George Clooney's neighbor threw a $27/plate Sanders fundraiser to counter Clooney's $33K/head Hillary event


#1

[Read the post]


#2

Its telling that Clinton’s fund rasing tactics would bring out vocal protesters. I don’t exactly see HRC supporters organizing protests at Sanders’ rallies. Yet the DNC is going to ignore this ground-swell to put forth their insider candidate.

The DNC puts themselves at peril of losing the most winnable contest they’ve faced in recent history. If they lose its on them, the Supreme Court nomination, the continuing of money in elections, the slide of the middle class, its all on you DNC for ignoring the very people you purported to support.

And don’t you dare put this on Sander’s supporters for causing the loss. Its all on you. And don’t kid yourself that it will all be like 2008 when Clinton’s supporters all fell in line to vote for Obama. Its not the same. 2008 was two establishment candidates. Nobody from Clinton’s campaign was protesting at Obama fund raisers in 2008, nobody was throwing dollar bills at Obama’s motorcade to point out the candidate’s hypocrisy.

This is all on you DNC. Don’t blow it.


#3

Clooney decried the influence of money in politics, but presented big-dollar fundraising from the super-rich as a necessary evil for electing a good candidate.

“The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.”


#4

Bush/Gore was pretty recent, but for sure there are a lot of young voters for whom that isn’t really in their memory.

and I am sorry to be pedantic, but loosing might be something you do to knots, losing is what you do in races. Sorry, really. Pet peeve.


#5

Thanks - result of hasty typing, not misunderstanding meaning, but the correction is appreciated none the less.


#6

I think that’s telling, but in a completely different way. :wink:


#7

I’m a Sanders supporter. I agree that the DNC is deeply invested in the neoliberal consensus, deeply corrupt, and has rigged things against him to the point where he’d be denied the nomination even if he won the popular delegate count. If Clinton is the nominee I’ll just write in Sanders on the Presidential line in the general election.

However, I live in a reliably Dem district in a reliably Dem state. Even if 10-20% of the other Dems who support Sanders in my state join me in voting this way (sending a message to the DNC through noticeably lower Dem turnout for Clinton in the state), she’ll still win there. And as much as I loathe her economic and military policies and her disdain for voters, I’ll accept that result because the alternative of Cruz or Trump as President is even worse.

All of which is to say, I agree with you, but let’s be a bit smarter than we were in 2000. Dems in swing states like FL and OH, including Sanders supporters, are better off holding their noses and voting for Clinton. We simply can’t afford a Republican or right-wing populist President of any stripe given the issues the country faces.

The good news is there are other things we can do. We need to make a concerted effort to help Tim Canova primary out the awful Debbie Wasserman Schultz (non-district residents can contribute here) and then weaken or remove her as DNC chair. We need to start considering how we can work together to transform the Sanders groundswell into a permanent and growing Dem voting bloc. And if we can do those things, we might be able to primary out Clinton herself in 2020 if (as is likely) she spends her first term ignoring the loud chorus of voices from her party calling for real change.


#8

It really is a super common misspelling, and I always imagine loosing a herd of bulls or loosing a square knot or loosing the square sails on a schooner or something. Not your fault I read so literally before my context filters kick in! /soapbox


#9


#10

A rich person donating $30k probably has about as much impact on their finances as me giving $30. Why shouldn’t Clooney throw a big dollar fundraiser?


#11

Because even Clooney doesn’t approve of it as he’s doing it?

“Yes,” he said. “I think it’s an obscene amount of money. I think – you know that we had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San Francisco and they’re right to protest, they’re absolutely right, it is an obscene amount of money.


#12

You can loose a square knot and loosen a square knot. You can also lose a square knot if you’re talented. Isn’t English marvelous?


#13

You really believe that? $30,000 is some people’s yearly income. $30 is a drop in that bucket.


#14

This video can’t be real. In movies, people always scramble to pick up thrown money.


#15

Let’s say your salary is 30k. You donating $30 is 0.001%

If you’re donating 30k, and it is also 0.001% of your income, it comes out to $30 million.

There are plenty of people making that much money, especially in the hills of LA. George supposedly made $46 mill in 2013. (the latest number I could find in 30 seconds of googling).

So, yes, it would have about as much impact.


#16

It has an impact on the person they are donating to, for sure.

If the person is rich enough, then no, $30k isn’t impacting the person doing the donating, which I think was what Chesterfield was referring to.


#17

Why shouldn’t he throw a small dollar one?


#18

This event raised money for the Democratic National Committee, 33 state Democratic parties, and for the Clinton campaign. Individual donations to candidates are limited to $2,700 per person, so the DNC and the state committees received the vast majority of the funds raised. The DNC will use that money to help campaign for whoever the presidential nominee is and for targeted Congressional races, and the state committees will use that money to help build their party structure and to assist down-ballot candidates. Why is all this context important?

First, if Sanders becomes the nominee, he will benefit from the money Clinton is now raising for the DNC and which he is criticizing her for. Surely he understands this, but he attacks her for it anyway.

Second, it illustrates that Clinton is helping the Democratic party as a whole and Sanders is helping himself.

Third, either Sanders’ supporters don’t understand how political fundraising works or they do understand it and don’t think it’s legitimate to raise money for the party. Sanders is not a Democrat, he’s an independent, so maybe the majority of Sanders’ supporters are also independents at heart who don’t care about the Democratic party. Either way, it’s naive. If they want to accomplish things politically, electing the right person to be president isn’t even half of what you need to do. You also have to gain control of Congress with enough like-minded people that the president can enact his or her agenda. If Sanders sweeps to victory against Trump or Cruz or whoever but the Democrats do not retake the Senate (at least), then everything President Sanders wants to accomplish is DOA.


#19

No, he attacks her for who the money comes from.[quote=“dmdisab, post:18, topic:76779”]
Second, it illustrates that Clinton is helping the Democratic party as a whole and Sanders is helping himself.
[/quote]

Sanders and many or most of his supporters realize that the Democratic Party has become a neoliberal machine geared toward further enriching the already wealthy. Clinton is helping the Democrat Party, yes, but by extension, the wealthy people (including herself) that it primarily benefits.

Sanders, on the other hand, calls for a “political revolution” in part by way of calling for a retooling of the current Democratic Party, so that it primarily serves ordinary people, not the wealthy ones who are supporting Clinton instead of Sanders (indeed, that’s a big reason they don’t support Sanders).[quote=“dmdisab, post:18, topic:76779”]
If Sanders sweeps to victory against Trump or Cruz or whoever but the Democrats do not retake the Senate (at least), then everything President Sanders wants to accomplish is DOA.
[/quote]

You’re putting too much weight on the value towards getting others elected of all that big-money funding. If it goes towards supporting candidates who, like Clinton, would be beholden to big money instead of ordinary people because that big money helped them get elected, then to hell with them.

You’re obviously batting for Clinton here, and you’re basically arguing for the continuation of the status quo. Sanders has as much support as he does (and to a large extent, Trump too) because people are sick of the status quo – hell, many are DYING from it. People are sick, especially, of more and more and more of the wealth in the richest country on earth getting sucked upwards, and out of ordinary people’s pockets, whose lives are getting worse and worse. Clinton obviously won’t do much to change that; Sanders obviously wants to, and if elected, would do a lot more towards changing it than Clinton would.


The future of trollbots
#20

If this event, like the San Francisco one, was to raise money for the “Hillary Victory Fund” then there’s no guarantee that the money ends up with the state parties and won’t go directly to Clinton (as the fund’s name implies it will):

A record 32 state parties signed on to the fund, allowing the committee to solicit donations 130 times greater than what a supporter can give to Clinton’s campaign for the primary.

But the states have yet to see a financial windfall. Meanwhile, Clinton’s campaign has been a major beneficiary, getting an infusion of low-dollar contributions through the committee at a time when rival Bernie Sanders’s army of small donors is helping him close in on her financially. The fund is run by Clinton campaign staff, and its treasurer is Clinton’s chief operating officer.

[source]

I just wish Clinton and her supporters were capable of being honest instead of playing this shabby game and fooling Dems operating in good faith into making excuses for them.