Exclusive: Democrats lose ground with millennials - Reuters/Ipsos poll

[Fogdog]

You're a fucking idiot.

https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/research-papers/how-money-drives-us-congressional-elections

You are the one who has been agitating about how candidates must swear off and forego certain legal campaign donations and if they did, they would be more likely to win. I've been repeating all along that the campaigns who spend the most have the edge. Now you are repeating exactly the same back to me.


The DCCC is making it very clear that they will decide who they give their money to. There are plenty of other sources for campaign money. If your candidate is so good, why can't he raise money himself?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Horse shit.

LOL! That must be why they've thrown their support behind establishment candidates (and even Republicans!) over actual progressives. First they said it was because establishment dems could raise more money, then the progressive out raised their establishment counterpart... Yet still establishment dems support the less funded Dem alternative..

Alison Hartson raised more than her counterparts in the CA primary, by far, not a peep in mainstream media. What happened to the Democratic party supporting the person who could raise the most?

Turns out, even if you can raise more than your corporate counterpart, the Democratic establishment still won't back you if you support campaign finance reform or healthcare reform or any actual progressive policies, because those policies go against their agenda.

When they say they're only trying to back the strongest Democrat so they can beat the Republican in the general election, they're lying to you. They only want to beat the Republican if they're backing a corporate Democrat in the district. They won't back progressives because they don't support progressive policies.

 

[ttystikk]

LOL! That must be why they've thrown their support behind establishment candidates (and even Republicans!) over actual progressives. First they said it was because establishment dems could raise more money, then the progressive out raised their establishment counterpart... Yet still establishment dems support the less funded Dem alternative..

Alison Hartson raised more than her counterparts in the CA primary, by far, not a peep in mainstream media. What happened to the Democratic party supporting the person who could raise the most?

Turns out, even if you can raise more than your corporate counterpart, the Democratic establishment still won't back you if you support campaign finance reform or healthcare reform or any actual progressive policies, because those policies go against their agenda.

When they say they're only trying to back the strongest Democrat so they can beat the Republican in the general election, they're lying to you. They only want to beat the Republican if they're backing a corporate Democrat in the district. They won't back progressives because they don't support progressive policies.

Yep, it's all about that cash. In THEIR hands.

 

[Fogdog]

But they're my TEAM! No matter how corrupt they are I HAVE to support them!

Been saying it all along. The DCCC is making decisions based upon the opinions of experienced politicians. This is in their charter. Their plan for their organization to focus on who they think are most likely to win is documented in their charter as well. If your guy is so good, why do they have to depend upon the DCCC?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Democrats are going to focus on who they think are the best candidates. They've said outright that they aren't going to give money to candidates they think are weak.

You believe an elite group of people know what's best for voters. Democrats won't spend money on candidates democratic elites deem weak.

#MCdemocracy

 

[Fogdog]

LOL! That must be why they've thrown their support behind establishment candidates (and even Republicans!) over actual progressives. First they said it was because establishment dems could raise more money, then the progressive out raised their establishment counterpart... Yet still establishment dems support the less funded Dem alternative..

Alison Hartson raised more than her counterparts in the CA primary, by far, not a peep in mainstream media. What happened to the Democratic party supporting the person who could raise the most?

Turns out, even if you can raise more than your corporate counterpart, the Democratic establishment still won't back you if you support campaign finance reform or healthcare reform or any actual progressive policies, because those policies go against their agenda.

When they say they're only trying to back the strongest Democrat so they can beat the Republican in the general election, they're lying to you. They only want to beat the Republican if they're backing a corporate Democrat in the district. They won't back progressives because they don't support progressive policies.

The DCCC is funding Republicans?

LOL

Good on Alison Hartson. Why can't she get more notice when she's raised so much money? Must not be a good candidate.

You keep misquoting me. I said experienced politicians within the DCCC are deciding who to focus resources on based upon who they think are the strongest candidates. They aren't always right. So, your candidate who is miffed for not getting the support of the DCCC can still win but has to look elsewhere for support. If they are so good then they should win but it won't be just handed to them.

 

[Fogdog]

You believe an elite group of people know what's best for voters. Democrats won't spend money on candidates democratic elites deem weak.

#MCdemocracy

Here we go again.

Padawanbater melts down and starts telling me what I believe.

STFU You don't know what I believe.

 

[Padawanbater2]

If your candidate is so good, then why can't he convince voters to vote for them? .

He can, and he has. The opposition cheated

Not going into that with someone a dishonest as you

You cheated then asked why didn't he win if we cheated?

You lost. You had to cheat to pretend you won. Everyone knows

Stop while you're behind

Not interested in talking to you, interacting with you. This'll be the last time.

 

[Fogdog]

He can, and he has. The opposition cheated

Not going into that with someone a dishonest as you

You cheated then asked why didn't he win if we cheated?

You lost. You had to cheat to pretend you won. Everyone knows

Stop while you're behind

Not interested in talking to you, interacting with you. This'll be the last time.

You are now crying rigged because an independent non governmental arm of the Democratic Party are doing exactly what they said they would do?

In the opinion of Democratic congressmen who you must admit know something about winning elections, they decide which candidate will recieve their support. That's not cheating or even being dishonest.

The DCCC's choice isn't going to win every primary this year. You already have proof in Virginia that the DCCC's support isn't needed to win. Too bad you think the Democratic Party must support anybody who shows up in the primary. They don't and that's not being dishonest.

 

[Fogdog]

You're an utter fail at this, aren't you? She isn't getting media attention because she's bucking the pay to play system, the very one the media profits so handsomely from.

That is the very same reason Mr Sanders was given terrible coverage.

But you seem to make a habit of defending those who steal your democracy for profit, so at least you're being a consistent fucking idiot.

Its up to candidates to win elections by convincing the most voters to choose them. They also must follow elections laws.

Maybe we disagree about what a good candidate is.

For example: Bernie Sanders lost. It was his job to win the nomination and he lost by a whopping large margin. He wasn't a good candidate.

Is this so very hard for you to understand?

 

[ttystikk]

Its up to candidates to win elections by convincing the most voters to choose them. They also must follow elections laws.

Maybe we disagree about what a good candidate is. To me, a good candidate is one how can convince the most people to vote for them.

For example: Bernie Sanders lost. He wasn't a good candidate. It was his job to win the nomination.

Is this so very hard for you to understand?

I guess you can't read. If you could, you'd have read the article I posted above that discussed the correlation between campaign funding and outcomes, a fact based rebuttal to your weak excuse for a logical argument.

Constituents don't get to vote on the funding package.

Fucking idiots can't read.

 

[Fogdog]

I guess you can't read. If you could, your have read the article I posted above that discussed the correlation between campaign funding and outcomes.

Fucking idiots can't read.

It's up to the candidate to do what is necessary to win. Within legal constraints. It doesn't matter if a candidate is pure at heart but doesn't do what is necessary to win. A good candidate does what's necessary to win, including listening to the electorate and formulating policy positions that convince them to vote for them. Also including what is necessary to get media attention. Also what is necessary to accumulate funds to run a competitive campaign. They need to do this while maintaining their integrity and honesty. All of these go in to what is called a good candidate.

Do you know what they call people who didn't win? A loser.

 

[choomer]

Fucking idiots can't read.

It's worse than that and you know it.
It's the refusal to read information that might not fit strictly w/i their predefined paradigm.

....and while we're here bickering, the police state marches ever closer using this division (or display of diversity) as an excuse for even more totalitarian control.
That's the one thing that both major parties seem to have agreed on.

 

[ttystikk]

It's worse than that and you know it.
It's the refusal to read information that might not fit strictly w/i their predefined paradigm.

....and while we're here bickering, the police state marches ever closer using this division (or display of diversity) as an excuse for even more totalitarian control.
That's the one thing that both major parties seem to have agreed on.

That, more tax breaks for the rich, bigger defense budgets and of course, more wars!

 

[choomer]

That, more tax breaks for the rich, bigger defense budgets and of course, more wars!

Amen.
The prosperous US Just Borrowed $488 Billion In One Quarter, The Most Since The Financial Crisis.

This will turn out well.

 

[abandonconflict]

You are now crying rigged because an independent non governmental arm of the Democratic Party are doing exactly what they said they would do?

It was part of the plan. The "give us Bernie or we'll give you Trump" plan. They feign to cry about a "rigged" election but they rigged it and now they are cheering about the results.

 

[Fogdog]

It was part of the plan. The "give us Bernie or we'll give you Trump" plan. They feign to cry about a "rigged" election but they rigged it and now they are cheering about the results.

Yep, As in "if I can't win, I will cause you to lose to Trump".

Yet, what I'm seeing posted by tty and pad is, "rig the system for us and it will be fair."

 

[ttystikk]

It was part of the plan. The "give us Bernie or we'll give you Trump" plan. They feign to cry about a "rigged" election but they rigged it and now they are cheering about the results.

No, the Democratic Party is rigging elections and they aren't bothering to hide it.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/04/27/pelosi-i-dont-see-anything-inappropriate-in-rigging-primaries/

It's a blatant manipulation of the hiring public's right to choose its candidates, yet you're defending it.

Moronic doesn't begin to describe your thought process.

 

[Rob Roy]

You're actually defending the systematic manipulation of the democratic process.

That you are this easy to fool isn't surprising, but it is pathetic.

Tell me again why the democratic process is so valuable and sound?

Isn't planned gang rape a "democratic" process too?

 

[abandonconflict]

Yep, As in "if I can't win, I will cause you to lose to Trump".

Yet, what I'm seeing posted by tty and pad is, "rig the system for us and it will be fair."

If you point out facts to them, they make up some weird shit, completely removed from reality and then say that you're defending it. The fact is, the DNC is not an actual government department or agency. They're a private group with their own bylaws and they can decide by their own processes who they will nominate to be a candidate for their party. They do not stop anyone from running for office outside of the party. Bernard should have run as a third party candidate seeing as how he hates the DNC so much anyway. Besides, he's like the most popular dude ever and he's never been a democrat anyway. Instead, he handed Trump the presidency.