GatewayRedbirds.com

Michael wrote:

Schlich wrote:He has emphatically said that it is of the utmost importance that a Reublican does not win the white house, and he will do everything in his power to make sure of it. There's no reason not to believe him when he says that, and he's got the endorsement track record to prove it. But I'm not going to be surprised when an endorsement doesn't come her way. She doesn't need it.

I suspect we'll get a frosty Ted Kennedy 1980 convention type of speech. My earlier "taking the ball" comments were hyperbolic. That said, I'm really shocked by his qualified comments, so at this point nothing will surprise me.

Schlich wrote:I'll repeat: The Hillary Victory fund is sketchy a.f. and I honestly think it's meaningless regardless.

She's also fundraising directly for the DNC and state parties:

Hillary Clinton raised about $29.5 million for her primary campaign during March. That amount brings the first quarter total to nearly $75 million raised for the primary, beating the campaign’s goal of $50 million by about 50 percent. [Hillary For America] begins April with nearly $29 million on hand.

Clinton raised an additional $6.1 million for the DNC and state parties during the month of March, bringing the total for the quarter to about $15 million.

Link


Bernie: zilch

edit -

I should also add Hillary has a long history of doing this. From HillPac in 06:

Two congressmen trying to make it to the Senate also got boosts from Clinton. Rep. Bernie Sanders, who is running for the seat held by retiring Vermont lawmaker Jim Jeffords, received $10,000, as did Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee, who is campaigning for the seat being vacated by Majority Leader Bill Frist. Newly minted Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey also got $10,000.

Link

Right, the companies buy Hillary, and she buys every little peon she'll need.

Freed Roger wrote:

pioneer98 wrote: Regarding the state level, I agree it seems like Democrats don't even care much about it. The state level also is where I can provide many examples where money did in fact sway legislation directly. This is why it's hard to believe people running for national office aren't affected the same way. Why would these people spend all these billions if they got nothing out of it? Just to be cool I guess?

In Iowa, our legislature just passed a law that lets people carry loaded guns on snowmobiles and ATV's. This is a follow up to the law that lets kids shoot guns. .

I guess I shouldn't blame the DNC for the entirety of their weak concern for state level stupidity as in your 2d paragraph (they are on [expletive] you vendetta-IMO.) People are stupid and can hardly be helped. Thus, states are easy pickens for wealthy people and special interests to own (they can decide whichever party to be the conduit-currently it is the GOP-obviously because of their phony pro-business, pro-family values nonsense).

Wisconsin is perfect example of this. They go blue in national elections, but red at the state level. when it's national level, people like a more friendly front, but on the state level -with less people paying attention to it -it's all whips and chains conservatism.

this is off topic i suppose but its strange to me, living in kansas, that during the bush years we had a twice elected democratic governor (moderate, sure). and she was pretty good too. and now we under the tyrannical grip of brownback and koch industries. i just...DON'T MOVE TO KANSAS PEOPLE.

Jocephus wrote:

Freed Roger wrote:

pioneer98 wrote: Regarding the state level, I agree it seems like Democrats don't even care much about it. The state level also is where I can provide many examples where money did in fact sway legislation directly. This is why it's hard to believe people running for national office aren't affected the same way. Why would these people spend all these billions if they got nothing out of it? Just to be cool I guess?

In Iowa, our legislature just passed a law that lets people carry loaded guns on snowmobiles and ATV's. This is a follow up to the law that lets kids shoot guns. .

I guess I shouldn't blame the DNC for the entirety of their weak concern for state level stupidity as in your 2d paragraph (they are on [expletive] you vendetta-IMO.) People are stupid and can hardly be helped. Thus, states are easy pickens for wealthy people and special interests to own (they can decide whichever party to be the conduit-currently it is the GOP-obviously because of their phony pro-business, pro-family values nonsense).

Wisconsin is perfect example of this. They go blue in national elections, but red at the state level. when it's national level, people like a more friendly front, but on the state level -with less people paying attention to it -it's all whips and chains conservatism.

this is off topic i suppose but its strange to me, living in kansas, that during the bush years we had a twice elected democratic governor (moderate, sure). and she was pretty good too. and now we under the tyrannical grip of brownback and koch industries. i just...DON'T MOVE TO KANSAS PEOPLE.

Now that you mention it we had moderate Democratic governors in Iowa when Dubya was president, and now a far right Branstad under Obama. What's up with that?

Fat Strat wrote:In some ways I think it's the nature of the national Democratic party to be less focused on what's happening in states and local government. Their ideology lends itself to more centralized federal control & influence and the more "to the left" you get, the stronger that federal control needs to be.

Look at Bernie - does he have any platform issue where he's saying "the states should decide that"? I really don't know, but I can't think of any. In a socialistic ideology, the purpose of state and local governments is to execute the policies passed by the altruistic federal leadership. (That's an oversimplification, obviously.)

Every single one of Bernie's platforms really could be translated to a state platform. College is a perfect example. In fact, decisions about college costs are made at the state level, mostly. The minimum wage is another example.

Gun control and abortion are national issues that Republicans have decided to fight against - hard - at the state level. I don't see why Democrats couldn't do this with any of their issues either....they just aren't as good at it right now.

pioneer98 wrote:

Fat Strat wrote:In some ways I think it's the nature of the national Democratic party to be less focused on what's happening in states and local government. Their ideology lends itself to more centralized federal control & influence and the more "to the left" you get, the stronger that federal control needs to be.

Look at Bernie - does he have any platform issue where he's saying "the states should decide that"? I really don't know, but I can't think of any. In a socialistic ideology, the purpose of state and local governments is to execute the policies passed by the altruistic federal leadership. (That's an oversimplification, obviously.)

Every single one of Bernie's platforms really could be translated to a state platform. College is a perfect example. In fact, decisions about college costs are made at the state level, mostly. The minimum wage is another example.

Gun control and abortion are national issues that Republicans have decided to fight against - hard - at the state level. I don't see why Democrats couldn't do this with any of their issues either....they just aren't as good at it right now.

I'm excited to see if Colorado Care passes.

Fat Strat wrote:In some ways I think it's the nature of the national Democratic party to be less focused on what's happening in states and local government. Their ideology lends itself to more centralized federal control & influence and the more "to the left" you get, the stronger that federal control needs to be.

Look at Bernie - does he have any platform issue where he's saying "the states should decide that"? I really don't know, but I can't think of any. In a socialistic ideology, the purpose of state and local governments is to execute the policies passed by the altruistic federal leadership. (That's an oversimplification, obviously.)

It has more to do with incompetent leadership and the geographic/regional breakdown of Democratic constituents....Howard Dean pushed a 50-state strategy and Bill Clinton 'triangulated' to win redder districts at the federal level. Most constituents reside in urban areas and rural Democrats are severely outnumbered. That aside....the party doesn't do enough to try and reverse this.

Regarding lib on lib crime: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/po ... narrative/

pioneer98 wrote:Every single one of Bernie's platforms really could be translated to a state platform. College is a perfect example. In fact, decisions about college costs are made at the state level, mostly. The minimum wage is another example.

Gun control and abortion are national issues that Republicans have decided to fight against - hard - at the state level. I don't see why Democrats couldn't do this with any of their issues either....they just aren't as good at it right now.

Good examples. Why not fight those issues at the state level? Better chance of getting things done there. If MO put together some kind of affordable higher ed bill or something like that, I would probably support it (depending on the bill, obviously).

Of course, I'm a huge fan of putting more control back into state and local. And state and local's might be better run & managed if both parties made those battles the centerpiece of their strategies. I've seen in our own town how much of an impact you can have at the state and local level. We've seen things like use tax changes, dog parks, convention centers, downtown revitalization, infastructure, etc. all change in the last 7 years that we've lived in Cape. Now, Cape Girardeau is a real up and coming town and the whole "metro" is growing fast. I think a lot of it is because we have some really sharp people who are really invested in this community and making it grow. We're a hotbed of political strife (the home of Rush Limbaugh + a strong arts & education commuity... i.e. Tea Party vs. Socialists) but that just doesn't seem to be an issue once you escape the national conflicts. Locally everyone seems to get along pretty well.

Cheddar Tom wrote:

Fat Strat wrote:In some ways I think it's the nature of the national Democratic party to be less focused on what's happening in states and local government. Their ideology lends itself to more centralized federal control & influence and the more "to the left" you get, the stronger that federal control needs to be.

Look at Bernie - does he have any platform issue where he's saying "the states should decide that"? I really don't know, but I can't think of any. In a socialistic ideology, the purpose of state and local governments is to execute the policies passed by the altruistic federal leadership. (That's an oversimplification, obviously.)

It has more to do with incompetent leadership and the geographic/regional breakdown of Democratic constituents....Howard Dean pushed a 50-state strategy and Bill Clinton 'triangulated' to win redder districts at the federal level. Most constituents reside in urban areas and rural Democrats are severely outnumbered. That aside....the party doesn't do enough to try and reverse this.

That's a great point - maybe Dems are doing well in state houses....but just in the really blue states like California, New York, Washington, etc. And they just kind of suck everywhere else, or maybe gave up on everywhere else.