Hillary Has The Money – Bernie Has The Credibility – History Not On Hillary’s Side

[RiverLover]

Hillary Has The Money – Bernie Has The Credibility – History Not On Hillary’s Side
7/4/2015

Hillary Clinton will far outpace Bernie Sanders, and likely all Republican candidates, in money raised for her Presidential campaign. The question is whether money can buy an election.

You would think the answer would be a clear Yes. However, recent history tells us otherwise. In US politics money by itself has very little power to determine who winds up winning office. The first test of this came in 2012, which broke all previous records for campaign fundraising and spending. Of the $2 billion raised by both candidates, $1.31 billion came from Romney’s corporate and billionaire base. A whopping $406.8 million of the $609.4 million raised by Super PACs – over 66% – went to Romney. By way of comparison, President Obama raised a mere $690 million from his grassroots supporters over the World Wide Web.

We all know who won that election.

...What has become apparent since Citizens United is that money in fact cannot buy elections. It can buy influence over politicians once they are elected. But what we are finding out is that once a candidate has enough money to make his or her voice heard, more is not necessarily better. A 2011 study by Stephen Dubner and Steve Levitt of Freakonomics demonstrated that doubling the amount of money spent on a campaign results in no more than a 1% increase in votes for the candidate. Compared to the numerous other factors that can determine an election, this is proverbial peanuts.

Consider the effects of where the candidate stands on the issues. After eight years of George W. Bush and his Reign of Error, Obama’s message of “Hope and Change” resonated with the public – and continued to resonate four years later. There wasn’t much that McCain’s or Romney’s money could do to change that.

Today, Hillary Clinton could be about to learn the same lesson.

Only a few weeks ago, virtually everyone said that Bernie Sanders – a self-professed socialist – could not possibly win the White House. At best, we thought that he would influence the debate. Today, poll numbers are showing that Sanders is closing in on Clinton fast. Despite every attempt by mainstream corporate media to marginalize him, Sanders is attracting record crowds wherever he speaks. Only yesterday, Bernie Sanders was endorsed by no less than Larry Cohen, the most powerful and influential labor leader in the country. He now has the backing of veterans as well. Progressive Senate colleague Elizabeth Warren is on the verge of joining the Sanders campaign....

https://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/07/hillary-has-the-money-bernie-has-the-credibility-history-not-on-hillarys-side/

...These huge crowds not only show an enormous grassroots support, they keep Bernie in the news. And his message and authenticity resonates. This is PRICELESS!! No Goldman Sach$ required.

Go Bernie! President Sanders!!

[daleanime]

1. K&R.....

[onehandle]

2. 43+ point lead. Obama at this same time was only 10 points behind.

He barely caught up.

Reality is on President Hillary Clinton's side.

[zeemike]

13. You confuse reality with certainty.

Reality is what happens in real time.
And you declaring the winner before the race has even begun is not reality.
The fable of the tortoise and the hair comes to mind.

[pocoloco]

25. The Reality is that if Hillary really cared about America's future,

she would be supporting Bernie!!

[frylock]

64. make that your mantra..

Reality is on President Hillary Clinton's side.
Reality is on President Hillary Clinton's side.
Reality is on President Hillary Clinton's side.
Reality is on President Hillary Clinton's side.
Reality is on President Hillary Clinton's side.
Reality is on President Hillary Clinton's side....

[George II]

73. My guess is that Sanders may win in New Hampshire, and that's all. He'll be out of the race....

....before March.

[99Forever]

3. We the People WILL do this.

[PoliticAverse]

4. Obama actually raised more money than McCain. n/t

[RiverLover]

6. That's true, the author should have just stuck with the Romney example.

Which proves that its the message, not the money, that elects presidents.

[NewJeffCT]

44. However, without his money, Romney

never would have gotten the nomination in the first place. He wasn't all that popular with the Republican "red meat" base, which is why he had a new challenger from even further right just about every month - Trump, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and maybe one or two others I'm forgetting were in dead heats, or ahead, of Romney early in the process. However, with his extra money, Romney was able to tar & feather his opponents and eventually emerge the victor. Then, he did his etch-a-sketch in the first debate...

(Newt was kept in the race by Adelson's money as well, but had too much baggage to overcome.)

[cascadiance]

78. And Bernie actually has raised more money at this part of the campaign than Obama too!

Watch this video and go to the 3 minute mark to see the history of how "underdogs" did in primaries for the Democratic Party when they seemed to start "way behind"...

Now the question is will Bernie actually later get as much money that Obama did later in his campaign. And a separate question is whether he SHOULD get as much money as Obama did too.

I think the big question isn't whether Bernie gets more money than Obama did then or Hillary is raising now. It is whether he raises ENOUGH money when focusing on grass roots contributions and not big money contributors... I would argue that though we have huge amounts of money being spent in elections now with Citizen's United and other recent Supreme Court decisions helping the rich folk out in buying off politicians, that if there's enough money in his campaign where he can spend it judiciously on alternative and social media visibility, where I think he'll have a better strength in these areas, that can have less money spent actually still win when a public is pretty PO'd at what they're getting from candidates that ask them for votes who are having heavy amounts of Wall Street and other corporate money spent on them.

The average American, Republican, independent or Democrat, I believe WANTS to find a way to buck this money system, and have the little guy win for once in it. If it can be done once, that will be a way send a signal that we can do it and we CAN take back this system from the oligarchs that appear to control it now.

I think the rest of us that support him need to get that temperature reading as to how we can support him enough financially AND help participate in getting him more visiblity on the ground with our friends through social media contact, handing out DVDs of alternative media information on Bernie (there's a LOT of it with him on Thom Hartmann's show weekly), and other means to help build how all of our neighbors can know more about him in a constructive way. We may need to still send him a lot of money, to help the national campaign coordinate such activities that we might do on our own, but I would contend that he doesn't necessarily need to get the same big dollars that Hillary gets from corporate contributors to win the nomination, despite the constant pounding by the corporate controlled money that "he has no chance!" that they try heavily to influence in their BIASED way to help keep their media company's position of power and money advantages.

[Demeter]

5. The Elite are in for MORE Mitt Romeny Moments

when their mountains of cash fail to move the public Mohammed....

Until the Obscenely Wealthy get taxed into line or jailed for the financial crimes they commit. Or hung from lampposts, it's all the same to the 99%

[LordGlenconner]

84. Will you be doing the hanging?

Lot's of tough talk about the 1 percent around here. I presume you're willing to go out and do some of the dirty work, too, eh?

[Darb]

7. What are Jeb's chances?

Quit dividing the good guys.

[RiverLover]

10. Jeb's chances aren't good against any Democrat.

Might as well get one who actually represents & Stands Up for People & Planet over Profit$ & the 1%.

But you're right Hillary should just take her hawkish, neoliberal ways out of the competition, its dividing the party.

[PoliticAverse]

11. Although I would like to believe Jeb's chances are bad, it really is much too early to say that. n/t

[zeemike]

15. It is rare when I disagree with you

But I think Jes's chances are best against Clinton.
For one it negates the dynasty problem.
And because it will cause many to stay home because of the dynasty thing gives credence to the idea the game is rigged.
And because of what Truman said....when offered a choice between two conservatives they will pick the real one every time.

[RiverLover]

20. Those are some good points. Very good. /nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Your assertion is belied by the data:

Your assertion is belied by the data:


http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-bush-vs-clinton


This is the point where my interlocutor instructs me to ignore polling, political science, history, and odds and rely on his or her opinion.

[zeemike]

63. Well interesting but nothing definitive.

But that chart shows Clinton falling and Bush rising with only 8 points different...and we are far from the GE.

[brooklynite]

56. Yeah! Why can't the majority of Democrats who support Clinton unify the Party...

...by supporting the guy that 15% like?

[Divernan]

8. In Pittsburgh, party hacks outspent opponent 10x in primary; LOST BIG TIME!

BACK STORY: Pittsburgh/Allegheny County has a Dem. county executive/old time machine Dem, who was really pissed at several Dem. incumbent office holders who had clashed with him. Although he himself was unopposed in the primary, he raised money to fund primary opponents for the five Dems who'd opposed his policies. His main target was the County controller whose audit had caught him out using county vehicles for private purposes - he had to pay some $10,000 back to the county and was publicly humiliated. He also funded a challenger to the City of Pittsburgh's controller and 3 members of the county council.

Mr. Fitzgerald is backing candidates seeking to replace three county council Democrats who have clashed with him: Barbara Daly Danko of Regent Square, Amanda Green Hawkins (who is stepping down) of Stanton Heights, and Bill Robinson of the Hill District.

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-local/2015/03/02/Allegheny-County-Executive-Rich-Fitzgerald-works-to-defeat-other-Democrats-who-oppose-his-policies/stories/201503020027

The dying city/county party machine outspent their targets by TEN TO ONE, and that's a conservative estimate. They flooded the airwaves and the web with political ads. I could not turn on my computer for months before the election with out seeing some smarmy, packed-with-lies and half truth ads. AND THE MACHINE CANDIDATES LOST! Every single one! The head cheese, i.e, Fitzgerald, only won because he was unopposed. But, all in all, the vote was a CRUSHING DEFEAT for the party machine/pro-fracking Fitzgerald.

Even Fitzgerald's unopposed victory to a second term as county executive came with mixed results. Fitzgerald received 68,882 votes, about 60 percent of total Democrat votes cast, but far fewer than other countywide officials who ran unopposed. County Treasurer John Weinstein and District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. each received about 91,000 votes.

Voters cast about 1,800 write-in votes in the county executive race. Joni Rabinowitz, a frequent Fitzgerald critic and a poll worker at the Environmental Charter School in Point Breeze, said write-ins included “No Fracking,” “No Bully,” and “Anyone But.”

“It shows that he was trying to exert power, a certain power and control, that the voters didn't appreciate,” Rabinowitz said of Fitzgerald.

Read more: http://triblive.com/politics/politicalheadlines/8391880-74/fitzgerald-county-peduto#ixzz3f6zjaOKy

[RiverLover]

12. Love this^^^

Thank you!! So good to know, so encouraging! People are waking up.

(The write-ins are awesome!!)

[onehandle]

18. Meanwhile Hillary, who won PA in 2008, is 45 points ahead. nt

[Divernan]

30. Misty, water-colored memories. Winds of change have swept PA!

Last edited Mon Jul 6, 2015, 10:02 AM - Edit history (1)

2008 was a long time ago, babe and our old machine party apparatus has been dying a slow death ever since. Our fantastic new Dem. governor Tom Wolf told the Dem party establishment to stuff it and ran his own campaign without their input.

Tom Wolf will be Pennsylvania's next governor. The York County Democrat, a first-time candidate for elected office, made history by becoming the first challenger to unseat a sitting governor in four decades. - See more at: http://readingeagle.com/news/article/tom-wolf-wins-race-for-pennsylvania-governor#sthash.OXimgm8C.dpuf
And he pulled off an historic victory, i.e, the first time an incumbent governor (GOP Corbett) in Pennsylvania was not re-elected!

[onehandle]

33. A dead horse could have beaten Corbett.

Which is why our gubernatorial primary was so contentious. The winner was going to be Governor.

[Divernan]

42. He beat old-style Dems in the primary;Clinton in-law lost big time.

And don't forget, in 2014, Hillary and Bill backed their in-law, Marjorie Margolies in that primary and she lost VERY badly, with only 27% of the vote.

Pennsylvania primary election: Clinton in-law loses House primary

State Rep. Brendan Boyle easily won the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania’s 13th District on Tuesday, handily defeating Chelsea Clinton’s in-law and former Rep. Marjorie Margolies, despite the help she received from the Clintons. With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Boyle was far in the lead with 41 percent; Margolies had 27 percent, state Sen. Daylin Leach had 17 percent and physician Val Arkoosh had 15 percent.


Margolies, initially seen as the front-runner, has run what many in the state considered a lackluster campaign. Despite her ties to the Clintons and the fact that she is perceived as having lost her seat in support of Bill Clinton’s budget in 1994, the former first couple did relatively little for her in her campaign.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton hosted fundraisers, and he appeared in her final ad of the primary, in which he exhorted supporters: “She’ll make you proud, she’ll vote right.” But their support paled in comparison to the marathon of activity the two put into helping their friend Terry McAuliffe become governor in Virginia. They held a dozen events and fundraisers combined for the now-governor. At a fundraiser hosted by Lynn de Forester Rothschild last week for Margolies, Hillary Clinton joked about them sharing a grandchild in the future, one attendee said. But Margolies wasn’t at the event — she cited a need to be in her would-be district — and it felt mostly like a kickoff for Clinton’s own political future, the attendee said.

The relationship between Margolies and the Clintons has never been particularly close. Still, [b]it’s the first real political negative for the Clintons since Hillary Clinton left the State Department. Clinton allies are aware the defeat will be read as a black mark on their political brand: The former first couple did just enough toward the end so they couldn’t be accused of deserting her completely.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/marjorie-margolies-brendan-boyle-pennsylvania-election-2014-106922.html#ixzz3f7RO5g4d

[George II]

71. Your article said that Margolies ran a lackluster campaign....

My "objective" (i.e., NOT knee-jerk anti-Clinton) guess is that is what defeated her, not anything big that Wolf's campaign did.

It's like when Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley - it wasn't Brown's appeal that won, it was Coakley's "lackluster" campaign that beat her.

[winter is coming]

9. "Warren is on the verge of joining the Sanders campaign" is wishful thinking.

Yeah, she's said some positive things about Bernie, but it's an overreach to say she's on the verge of joining the campaign. Let's wait until she actually makes an unequivocal endorsement before claiming she's joined the campaign.

[PoliticAverse]

16. Indeed. Several people have posted in the past that Warren had endorsed Hillary for President.

Last edited Mon Jul 6, 2015, 09:35 AM - Edit history (1)

They seemed so sure too.

[onehandle]

36. Dunno who that was. Warren did sign a letter urging Hillary to run.

And she has met with her several times since then.

My guess is that they were comparing bowling scores.

[George II]

72. She hasn't formally endorsed Clinton, but she's said everything she could just short of it.

[marym625]

14. Bernie Sanders will win

We can compare numbers from previous elections till the cows come home. It won't matter because the situations are very different. We knew Barack Obama was going to run for president back in 2005. He had been campaigning throughout most of his time in the Senate. We didn't know that Senator Sanders would run until he announced in May of this year.

We have never been in a situation where there has been such a wide gap between the top earners in this country and everyone else. We have never had so many people working at such low wages at the same time as so few secure jobs. The war on women, the war on minorities, the privatization of just about everything, government spying, trade deals for the corporations, RFRAs, etc, etc, etc. People are fed up.

Senator Sanders has the record to back up his word. Unwavering, consistent, constant and real. Money can't buy that.

People are listening and happy with what they hear and that he stays true to his word about Wall Street donations. Money can't buy that.

[PoliticAverse]

17. Well first he has to win the Democratic Primary, against better known, better financed opponent(s))

who can do some good populist rhetoric also.

Case in point: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-four-fights/economy-of-tomorrow/

[RiverLover]

19. Yes, but with Bernie it isn't just empty rhetoric designed to win votes. Its his truth.

Again, priceless. And self-evident to those paying attention.

[marym625]

22. Great minds and all

[LWolf]

83. The difference between

authenticity and triangulation...

[marym625]

21. Yes, the rhetoric forced upon her

To combat the reality that is Senator Sanders is very nice and pretty. Too bad she doesn't have the record to back it up

[RiverLover]

24. LOL. Like minds

Great minds

[marym625]

26. I prefer great

But like works

[Admiral Loinpresser]

45. This rhetoric

sounds as tired as Bulworth's was BEFORE he started telling the truth.

[George II]

23. More talk of "huge crowds"....he's a novelty that people want to see, not necessarily vote for.

[marym625]

27. Yeah, people often drive hundreds of miles,

Stand in line for hours, stay outside in the pouring rain and/or sweltering heat, to get a glimpse of a novelty they have no intention of voting for. Happens all the time.

[George II]

34. Not many did all that.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

35. 2 words: Ron Paul.

He drew HUGE crowds from all over, and facebook, twitter, AND reddit posters had a LARGE dedication to him. Millennials and stoners alike.

[RiverLover]

38. I have read that's the official Clinton response.(They also like to use Nadar as a spoiler example.)

So great to see it play out in real time on DU. Really interesting stuff.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

41. I don't know anything about "official Clinton response"

I don't think Bernie will be a spoiler, and I don't compare him to Ron Paul as far as his message and policies go. But the way that he's taken over social media is JUST like Ron Paul. It's not indicative to actual popularity or who will vote for him.

I like Bernie Sanders. I also like Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley. You will not find me bashing one of our Democratic candidates (aside from Lincoln "privatize social security" Chaffee). But facts are facts and reality is reality.

But if something a poster says doesn't fit your bias, remember, they MUST be a shill for <insert boogie man here>.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

47. Every time a primary candidate

promotes fracking, I will bash her,

promotes "free" trade, I will bash her,

promotes Tar Sands, I will bash her,

promotes inaction on climate change, I will bash her,

promotes the death of my grandchildren by crazy anti-environmental policies, I will bash her.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

49. Cool story!

I try to take the high road.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

57. I am trying to point out facts

very probably directly relevant to our descendants chances for survival. That is my road.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

60. Well, your facts were incorrect.

Hillary's record on environmental causes are different than what you say. She does support fracking (which, BTW, falls under the same banner of tar sands), however. And she also supports SOME free-trade deals and doesn't others. Keeping in mind that fracking and trade deals are NOT partisan issues. There are those on BOTH sides of the aisle that both support and oppose those things.

Also, I know that a President has very little power when it comes down to it. Their biggest legacies are their SCOTUS appointments. You want real change? Work on Congress (which, btw, is under Republican control right now). Without a liberal Congress, no President will get much done.

[questionseverything]

81. hillary's support of fracking is one of the things my

friends hate about her maybe even more than her love of goldman sax

i was pretty surprised to see a poll posted that said 29% of dems would never support hillary


http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2015/150629/

less than 800 voters were polled, i can not find anything on their dem/repub breakdown but of the dems polled 29% that would never support hillary is huge

i am not a hillary supporter but i was shocked to see that many dems would NEVER support her

i honestly do not believe she can win the general

[George II]

50. Very well put...

....it seems around here some are trying to harangue members into supporting Sanders, to the point of exaggerating things or simply making stuff up (including negative stuff about Clinton)

[frylock]

66. ...or posting loyalty oaths.

[George II]

46. Where have you "read that"?

[RiverLover]

52. ...

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/02/the_bernie_sanders_smear_campaign_has_begun_how_his_opponents_will_try_to_take_him_down/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/04/bernie_sanders_pulls_closer_to_hillary_in_polls_spends_long_weekend_in_iowa.html

[George II]

58. Neither of those articles mentions Nader, and only the second one mentions Ron Paul, almost...

...in passing.

Funny how McCaskill gives a single interview more than a week ago and all of a sudden a few of her comments become Clinton's strategy for the next 12+ months.

[RiverLover]

61. You need to read better.

Both mention Paul. And its clear that is a strategy. It will fail, of course, just like the Nader meme. Look up the plethora of articles on Nader references & Clinton yourself. I'm working now, or I'd waste more time on it for you.

[George II]

62. True, I didn't read the article (not interested, to be honest), I used "FIND" in Chrome.....

....and got zero hits in the Slate article for Paul, but.....reran it and got five hits. But the references to Paul are the same quotes in both, so it's essentially one incident.

Neither mention Nader.

I'm sure if one scours the internet one will find comments one wants to find here and there, but they're not pervasive and certainly not indicative of an overall strategy.

[frylock]

65. Ron Paul's largest crowd was 8500 at UCLA..

the crowd in Madison was just the beginning.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

68. He still DOMINATED social media a few years ago. n/t

[Divernan]

31. You so funny!

[L0oniX]

43. ~

[Bonobo]

28. That's one thing you can't buy. Trustability.

Oh, and conviction. Sorry, that's two.

Oh wait, I forgot sincerity. Damn, that's three.

There's THREE things you can't buy.

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. I disagree with the premise that Clinton does not have credibiity.

I understand this is just an opinion piece. And I disagree with the opinion. Clinton's experience, expertise, values, and goals gives her significant credibility.

[onehandle]

32. Exactly. Its a 'Not Hillary' piece. Nothing more. nt

[redstateblues]

37. It's as if repeating "Bernie Will Win" over and over

Will make it so. The overconfidence based solely on opinion is wearying.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Well

My hero, the gentleman in my avatar, did just that, against sometimes insurmountable odds, and usually came out on top. The difference was that it was his ass on the line and he was the one in control.

[davidpdx]

53. I'd say from history overconfidence is a problem in the Clinton camp

Need I remind you of this charming commercial:

[frylock]

67. based solely on opinion, as well as enthusiastic crowds at campaign events..

and significant support on social media. but yeah, other than that....

[Thinkingabout]

55. Hillary is very creditible, in fact the same positions Bernie is taking are the same as Hillary.

Wage disparity is important to getting working Americans back into the plus column. Increasing wages will increase market demand and will create more supply. These issues is in the DNC platform, nothing new here, it has been a DNC platform for years.

I would like to see more positive statements on DNC candidates, let the GOP do the chattering. The talking points here appears to be RW fueled and the falsehoods included in the talking points is not good for any of the DNC candidates.

[olegramps]

59. When Hilary ran for the nomination last time and lost to Obama....

My wife and I attended our local caucus to chose the representative to the state convention. We considered both candidates to be excellent representatives. We voted for Obama because of his promise for change, but still held Hilary in high regard. I feel the same way about the slate of the present candidates. Everyone of the Democratic candidates is a stark contrast to the Republicans.

I am not in the least pleased by some of the baseless attacks that are being launched on this board. If you support a candidate then address their positive aspects. Don't rely on gaining support by demeaning other loyal Democrats because of the positions, often exaggerated and at times misrepresented to advance, your choice. The only purpose that serves is alienate not unite the party.

The enthusiasm for Bernie is wonderful in that he is attacking some of the root causes of the decimation of the Middle Class. But, will he be able to attract enough national attention to win the nomination let alone a general election? Just who is he attracting to his rallies? Does it represent the rank and file Democrat of is his appeal resonating with the most progressive element of the party?

[jeff47]

70. Then why does she poll so poorly on trust? (nt)

[Evergreen Emerald]

82. because she has been attacked endlessly for a decade by RW

to the point where it has become "truth." I guess I thought those on DU would be smart enough not to fall for it.

[HassleCat]

48. Not just money

Clinton has a couple other things going for her. "Name recognition" hardly begins to describe how well known she is. She has a nice re'sume' with that Secretary of State thing. Her husband can, and probably will, do more than stand on the same stage and gaze at her adoringly. She lives in a populous state. Her staff is large and experienced. The mainstream Democratic Party is behind her. The media have declared her the presumptive nominee, and often refer to Sanders as a fringe candidate. Black voters feel very loyal to her. That's just off the top of my head.

What Sanders needs is an interest in progressive ideas. That's a tough one because many people, egged on by the idiot media, think progressives are ultra-liberals, or communists, or something. When I talk to people about Sanders, they seem interested, and agree with his progressive stand on the issues, but I don't know if they'll vote for him. It's a weird thing, but voters will often disregard their own interests and choose somebody based on "likeability" or some other odd characteristic. If you try to argue with them, they just close down and give you that old, "I just know what I know!" response. Clinton, of course, is not highly "likeable," so we may end up with Jeb, another good old boy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Nixon wasn't especially likeable and he owns the largest pop vote/Electoral College landslide in...

Nixon wasn't especially likeable and he owns the largest pop vote/Electoral College landslide in history...

Oh, I am no more saying HRC is just like RMN than I would be saying Curtis LeMay was just like Colin Powell because they were both generals... I will say both are mind numbingly persistent and have rhinoceros skin.

And the polls indicate she is thumping Bush lll:


http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-bush-vs-clinton


I will say that Bush lll will have a war chest never seen before in presidential politics and that gives me pause, but only a little pause, because Madame Secretary will have a big war chest too...

[HassleCat]

54. Sorry

I typed "progressive." I swear I did. But the spell checker changed it to "regressive." Hey, you Clinton supporters! Your fingerprints are all over this! C'mon! Don't deny it!

[sabrina 1]

69. Never say never! But they do underestimate the anger of the American people, Bernie did not

because he was angry on behalf of the people, himself.

Let them keep on doing so. While they're practicing the politics of deception, Bernie is telling the truth and the truth will win in the end.

[Nay]

74. I also think that mainstream everybody is really underestimating the anger out here. I may

be wrong, but a lot of people are truly pissed. My 30-yr-old son has already sent money to Bernie and all his friends are with him. I hope we are right, Sabrina, but it's such a crapshoot.

[sabrina 1]

75. I think we are right. I think the reason for Bernie's growing support is

that people are getting to know about him. When they hear what he is saying, they feel he is speaking for them, then they look at his record and they know this isn't just campaign rhetoric.

So getting his name to be a household name, is the main problem and so far, the effort to do that is working, but there are still millions of people who have no idea who he is yet.

Your son and his friends are helping by telling other people about him. That is how the word is spreading. He is very appealing to young people because they know how bad things are as they are experiencing it. College loans now are like taking out a mortgage, and that is just wrong.

Good for your son and his friends. I think there is enough energy to get Bernie elected.

[PoliticAverse]

79. But can he harness that anger and prevent other Democratic primary opponents

from harnessing it instead.

[Nay]

80. They won't be able to harness that anger because no other opponent has Bernie's

unique dem socialist method of telling the absolute truth, no matter what the consequences to himself. And he has 50 years of personal history of walking that walk every day. No other candidate can fake that, manufacture that, copy that, pretend that.

Once Bernie is heard by millions, fakers and copiers will seem like pale cardboard cutouts instead of honest candidates.

[elleng]

76. and Martin O'Malley has the experience.

For example:

1. Ended death penalty in Maryland
2. Prevented fracking in Maryland and put regulations in the way to prevent next GOP Gov Hogan fom easily allowing fracking.
3. Provided health insurance for 380,000
4. Reduced infant mortality to an all time low.
5. Provided meals to thousands of hungry children and moved toward a goal for eradicating childhood hunger.
6. Enacted a $10.10 living wage and a $11. minimum wage for State workers.
7. Supporter the Dream Act
8. Cut income taxes for 86% of Marylanders (raised taxes on the rich).
9. Reformed Maryland’s tax code to make it more progressive.
10. Enacted some of the nation’s most comprehensive reforms to protect homeowners from foreclosure.

Mother Jones magazine called him the best candidate on environmental issues.
Article here:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/martin-omalley-longshot-presidential-candidate-and-real-climate-hawk

[Faux pas]

77. Kicketty Kickin'