowing.
3
If the GOP doesn't like the positions Trump amplifies, which accurately define their party's positions, why then do they wish to back less effective but the no less offensive positions of GOP senators and congressmen? The GOP platform is perfectly summed up by their presumptive nominee. Four quarters or a dollar bill, it buys the same. They can't be elected, we can't let that happen.
11
G.O.P. donors saved their dollars as their front runner Trump spent his own money on his campaign to secure the Republican nomination. Some donors wasted millions on the ad campaigns of Jeb, Cruz and Rubio but may not have any donor fatigue. On the dem. side there must be a donor fatigue and frustration on the part of donors of Hillary Clinton while the donors of Sanders are probably more than enthusiastic to donate to Bernie for President campaign. If Sanders were to run as an independent, donations would pour in because the independents who may not want either of the nominees will start opening their wallets. The dynamics of the election seems to be shifting with the Republican voters uniting behind Trump other than the old discarded dynasties, Bushes and Romneys, which is actually a plus for Trump's brand of the new Republican party more representative of the US citizens, although he has a lot of work left to unite the country. Sanders is surging in popularity for his underdog status and could upset Hillary's Pasadena parade in Cal, which is what the establishment Dems are horrified by. If Bernie makes an independent run should he not be the nominee or should he decide not to commit political heresy and join the Clinton Sanders ticket, he has an excellent chance to win as independent. That may scuttle Trump's chances but Republican donors will be more generous to see the choice between rock (Hillary) and the hard place (Sanders) as an alternative to Trump, hard to swallow.
4
The one thing DT has in common with these wealthy donors - who are unwilling to back his candidacy with gobs of money: He too won't fund himself!
Donald Trump won't bet on himself! And neither will rich GOP donors!
This horse won't win!
Donald Trump won't bet on himself! And neither will rich GOP donors!
This horse won't win!
19
This horse can certainly win if disgruntled Democrats and Independents decide to stay home on election day. Just like the last time.
2
Now if only Bernie Sanders would quit showing his, well, lets just call it his age, Hillary and the Democrats could also shift gears and join the fight in hopes to take back the Senate and and a good chunk of the House Seats the Tea Party snagged under the tutelage of Paul Ryan.
And it's way to obvious Sanders is overstaying his visit to the Democratic Party, you know, the Party he joined just to be able to run for president and be taken seriously. He's turned into that relative who came to visit and just won't leave. And as he outstays his welcome, Sanders seems to be acting a little too much like the character in Arsenic and Old Lace who is seen occasionally running through the house and up the staircase with a raised sword, dressed in a WW1 army uniform, and yelling, "Charge."
So, Mr. Sanders, please exit stage Left and go back too Vermont. Thank you.
And it's way to obvious Sanders is overstaying his visit to the Democratic Party, you know, the Party he joined just to be able to run for president and be taken seriously. He's turned into that relative who came to visit and just won't leave. And as he outstays his welcome, Sanders seems to be acting a little too much like the character in Arsenic and Old Lace who is seen occasionally running through the house and up the staircase with a raised sword, dressed in a WW1 army uniform, and yelling, "Charge."
So, Mr. Sanders, please exit stage Left and go back too Vermont. Thank you.
23
We Dem voters should not need any event to happen, say Sanders drops out, to do what we need to do this year. This year Dems must do all they can to decimate the GOP, as well as we can. We have a real chance to put a stake into the heart of this GOP, arguably the worst political element in America since the Civil War. We'll feel so much better afterwards.
A coup de grâce to the GOP is what we need to do this year.
A coup de grâce to the GOP is what we need to do this year.
2
Sanders is the only presidential candidate still in the race that the majority of this country views favorably. If Hillary Clinton is smart, she'll do everything she can to pull Sanders into campaigning for her after the convention, so that she loses a minimal number of Sanders supporters in the general election. (This is of course all assuming Sanders doesn't pull off some sort of insane upset in California to the point where he goes into the convention with more delegates.) Obama was able to make nice with Clinton, Clinton can do that with Sanders - or more to the point, if she can't do that with Sanders, then she's going to have a heck of a time working anything through Congress.
As for the Republican donors, they're right to focus on down-ballot races. The Democrats would also be wise if they started paying attention to down-ballot races, too: Without the support of state governments, congressional seats, and even local governments, Democratic presidents have a hard time making their official policies reality on the ground.
As for the Republican donors, they're right to focus on down-ballot races. The Democrats would also be wise if they started paying attention to down-ballot races, too: Without the support of state governments, congressional seats, and even local governments, Democratic presidents have a hard time making their official policies reality on the ground.
The only reason Sanders has any favorable ratings is because:
1. Hillary has been exceedingly polite in dealing with him, more than he with her, and;
2. The GOP has not a run a single negative ad against him. Not one. They love the guy.
Hillary won't go all in with the negative against Bernie because she needs/wants his voters in November. Most will come over but some won't but there is no reason to overly antagonize them at this point.
The GOP would unleash a torrent of hatred and vitriol that would make Swift Boating look like a pleasure cruise.
There is so very, very much in Bernie's past that would repel and repulse so many voters that it would be Trump in a walk.
So, while Bernie may have high favorables now, do note that only one, just one, Senator has endorsed him in the primary. Even Ted Cruz had more than that. I'll take my cue from the people who actually have to work with him and they don't seem all that enamored.
[As for any miracle in CA allowing Bernie to win the nomination, that miracle would involve him winning 100% of the vote, outcomes not seen outside of despotic regimes like North Korea.]
1. Hillary has been exceedingly polite in dealing with him, more than he with her, and;
2. The GOP has not a run a single negative ad against him. Not one. They love the guy.
Hillary won't go all in with the negative against Bernie because she needs/wants his voters in November. Most will come over but some won't but there is no reason to overly antagonize them at this point.
The GOP would unleash a torrent of hatred and vitriol that would make Swift Boating look like a pleasure cruise.
There is so very, very much in Bernie's past that would repel and repulse so many voters that it would be Trump in a walk.
So, while Bernie may have high favorables now, do note that only one, just one, Senator has endorsed him in the primary. Even Ted Cruz had more than that. I'll take my cue from the people who actually have to work with him and they don't seem all that enamored.
[As for any miracle in CA allowing Bernie to win the nomination, that miracle would involve him winning 100% of the vote, outcomes not seen outside of despotic regimes like North Korea.]
9
The Koch funded FPAF knew full well their attack ad against Feingold was deceptive & flat out a lie. Three stations found out & pulled the ads. Moreover, Johnson knew about the troubles at the Tomah VA & chose to do nothing. Claiming he was too busy campaigning & raising money to give a damn about our Veterans. Proof again the GOP loves soldiers but hates Veterans.
29
The Greedy Oppressive Party loves war. period. None of their children will be harmed, but might get rich in the endeavor.
2
Thankfully I have cable so I don't have to listen to any of this dreck. And if I get one phone call, I will have some choice words for the caller.
2
This country will be far better off without Hillary and Trump. The real bottom line is that 90% plus and 60% plus people of this country have no confidence in the self interests, self righteous US Congress and politically divided US Supreme Court, That being the case, we the people of this Republic by acclamation should dissolve this Congress. I am not talking about over throw of the Govt. But we need radical and serious reform of all the three Branches of the Govt. for the needs of the nation and the people in this 21st century, The only way that can be achieved is a new Constitution that will incorporate the current one. After this Congress is dissolved, we the people should appoint some 50 odd elders to rewrite a new Constitution, which then can be ratified by the referendum of the people. One person, one vote, that is already the law of the land.
4
So, the US should just not have a President?
That's a rather odd position to take.
That's a rather odd position to take.
1
The total lack of compromise necessitates that the winner takes all.
We have just endured years in which Congress would not work with the President - we have learnt. The only way to implement a Democratic platform is to take both Congress and the Presidency; the only way to stop a President Trump is to take Congress - and both parties realize that.
We have just endured years in which Congress would not work with the President - we have learnt. The only way to implement a Democratic platform is to take both Congress and the Presidency; the only way to stop a President Trump is to take Congress - and both parties realize that.
25
Refreshingly honest to see political donations characterized as 'investments'.
61
Political donations are al investments. We invest in the candidates we think will best support what we believe.
Business leaders know without doubt that the guy who cannot keep a business venture going for more than a couple years, who cheats his partners and workers alike, and who has no background for the job, should not be given the helm. They know he will destroy everything their businesses rely on to remain functioning.
Business leaders know without doubt that the guy who cannot keep a business venture going for more than a couple years, who cheats his partners and workers alike, and who has no background for the job, should not be given the helm. They know he will destroy everything their businesses rely on to remain functioning.
Actually, it was probably a slip after Mr. Law might have been using the term "Investment" frequently in his conversations with donors ( or investors ). We all do routinely use a set of nouns from day to day that change or stay the same over time.
All the more reason the Democrats need to get planks in their platform that the Senate and other down ticket candidates can run with and not away from. No matter what they say, the Republican candidates will be tied to this loathsome top of the ticket and the advantage will be maximized if the Democrats have a team that can run together.
Do not let Trump get the nuclear code.
Do not let Trump get the nuclear code.
42
Republican donors do not want to play in Donald Trump's poker game with the American people. Given that the "serious" broadcast media are not anywhere near as capable or prepared as were the Watergate or Iran-Contra special prosecutors cross-examining the players in those episodes, no wonder. Reports unequivocally state witnesses as saying that Trump cheats at golf. In Trump's poker game, the media still allow him to deal . . .
13
A quote from Steven J. Law................
"“A lot of our donors were investors in either campaigns or super PAC activity on behalf of specific presidential candidates who are no longer in the race, and that investment opportunity has been taken away,” he said."
"Investors" Think about it.
"“A lot of our donors were investors in either campaigns or super PAC activity on behalf of specific presidential candidates who are no longer in the race, and that investment opportunity has been taken away,” he said."
"Investors" Think about it.
62
Winning back Congress is tremendously important. It should be a focus of the Democrats. This focus of the Republicans only increases that need.
Congress is always important, but in an election without a good choice for President, with two such truly awful choices, Congress takes on additional importance. It seems the Republicans see that and are putting money behind it.
Democrats need to do the same, and for the same reasons.
Congress is always important, but in an election without a good choice for President, with two such truly awful choices, Congress takes on additional importance. It seems the Republicans see that and are putting money behind it.
Democrats need to do the same, and for the same reasons.
33
Nauseating! I don't think America could stand a six month nonstop barrage of free speech for the super rich. Maybe we should all refuse to watch any network television and only watch streaming TV that is commercial free. I'm serious. We can get our news from newspapers in print and on-line. That way we can ignore the political ads and not have to sit through them.
I predict the following:
We will see these words used against Hillary Clinton a minimum of one million times- liar, dishonest, Benghazi, email server, Clinton foundation.
We will see video clips of Trump spouting his racist, sexist, and hateful statements so many times that everyone will be able to recite them in their sleep.
Bernie Sanders has started a populist rebellion against the 1%. The remaining 99% should rebel against the diet of propaganda that the 1% wants to feed us. Technology now gives us options to isolate ourselves from it.
The populist movement can include passive resistance. We don't have to listen to that political garbage if we don't want to. Turn off the TV. Let the ratings plummet. We can still watch our favorite shows, just a few days later on apps or through a streaming service. We don't have to listen to them. I for one and not going to put up with it anymore.
I predict the following:
We will see these words used against Hillary Clinton a minimum of one million times- liar, dishonest, Benghazi, email server, Clinton foundation.
We will see video clips of Trump spouting his racist, sexist, and hateful statements so many times that everyone will be able to recite them in their sleep.
Bernie Sanders has started a populist rebellion against the 1%. The remaining 99% should rebel against the diet of propaganda that the 1% wants to feed us. Technology now gives us options to isolate ourselves from it.
The populist movement can include passive resistance. We don't have to listen to that political garbage if we don't want to. Turn off the TV. Let the ratings plummet. We can still watch our favorite shows, just a few days later on apps or through a streaming service. We don't have to listen to them. I for one and not going to put up with it anymore.
61
Advertising can backfire. It can get the opposite of the intended response. It can even inspire outrage.
What the Republicans have been doing at the lower levels may not withstand the light of day. They've been getting away with it while it is mostly hidden from attention. This push will bring attention to what they've done. That need not mean good things for them.
I recall some political ads that caused those watching with me to react very badly indeed. "What a lie!"
Even more, ads can invite counter-ads that turn them against those who put them up.
Throwing money at this is only Step One. Republicans are actually quite exposed on this, because many of their lower level candidates are loons, such as my own Congressman -- we replaced a reindeer farmer who thought he was Santa Claus with a lawyer who got rich by specializing in doing foreclosures for banks. Those are things that advertising money won't help, only hiding it away allows it to go on.
There is opportunity here for Democrats, exactly because Republicans are coming out of their closet to show themselves.
What the Republicans have been doing at the lower levels may not withstand the light of day. They've been getting away with it while it is mostly hidden from attention. This push will bring attention to what they've done. That need not mean good things for them.
I recall some political ads that caused those watching with me to react very badly indeed. "What a lie!"
Even more, ads can invite counter-ads that turn them against those who put them up.
Throwing money at this is only Step One. Republicans are actually quite exposed on this, because many of their lower level candidates are loons, such as my own Congressman -- we replaced a reindeer farmer who thought he was Santa Claus with a lawyer who got rich by specializing in doing foreclosures for banks. Those are things that advertising money won't help, only hiding it away allows it to go on.
There is opportunity here for Democrats, exactly because Republicans are coming out of their closet to show themselves.
19
Exactly. Eric Cantor's Tea Party challenger in the Va. congressional primary spent less than 1/10th of the minority whip, and he defeated him soundly.
6
I cut the cord to the cable box in 2010, best thing I ever did. I use the Apple TV for streaming and a subscription to the NYT to stay informed. Even when watching the debates, I turn off the stream to the talking heads, so as to make my own informed opinion of what I just witnessed.
But not everyone is so inclined, some are like sheep and will follow a person and latch onto their values, so they don't have to actually do any thinking for themselves. Or as we have at the moment, people following Trump because he is saying what a portion of our populace is thinking, deport, build a wall, ban a religion, and make America White Again.
But not everyone is so inclined, some are like sheep and will follow a person and latch onto their values, so they don't have to actually do any thinking for themselves. Or as we have at the moment, people following Trump because he is saying what a portion of our populace is thinking, deport, build a wall, ban a religion, and make America White Again.
1
So refreshing to see the legalized right-wing bribery shotgun shift its sights from Presidential corruption to state and local corruption where they've have really proved their mastery in hijacking the House via gerrymander and the Senate via filibuster and turning state capitols into right-wing propaganda and profit mills.
Republican success at destroying good governance and civil rights in Texas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, Alabama and the rest of Republistan has been an incredibly effective strategy for the restoring plantation economics and 1800's sensibility to America's fake heartland.
With or without Il Trumpolini, state hijackings have produced very profitable returns on 0.1% right-wing investments.
The 0.1% Citizens and Country Corrupted law is working well.
Republican success at destroying good governance and civil rights in Texas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, Alabama and the rest of Republistan has been an incredibly effective strategy for the restoring plantation economics and 1800's sensibility to America's fake heartland.
With or without Il Trumpolini, state hijackings have produced very profitable returns on 0.1% right-wing investments.
The 0.1% Citizens and Country Corrupted law is working well.
90
Everyone needs to read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer. Eye opening to say the least.
15
Wisconsin should be near the top of your list. Conservative billionaires have owned all three branches of state government since 2010. They pass what laws they want behind closed doors and no one can do anything about it. Thus we are the testing ground for what Republicans can get away with, and gerrymandered to keep it that way. We've somehow voted Obama twice (despite Paul Ryan on the 2012 ticket) and Walker three times. We don't deserve this tyranny as we watch our middle class continue to erode.
2
"And the vast political network of Charles G. and David H. Koch, the billionaire brothers who have provided critical support for conservative causes, which early last year pledged to spend nearly $900 million on the 2016 election, has spent money only on Senate races so far. Its three most prominent groups — Freedom Partners Action Fund, Americans for Prosperity and Concerned Veterans for America — have already invested $12.4 million in five different states."
Read or re-read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer for a complete analysis of how money is raised and spent by Koch-affiliated groups to defeat Democrats in public office, whether in local states of federal positions. The agenda they pursue is to defeat Democrats who might be against fossil fuels or elect the GOP candidates who favor all of the less-government positions. This is the poison in our system which is like a cancer.
Read or re-read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer for a complete analysis of how money is raised and spent by Koch-affiliated groups to defeat Democrats in public office, whether in local states of federal positions. The agenda they pursue is to defeat Democrats who might be against fossil fuels or elect the GOP candidates who favor all of the less-government positions. This is the poison in our system which is like a cancer.
82
I read an account of Trump's rape of his first wife which was a reaction to failure of a surgical procedure he had to restore his receding hairline. This account was taken from a deposition given by her in an divorcee proceeding. His "brand" may not be a great investment opportunity for the folks with bags of money who want to buy the nation. Indeed.
14
Translation: donors are looking for marionettes more amenable to having their strings pulled by throwing money at them then Trump who they loathe because they cannot control him like he is Howdy Doody, and that also goes for HRC. Trump 2016.
16
Trump (The hair dye king) would appoint Scalia clones to the court.
That is all that is necessary to take over the country. The Koch's et al, are rolling their hands and salivating in anticipation of completing the coup.
Sen Sanders will show them the Bird for all of us.
That is all that is necessary to take over the country. The Koch's et al, are rolling their hands and salivating in anticipation of completing the coup.
Sen Sanders will show them the Bird for all of us.
8
I am generally not an active political donor. I have donated to only 2 politicians in my life...so far. Barak Obama and Bernie Sanders. But I will donate the maximum I can to Hillary as Trump simply can not be allowed to happen.
90
Couple that with a longer-term strategy, Jeff. I contributed to Tim Canova who's primarying Debbie Wasserman Shultz. If the Democratic party does not begin to listen to, respect, and represent its base, it will collapse. Send a clear message to those who would taunt, belittle, repress and dismiss the 98%. Get rid of someone who deliberately tried to control the selection process and silence debate.
The anger on the Hillary side is the stuff of sore winners. For them to continue to deride the youth vote, the activists and their base is suicidal, and they seem intent on committing it.
Recall the popular quote: "The Republican Party fears its base, the Democratic Party hates its base." In fact, this election is about both parties hating their bases and courting billionaires and big corporate and banking donors.
That method of selective funding and purchased representation is exactly what Bernie and Wolf Pack are trying to reform.
The anger on the Hillary side is the stuff of sore winners. For them to continue to deride the youth vote, the activists and their base is suicidal, and they seem intent on committing it.
Recall the popular quote: "The Republican Party fears its base, the Democratic Party hates its base." In fact, this election is about both parties hating their bases and courting billionaires and big corporate and banking donors.
That method of selective funding and purchased representation is exactly what Bernie and Wolf Pack are trying to reform.
3
Naples, when I read the first comment I was 100% positive some Bernie supporter was going to come along and whine about the process. AGAIN. Honestly, buddy, this is the deal: the person who gets the most votes wins. I know that's not your guy. Eight years ago it wasn't Hillary. You're going to tell me that it's rigged for the "establishment candidate"? Tell that to a certain first-term Senator from Illinois. His address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it's a big white house. Give me a break.
The Sanders campaign doesn't have any problems that more votes wouldn't fix. I'm so tired of the whining about the "process." Bernie Sanders just became a Democrat 6 months ago. He's never raised money for Democrats, never campaigned for Democrats, heck, he even OPPOSED some Democrats running in Vermont. And now he and his supporters - many of whom aren't Democrats themselves - want to just saunter into the Democratic race and expect the national party to bend over backwards. Sorry, pal, but that's not the way it works.
And do you want to know what the people you refer to as the "base" are really doing? They are getting ready to do to the Democratic Party what the Tea Party has done to the Republican Party - namely, ruin it. Get on board or go elsewhere. We don't need a "revolution."
The Sanders campaign doesn't have any problems that more votes wouldn't fix. I'm so tired of the whining about the "process." Bernie Sanders just became a Democrat 6 months ago. He's never raised money for Democrats, never campaigned for Democrats, heck, he even OPPOSED some Democrats running in Vermont. And now he and his supporters - many of whom aren't Democrats themselves - want to just saunter into the Democratic race and expect the national party to bend over backwards. Sorry, pal, but that's not the way it works.
And do you want to know what the people you refer to as the "base" are really doing? They are getting ready to do to the Democratic Party what the Tea Party has done to the Republican Party - namely, ruin it. Get on board or go elsewhere. We don't need a "revolution."
3
The real battle this election will be fought in the down-ballot races: The Senate, the House, and the various state and local elections. The Republican Party may have conceded the head, but the body will endure.
21
I disagree. As important as the down ballot races are the top ballot race will decide whether a guy who sees no problem in nuclear arms proliferation and thinks he might use them gets to hold the keys to a few thousand hydrogen bombs.
4