HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Populist Reform of the Democratic Party (Group) » Hillary donors WILL suppo...

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:43 AM

Hillary donors WILL support any Democratic Presidential candidate

Is all hyperventilating about Hillary raising
the most campaign funds overblown?

If Hillary is NOT the candidate, who will
the big money donors support?

Will they go all in for the repubs?
Seems doubtful, otherwise why back Hillary to begin?
If those money interests prefer republicans,
their safest bet is with republicans, not Hillary.

Any serious look at funding a presidential run by
Warren or any other Democrat would see
those who would support Hillary will support
any other candidate the party puts forth.

Where else will they go?
Will they sit it out, or give to republicans?
Doubtful

42 replies, 3635 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary donors WILL support any Democratic Presidential candidate (Original post)
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 OP
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #1
aspirant Mar 2015 #3
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #7
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #18
aspirant Mar 2015 #23
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #29
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #5
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #9
delrem Mar 2015 #24
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #31
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #26
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #28
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #30
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #32
Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #33
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #34
KoKo Mar 2015 #2
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #6
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #4
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #8
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #10
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #11
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #13
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #21
delrem Mar 2015 #25
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #27
delrem Mar 2015 #35
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #36
delrem Mar 2015 #38
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #41
aspirant Mar 2015 #12
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #14
aspirant Mar 2015 #15
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #19
aspirant Mar 2015 #22
delrem Mar 2015 #39
aspirant Mar 2015 #40
whereisjustice Mar 2015 #16
aspirant Mar 2015 #17
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #20
dflprincess Mar 2015 #37
Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #42

Response to Cosmic Kitten (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 11:00 AM

1. It is delusional to think Wall Street is going to shovel money at anyone serious about reining in

the vulture class.

Multinationals hell bent on squeezing aren't going to fund anyone that would so much as act as a speed bump to their ambitions much less anyone earnestly pushing back.

The extraction industry won't lend a hand to an environmental minded candidate.

The military industrial complex is not going to fund a peace candidate.

Yes, Virginia major bundlers can and have fallen off or flipped before. Yes, Clinton's see Rothschild in 08.

No, you cannot support in any real way that individuals are all transferable either. Some folks are bigger draws than others and they are not always the same people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 11:20 AM

3. Then we can shift

the blame from the voters to the donors if we lose.

"The People" will start detecting the stench surrounding the Corporatists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aspirant (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:47 PM

7. Mmm Hmm

Interesting twist, eh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aspirant (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 20, 2015, 08:39 AM

18. Shifting the blame? They detect the stench now which is why some don't bother

and others just keep talking about a more stinky stink and that since it could smell worse then it doesn't smell so bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #18)

Fri Mar 20, 2015, 11:01 AM

23. If they

"just keep TALKING about a more stinky stink", how do they actually smell the stinky stink?

"could smell worse" How much more stinky stench will it take before lots of "others" decide not to bother?

If they participate in Grassroots movements they will then smell it and have to clean their shoes daily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aspirant (Reply #23)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:43 AM

29. Willful ignorance, greed, and cognitive dissonance...

are like air freshener to some

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:45 PM

5. Hmm, interesting perspective

So you think the MIC and Wall St will
either sit it out or support the republicans?

Either way they will get a republican president, no?

If we accept that would be the outcome,
a republican president,
why are they supporting Hillary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 10:36 AM

9. Surefire business as usual. A safer bet to keep the trains running on time BUT

a legitimate threat to even reel in the existing order is a horse of a different color.

Maybe the focuses of big fiscal players and of some politicians are not the same as yours and it is adding parallax to your picture make objects appear closer than they actually are.

Why wouldn't corporate interests and wealthy folk that can find common cause with a Turd Way type back a TeaPubliKlan if their money was on the line?

I'm not getting the gist of your question, what is the hard to get part? Follow the money and stop getting distracted by sentiment and unrelated matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 20, 2015, 11:12 PM

24. It's called covering your bets.

And with HRC their bets sure the hell are covered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #24)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:45 AM

31. Right. That's why they will support the dems

even if Hillary is not the nominee...
to hedge their bets.

And, I don't think most 1%ers
want a Teapublican president.
They want to loot the nation,
not burn it to the ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 20, 2015, 11:31 PM

26. Wall Street donated to the Warren Senate campaign, they would probably donate again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #26)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:41 AM

28. Exactly. That's why it's NOT Hillary or repubs win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #28)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:44 AM

30. What about other possible candidates who have received Wall Street funds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #30)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:48 AM

32. What about them?

Taking money is part of the reality
in campaigning for office.

That in and of itself is not the problem.
It's the fealty to large donors, the quid pro quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #32)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:51 AM

33. I got you, never thought it was the money, just wonder why some dwells on it so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #33)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 12:25 PM

34. Same reason they shriek SCOTUS!!!1!1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 11:15 AM

2. There is the possibility she could throw her support (and money)

behind a candidate of her choosing. That would still be a power trip if she decides not to run.

I wonder who she would choose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:47 PM

6. That is what SHOULD happen!

If she is a "good Democrat" she should
support whoever wins the nomination.

Unless you mean, if Hillery doesn't run
in the primaries? I'll assume she's in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Original post)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 12:06 PM

4. Which donors?

Small money type of donors, sure. The big money? They actually might sit it out or give to whichever Republican emerges waving the 'moderate' banner if an actual lefty were to come out of the Dem primary. They're not like the DU 'Party First' people. They're 'wealth first', 'party second' in a lot of ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:56 PM

8. Agreed. This could serve as a weeding out process?

If the Big Money sits out it would be
painfully obvious that the 3rd-Way
is not interested in the Democratic party
but only certain candidates.

If the Big Money backs a "moderate" republican,
again, we will see who and what those interests
are actually invested in. Maybe then the party
would cut ties with the "centrists", who would
also ironically be out of power.

If Hillery isn't the nominee the Big Money
"centrists" will be in a difficult position...
1) back republicans
2) sit it out and lose control
3) fund a less desirable Democratic candidate.

It's a lose-lose if Hillary is not their candidate.
If they don't pony up, they will be exposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 10:41 AM

10. None of that matters, how is it not abundantly clear what the score is?

What difference does "exposing" make?

Who do you think is running the party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:03 AM

11. For you and me it's abundantly clear.

Amongst family, friends,
and neighbors it is not as obvious.

We are in agreement.
It helps to make our case when
it's been "exposed" that our interests
are not being served, or worse, undermined.

I'm trying to make two points.

1) Big Money has a binary choice.
OR they can hedge their bets and give
to both parties, which they already do.

It's reasonable to consider that they won't go
full T-party and would still support Democrats
not named HRC

If that's true, then the argument that only
HRC can raise enough money to win is false.

2) The "centrists" and 3rd-Way democrats
who demand fealty to HRC because, democrat,
would be put to the test.

Going forward, the Democratic party needs to
put it's house in order and a reckoning of
our values is central to that process.

We will continue to lose elections as long
as there are interests embedded in the party
that undermine democratic values.

How do you think we should view Big Money?
Is it that they ONLY support HRC or repubs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 02:27 PM

13. I don't think it has to be Hillary Clinton, plenty of Democrats would be acceptable but the ones

worth a damn would see a lot of the money run the other way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #13)

Fri Mar 20, 2015, 08:49 AM

21. That's the question/point...

Would the money run the other way?

The downside of a Populist Democratic
president is a possible hit to profits and/or taxes.

A republican president would represent a radicalization
of policies, possibly leading to a contagion of war.

Of the two options, Big Money is better served
by the Populists. I think Big Money understands
that stable markets, and increasing productivity
if preferable to the inevitable carnage of a
republican dominated Govt..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #21)

Fri Mar 20, 2015, 11:14 PM

25. Big money includes heavy duty war profiteers.

They like HRC. HRC has proven that she delivers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:39 AM

27. At what cost to average Americans?

Are you suggesting Hillary
is a Faustian Bargain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #27)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 04:18 PM

35. I don't think the big money right-wing is all that interested in democracy.

Or has any respect for it.
I don't think the heart/driving-force of big money right-wing is composed of individuals, as in individual voters/actors. I think it's composed of extremely entrenched systems that include employees (in think tanks, the media, in law firms, banks, ...) as well as an ownership investor class. (I'm not denying the existence of horror-shows like the Koch bros.!)

The even mildly socialist-oriented left across the world has found that out the hard way as coup after coup follows mild democratic socialist interventions that run counter to their dictates. The US has been their base of operations, so the US hasn't been their main target except to an extraordinary degree a target for brainwashing the population. For most of my life the US has benefited from that system, it's only recently that the US has become part of their targeted prey.

Even today, the USA has declared Venezuela (a democracy, Bolivarian socialist) a national security threat, and that's the first step in ramping up economic warfare -> a coup. This is under a Dem administration, which has proven to be identical in this respect to Republican admins. Why? Because the Venezuelan people insist on re-electing Bolivarian socialists time after time. There was the coup in Honduras. A coup took out Iran's democracy, when Iran got uppity and retook ownership of their oil. Well, you know all this. I'm mentioning it because *elsewhere* than the USA seems to be fair pickings for democracies (and dicatatorships, monarchies,..., as well) that don't play the big money corporate/war-profiteering game. It's unsustainable, and it death-spirals inward.

At the moment the right wing big money corporate/war-profiteers have it cushy with HRC on one flank, the entire Republican party on the other. HRC isn't alone on their Dem side, not by any means. There are other third-way Dems, think tanks, PACs, institutes,... everything that money can buy. But if a fluke happened and that third-way bulwark is taken out by a progressive populist movement in primaries, I'm not sure I can predict what that big money war-profiteering power structure will do, but I wouldn't underestimate the horror that they're willing to inflict on the masses of people who get in their way. They have no respect for life, or for anything except their own profit. And they have more power and resources now than ever before.

I'm not totally pessimistic. But the US population isn't even close to being as experienced in the ways and means of the right-wing big money as, say, the population of Venezuela, Chile, and the other countries of SA, nor does the US population, in general or in the majority, seem prepared to listen and learn. Even on DU it's a very hard sell, to promote the leftward democratic swing of central/south american politics, and the pushback is unrelenting and is supported by top Dem leaders, to say nothing of Republicans.

I figure it'll be a long slog and I don't underestimate the inhumanity of big money corporate privateers war profiteers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #35)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 08:51 PM

36. WOW! Nail on the head!

That is one scary narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #36)

Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:31 AM

38. When I describe political reality as I see it, I can be harsh, all right.

Tonight's joy was being totally enthralled while reading an exchange of posts between bravenak and merrily.
Their discussion was about the worth of voting, comparing experiences.
Well, each person is one among billions and the worth of voting is hard to calculate.
But if it weren't for the existence of the vote, there wouldn't be conversations like that.
So just the fact of it is supremely important.

It's when they try to shut down the conversation that I get really irate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #38)

Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:02 PM

41. +1 we all need to keep talking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 01:40 PM

12. What is your solution

to cleanse the party of Corporatists?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aspirant (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 02:28 PM

14. To refuse to elect them, take "viability" off their ledger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #14)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 04:39 PM

15. If we don't elect them,

how do we make sure Grimes isn't challenging Rand Paul in 2016, with Ashley Judd sitting on the sidelines again?

Corporatism must become a nasty word, not a trickle down job creator. When you can make the Kochs and their allies RADIOACTIVE to candidates, we have a start. Do any corporatists try to keep their contributions secret?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aspirant (Reply #15)

Fri Mar 20, 2015, 08:42 AM

19. How does electing corporatist going to make sure they don't get nominated?

We can't be on the same topic here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #19)

Fri Mar 20, 2015, 10:37 AM

22. When Grimes lost

you didn't elect a corporatist, but when you elect a corporatist their is no need to fund that nominee.

See how that topic works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aspirant (Reply #22)

Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:46 AM

39. To interject, like TheKentuckian I don't get it either.

Are you saying that Mitch McConnell isn't a corporatist?
Are you saying that Mitch McConnell wasn't funded?
Or what?

If you're trying to say that it was a travesty that Alison Case Lundergan Grimes was put forward as the Democratic candidate vs the Republican candidate Addison Mitchell "Mitch" McConnell, Jr., you aren't saying that.
Are you trying to say that Alison Case Lundergan Grimes shouldn't be the (Democratic) Secretary of State of Kentucky?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delrem (Reply #39)

Sun Mar 22, 2015, 11:56 AM

40. This OP

is about the Dem party and funding DEM candidates as was my question to the Kentuckian. That's why I included Judd and Grimes together.

I'm saying Bill and Hill Clinton elbowed in with their corporate money to put Grimes in the drivers seat, has nothing to do with the Turtle.

Did Grimes run against Judd for SoS? We are trying to elect and fund more Populists and evolve away from the "Blue Dogs".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Original post)

Thu Mar 19, 2015, 10:54 PM

16. I agree, there needs to be balance, wall street is smart enough to hedge bets

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #16)

Fri Mar 20, 2015, 03:36 AM

17. Do they hedge their bets between

Populist and Corporatist candidates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whereisjustice (Reply #16)

Fri Mar 20, 2015, 08:43 AM

20. That's why the 3rd-Way exists, as a hedge.

However, if there is no viable 3rd-Way
candidate where will Wall St "invest"?

Would Wall St go "all in" with the Teapublicans?
If Big Money withholds from Democrats
they virtually guarantee a republican
dominated Govt..

I don't think Big Money wants a Teapublican Govt..
They will give to whoever is the Democratic nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmic Kitten (Reply #20)

Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:30 PM

37. There's no one more Third Way than Jebby

I'm sure Wall Street would just love him.

(Yes, I know Third Way generally refers to a sell out Democrat but really, Jeb is a much a Third Wayer as any of the Democrats who fit that mold.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:05 PM

42. Yep, that's triangulation.

He's a "moderate" republican.
She's a "centrist" democrat.

Vote "Clush" 2016...
Best of Both Worlds

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread