Have the Republicans shot their load?
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
abalonehx
Well-Known Member
He and he alone ...He's the only one that matters! But the buck doesn't stop here...oh no... you're fired! Dotard Dictator is never wrong
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
A level playing field.
How do you level the playing field when Bernie was practically unknown to most of the country in early 2015 and Clinton had been playing a major role in national government since 1992?
What do you want? A handicap of several million votes for newcomers? State delegates given to weaker politicians without people voting in primaries? Do you think politics should be like golf where better qualified politicians are handicapped somehow? What are you talking about?
since1991
Well-Known Member
Sanders was FAR from a weaker candidate with his message and resonance with regular folk. Your giving props to Clinton well and fine but she and her ilk are responsible for policy that has shifted the Democratic Party from the progressive roots to Republican Lite...since Shifty Bill. Either yer too young to remember or you forgot. Clinton is far from what you think she is.
since1991
Well-Known Member
Better qualified? To maybe play the ole system game maybe. Iam WAY beyond that.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he got 4 million less votes despite getting help from russia though
see4
Well-Known Member
i think we should make out. i could put some syrup on them flapjacks.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You said it wasn't a level playing field. What do you mean by "not a level playing field" and what would level it?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Wear a mouth dam.
Sir Napsalot
Well-Known Member
I share your nausea
since1991
Well-Known Member
Leveling the playing field would entail taking corporate donor monies out and away from all political campaigns.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
If he was the stronger candidate, then why was he destroyed by 12.1% in the primary?
He couldn't even win among Democrats.
He also took donations and never fulfilled his fundraising agreement with the DNC despite using their infrastructure, whereas Hillary's donations kept the DNC solvent.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You do realize that Bernie and Clinton spent about the same total amount in the primary, don't you? I'm all for removing corporate and big donor money from the elections to reduce their influence. Still, this idea that the playing field would be leveled by removing corporate cash isn't backed up by the facts.
Bernie spent about the same as Clinton but lost. Looks to me that he lost with the playing field about even in terms of money spent.
Bernie Sanders: $17.77 per vote
Total Spending: $227,412,247
June Spending: $7,527,042
Total Vote Count: 12,797,701
Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “political revolution” made it much further in the race than anyone ever expected. Though the Vermont independent’s grassroots campaign spent almost $230 million in the race against Hillary Clinton, it wasn’t enough to overcome his deficit in the delegate count.
Hillary Clinton: $13.97 per vote
Total Spending: $230,172,869
June Spending: $34,460,572
Total Vote Count: 16,473,239
The presumptive Democratic nominee has raised over $270 million for her campaign — more than any other candidate in the 2016 race. While the Republican race essentially ended in early May, the final Democratic primaries were still somewhat split between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. This lowered Clinton’s popular vote total and gave her a dollar-per-vote figure well above her general election opponent, Donald Trump.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/29/how-much-did-each-presidential-candidate-spend-per-vote-in-the-primaries/
Last edited: