I FREAKED OUT when I realized

[AikidoSoul]

what is NOT being done to insure that whichever Dem wins the White House, that there is a PLAN to take over the house and senate so we can really see change in the system.

DOES ANYONE KNOW OF SUCH A PLAN?

I see that Hillary has donated millions to Dem candidates running for the House and Senate... but she has a LOT more money and has a LOT of help from the PACS to get their people in. Bernie has donated nothing to those races, probably because of a need to conserve funds (a guess only).

Much of the worry about a Bernie presidency that I'm reading about today is that there is no PLAN to take over those houses.

For those interested in what candidates are vulnerable, not vulnerable, maybe vulnerable, etc.... here is a great resource:

http://cookpolitical.com/house/charts/race-ratings

FYI... I'm a Bernie fan, but I want to see him succeed with the revolution that we so badly need.

[Human101948]

1. So you're saying that Hillary will sabotage or abandon all those Dems down ticket if she loses?

I sure hope not.

[AikidoSoul]

2. Why would you say or think that. My post is about the need for a PLAN

not about abandonment.

If you are an HC fan you may be trying to cut this inquiry off at the knees. I hope hot.

[Human101948]

4. Perhaps I misunderstood your statement about Hillary bankrolling Dem candidates...

It seemed as if you were saying that Bernie was a bad cholice because he doesn't command the "resources" that Hillary does.

But, of course it would be great if these was some sort of operation tol wrest control of Congress. There probably is but knwoing past performances, it is probably doomed to failure.

[AikidoSoul]

8. Bernie is not a bad choice. Of course not.

Hillary is a bad choice IMO because she gets big money from BIG MONEY and is part of a corrupt system.

I'm just stating facts. Here's what Cali Democrat posted recently.

Politico in early January published an interesting news story comparing Clinton’s and Sanders’s fundraising operations. Clinton raised more than $100 million in 2015, and Sanders $73 million. But here was the key thing: In addition to that $100 million Clinton bagged for herself, she raised an additional $18 million for Democrats around the country.

The Sanders figure? Zero

Now maybe some of them didn’t want Bernie Sanders at their fundraisers, but that wouldn’t have prevented the Sanders operation from writing checks to progressive Democrats all over the country as a kind of down payment, which apparently did not happen.

Bernie needs more money to do anything simililar at this point in time. Maybe he's waiting until he wins the nomination.

Remember now that I simply want to know if anyone is aware of a plan by the Bernie Group to fund runs in the House and Senate so we can get something done that's on the Progressive agenda.

A Plan? No Plan? Question

[KamaAina]

3. At least the Senate

our old buddy Jerry Mander has made the House an exceedingly tough nut to crack.

[AikidoSoul]

6. 34 Senate seats coming up IN 2016. Here is the probability analysis:

http://cookpolitical.com/senate


Bar View Chart View -- SEATS UP IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS AT THE WEBSITE ABOVE

2016 Toss Up Lean D Likely D Solid D
Democrats (45) 10 1 1 1 7
Republicans (54) 24 4 3 5 12

[Wounded Bear]

5. Not sure about plans, but...

it has been noted that Hillary would probably have longer coat-tails when it comes to down ticket races.

It is a key issue. One thing I have noticed, Bernie has at least resurrected Dean's 50 state strategy, at least verbally. He's mentioned in numerous times that I have heard. But yeah, he may not be able to fund-raise to help those down ticket.

[AikidoSoul]

7. What coat tails have the most value in this instance.

Why would Hillary's coat tails be more powerful? Is it because of the influence of the DNC itself?

In a transitional period, Bernie's coat tails are less valuable? Is that it?

[Wounded Bear]

10. Well, under traditional rules...

yes, Hillary provides more ooomph for down ticket races.

Because of gerrymandering and the low rate of actual contested races, the House is virtually safe for the bad guys. I'm not sure what a Sanders candidacy would do for those races. Presumably, he draws more voters out, especially young and first timers and that should help Dems in general. I don't see that he'll get more candidates to run for House seats if the DNC or DCCC aren't backing them.

[elleng]

9. Without something like Howard Dean's 50 state stragegy,

we're sunk, and dnc ptb disposed of that some time ago.