2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries

[Art Vandelay]

The really big test for Bernie's supporters is whether they can stay active and make some inroads in the congressional elections in 2 years time.

Ha. Good joke.

[davedan]

It's the only way to ensure they are not simply a flash in the pan. Although I agree with your pessimism that this is anything more than a fad.

[The_Queen]

It's the only way to ensure they are not simply a flash in the pan. Although I agree with your pessimism that this is anything more than a fad.

I'd agree with both of you. And, I do not say this sarcastically, but the only way to ensure that Bernie actually implements a "political revolution" is to see that more liberal and progressive politicians get elected in 2016, 2018, and 2020. Otherwise, Bernie's "political revolution" simply boils down to a cult of personality--thereby defeating his overall message.

[dpareja]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670

Remember the Hillary Victory Fund?

In the days before Hillary Clinton launched an unprecedented big-money fundraising vehicle with state parties last summer, she vowed “to rebuild our party from the ground up,” proclaiming “when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen."

But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.

The venture, the Hillary Victory Fund, is a so-called joint fundraising committee comprised of Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. The setup allows Clinton to solicit checks of $350,000 or more from her super-rich supporters at extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John.

The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.

By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC, which will work closely with Clinton’s campaign if and when she becomes the party’s nominee. And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton’s campaign, including $2.8 million for “salary and overhead” and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion.

So actually, this fund isn't doing a great deal to help down-ticket Democratic candidates.

[davedan]

Has Sanders ever helped downticket Democrats?

[dpareja]

Has Sanders ever helped downticket Democrats?

Later in the article:

Sanders' campaign late last year signed a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC, but the committee has been largely inactive. Instead, after Sanders was chided by Clinton allies for not helping down-ballot Democrats, he sent out appeals to his vaunted email list that helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a trio of progressive House candidates, who got to keep all the cash.

[The_Queen]

Has Sanders ever helped downticket Democrats?

He's supported only three--who happened to endorse him. Which, contrary to the article cited by Dpareja, actually is unprecedented. Never has a politician run supporting--only--those lower tickets that endorsed him (him because ever president ever was male).

But going to dpareja, nobody for a minute ever denied that the bulk of the cash for the HVF goes to Hillary... with second dibs on the remaining money going to the DNC* and third dibs to state parties. In fact, snopes reported as much--it's how the donations are set up and operated. But, "less than 1%" of "61 million" still comes out to $610,000 for the down ticket ballots (give or take), which is more than would otherwise be raised.

*Most of this money to the DNC would then be redistributed to the most competitive state competitions. But just ignore that fact because it's inconvenient.

[rookie]

Has Sanders ever helped downticket Democrats?

Why would he? Before 2015 he was never a Democrat. I remember seeing him on CSPAN and in parentheses was always Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

[The_Queen]

Has Sanders ever helped downticket Democrats?

Why would he? Before 2015 he was never a Democrat. I remember seeing him on CSPAN and in parentheses was always Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Also, before 2015, he had very little national name recognition. He was very popular in Vermont, but Vermont only has 1 representative and 2 senators (of which he was one or the other for that last 30 years), and most of the time, those seats were filled by large incumbents. So, not only couldn't he have helped lower-ticket democrats, but there wasn't a need for those tickets that he could influence.

[ironbite]

I'll admit that Hillary might be a bad choice for President but I'll be damned if Trump gets the White House.

Ironbite-I'm all for Sanders but there's a point where you have to just hold your nose.

[dpareja]

I'll admit that Hillary might be a bad choice for President but I'll be damned if Trump gets the White House.

Ironbite-I'm all for Sanders but there's a point where you have to just hold your nose.

What will be really interesting will be to see if a progressive manages to marshal the movement Sanders did this year and successfully knock out Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2020. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing; it could get those progressives out to the polls in the general, flip state legislatures and redraw electoral maps to favor the Democratic Party.

[Eiki-mun]

I'll admit that Hillary might be a bad choice for President but I'll be damned if Trump gets the White House.

Ironbite-I'm all for Sanders but there's a point where you have to just hold your nose.

What will be really interesting will be to see if a progressive manages to marshal the movement Sanders did this year and successfully knock out Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2020. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing; it could get those progressives out to the polls in the general, flip state legislatures and redraw electoral maps to favor the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, a Democratic resurgence in the House in 2020 is more likely if TRUMP wins than if Hillary does.

[dpareja]

I'll admit that Hillary might be a bad choice for President but I'll be damned if Trump gets the White House.

Ironbite-I'm all for Sanders but there's a point where you have to just hold your nose.

What will be really interesting will be to see if a progressive manages to marshal the movement Sanders did this year and successfully knock out Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2020. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing; it could get those progressives out to the polls in the general, flip state legislatures and redraw electoral maps to favor the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, a Democratic resurgence in the House in 2020 is more likely if TRUMP wins than if Hillary does.

The House isn't quite so important in 2020 (or, it's still important, but not as important in comparison). State legislatures are the key that year, since it's a census year and the legislatures elected in that year will decide the electoral maps for both state legislatures and the House of Representatives for the next decade. A surging progressive movement, strong enough to knock off Clinton in the Democratic primaries and carry that through into a huge Democratic turnout in the general, could break the assumptions of the 2010 gerrymanders and allow electoral maps to be redrawn to favor the Democratic Party. The real trick would be to keep it going until 2022, which would be the first election with the new maps.

[rookie]

I admire your optimism, guys. I do. I wish I could believe the progressive momentum would carry over into state legislature to fix what was done in 2010.

[Askold]

I'll admit that Hillary might be a bad choice for President but I'll be damned if Trump gets the White House.

Ironbite-I'm all for Sanders but there's a point where you have to just hold your nose.

What will be really interesting will be to see if a progressive manages to marshal the movement Sanders did this year and successfully knock out Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2020. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing; it could get those progressives out to the polls in the general, flip state legislatures and redraw electoral maps to favor the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, a Democratic resurgence in the House in 2020 is more likely if TRUMP wins than if Hillary does.

Everyone in the USA doing a Mad Max LARP is more likely in 2020 if Trump has won than if Hillary does. Besides, isn't it possible that Hillary and the other Dems do so good job that people join the Democrats when they see how well things work when they are in charge?