Clinton Support Drops - Sanders Supporters Surge

[Fanatical Meat]

It is almost like all the alarmists about Citizens United were wrong, as usual. The narrative that corporations and billionaires will buy a president isnt panning out like they predicted. Quite the opposite.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/citizens-united-2016-121739#.Vd3GKyVViko

Little too early to call this.

Serious question is what good could groups donating ten to hundreds of millions into elections possibly have?

 

[lotus503]

It is almost like all the alarmists about Citizens United were wrong, as usual. The narrative that corporations and billionaires will buy a president isnt panning out like they predicted. Quite the opposite.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/citizens-united-2016-121739#.Vd3GKyVViko

Money is speech and corporations are people.

You don't see anything wrong with that?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Money is speech and corporations are people.

You don't see anything wrong with that?

You and Kim Davis have something in common it seems.

 

[lotus503]

You and Kim Davis have something in common it seems.

We both obviously like to fuck too!

your point?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Hillary is fading fast. I don't get why progressives rallied behind her so much...must be their mortal fear of anyone who happens to have an (R) behind their name.

 

[nageov3t]

In a new poll in Iowa, Sanders is now tied with Clinton: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/qpoll-iowa-213462

Apparently the "socialist" boogeyman isn't as scary as it used to be, not even in Iowa.

Nate Silver predicted months ago that Sanders could easily win in Iowa and New Hampshire, but lose everywhere else... they're two very homogeneously white and liberal states, which is the bedrock of his support right now.

I'm not sure I'd call any single poll a ground-breaking revelation until he starts erasing Hillary's support among minorities.

 

[Genx87]

Money is speech and corporations are people.

You don't see anything wrong with that?

No. Especially when it comes to the alternatives. The govt funding campaigns or parties using behind the scenes connections to determine who we vote for our representation.

What is it that you don't like?

Anyways don't you find it interesting the party that is the most vocal against Citizens United also has the least variety of candidates? Almost like the game was rigged from the beginning by party bosses. I can see why they wouldn't want outside influences with their money helping to determine the candidates they have most to repay in political favors. Sanders is throwing the Democrat party upside down right now like Trump is for Republicans. What was expected to be a boring matchup between Clinton 2.0 and Bush 3.0 is looking a lot more exciting right now. I like it!

 

[Genx87]

Little too early to call this.

Serious question is what good could groups donating ten to hundreds of millions into elections possibly have?

How else do we field more candidates? Money as the article notes buys air time, allows travel, field support staff ect.

 

[lotus503]

No. Especially when it comes to the alternatives. The govt funding campaigns or parties using behind the scenes connections to determine who we vote for our representation.

What is it that you don't like?

Anyways don't you find it interesting the party that is the most vocal against Citizens United also has the least variety of candidates? Almost like the game was rigged from the beginning by party bosses. I can see why they wouldn't want outside influences with their money helping to determine the candidates they have most to repay in political favors. Sanders is throwing the Democrat party upside down right now like Trump is for Republicans. What was expected to be a boring matchup between Clinton 2.0 and Bush 3.0 is looking a lot more exciting right now. I like it!

What I do not like is the influence corporation and lobby have over our government and public policy.

There are numerous ways to conduct and election cycle absent this influence. Publicly funded campaigns have worked well on local levels, no reason it wouldn't work nationally.

 

[Genx87]

What I do not like is the influence corporation and lobby have over our government and public policy.

There are numerous ways to conduct and election cycle absent this influence. Publicly funded campaigns have worked well on local levels, no reason it wouldn't work nationally.

Except now you are allowing the govt to determine who runs for the president. We already know how that works when the govt gets to set standards on who is represented on the ballot. The entrenched parties make it nearly impossible. It means 3rd party candidates are not viable right now.

The money in politics isn't the issue imo. The issue is we continue to elect shit bags to office.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

How else do we field more candidates? Money as the article notes buys air time, allows travel, field support staff ect.

Getting more candidates is a good goal. Do you believe that a candidate that gets a 200 million PAC doesn't feel they owe the person setting up that PAC special treatment?

 

[Genx87]

Getting more candidates is a good goal. Do you believe that a candidate that gets a 200 million PAC doesn't feel they owe the person setting up that PAC special treatment?

For starters there is no 200 million super pac. The biggest has raised ~103 million and supports Bush 3.0. Money well spent!

Most super pacs sit under 10 million. Anyways to answer your question. That is hard to say. Each candidate is different. Some would certainly be corrupted enough to pay whoever organized it back. Some may have enough integrity to govern on their principles(Sanders). But the system is quite transparent on who runs what and which candidate a super pac supports.

Above all right now even with all these super pacs the establishment candidates are not fairing all that well.

 

[lotus503]

Except now you are allowing the govt to determine who runs for the president. We already know how that works when the govt gets to set standards on who is represented on the ballot. The entrenched parties make it nearly impossible. It means 3rd party candidates are not viable right now.

The money in politics isn't the issue imo. The issue is we continue to elect shit bags to office.

It could be structured in a manner that an independent non government body oversees the process.


I do agree if the electorate wasn't so stupid money wouldn't matter.

TV ads are bought for a reason they are effective and truth matters very little when stupid people are bombarded with bad information constantly.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Nate Silver predicted months ago that Sanders could easily win in Iowa and New Hampshire, but lose everywhere else... they're two very homogeneously white and liberal states, which is the bedrock of his support right now.

I'm not sure I'd call any single poll a ground-breaking revelation until he starts erasing Hillary's support among minorities.

Yep. Let's not forget that even Ron Paul almost won Iowa in 2012.

 

[ivwshane]

I wonder what's changed since the 70's?

++
When you strip away the political rhetoric and look at how the country has evolved over the last few decades, it becomes clear that changing the president and changing the political party that controls congress doesn't have much impact. Lets look at two significant issues.

Over time, for all major racial and ethnic groups, the number of people in the middle class is declining.

Over time, the wealth gap between whites, blacks, and Hispanics is growing.


My experience is that a Democratic Politician has much much more in common with a Republican Politician than I have in common with either. And the more time that they spend screwing with each other, the less time they have to screw with me.

Uno