[Giselle]

Originally posted by Mike91

His wife literally said in that interview that he does try to help down ticket dems. And the problem with down ticket dems goes beyond fundraising.

Writing letters in the past doesn't mean he's currently helping. And it does, but what exactly is he doing other than going out and giving charismatic speeches?

[Bad Wolf]

Originally posted by Chivas

Well, she's 2.4 million votes ahead of Bernie right now so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

You all do realize this 2 million # is inflated, right?

Also, it doesn't even count caucus votes. It's very misleading to say she's ahead like that.

Wouldn't popular vote be irrelevant when you mix caucus and primaries?

Do the parties even disclose the voter turnout numbers?

Not to mention HRC hasn't gained pledged delegates in the last 6 weeks.

Just some questions to pose here, feel free to yell at me about how wrong I might be for asking.

[Damien M]

Originally posted by RatedG²

Me either. I think Bernie type candidates just don't appeal to me idk

Me neither.
Like, i watch Bernie's speeches and feel absolutely nothing (yet my white friends LOVE him and think he's this revolutionary icon)
I just feel like we did the whole revolution/change thing with Obama08, why are we going thru this AGAIN?

[Bad Wolf]

Originally posted by Giselle

Hillary fundraiser, endorses and does joint events with them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen Bernie do that. So how can you/he complain about it without actually making an effort?

Hillary raising money for for down ticket Dems is kinda true, yes.

But, what is that money even doing? Why won't the DNC tell us (at all) what that money is being used for?

If the money that she's raising for down tickets is sooooooo great, then why does the DNC not want to talk about it?

[Giselle]

Originally posted by Bad Wolf

Hillary raising money for for down ticket Dems is kinda true, yes.

But, what is that money even doing? Why won't the DNC tell us (at all) what that money is being used for?

If the money that she's raising for down tickets is sooooooo great, then why does the DNC not want to talk about it?

Girl what? It's used for campaign funding

Let's really not do this today.

[Giselle]

Hillary should do something similar to GWB's weekly radio address. Maybe a live stream on YouTube and then uploading the videos after. Just a quick, 5-10 minute think to talk about what's going on. Important bills she's pushing, encouraging Dems to go out and vote during the midterms etc.

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by Bad Wolf

You all do realize this 2 million # is inflated, right?

Also, it doesn't even count caucus votes. It's very misleading to say she's ahead like that.

Wouldn't popular vote be irrelevant when you mix caucus and primaries?

Do the parties even disclose the voter turnout numbers?

Not to mention HRC hasn't gained pledged delegates in the last 6 weeks.

Just some questions to pose here, feel free to yell at me about how wrong I might be for asking.

It's not inflated. Those are the most up to date numbers. They do include SOME caucuses. But caucuses are known for their low turnout numbers so if anything it may cut her lead by like...maybe 100K max. He's way behind there.

It's irrelevant to the primaries since you win by delegates (where she leads by a huge margin). And she literally got 7 pledged delegates a few days ago. Wyd?

[Bloo]

Originally posted by Bad Wolf

Hillary raising money for for down ticket Dems is kinda true, yes.

But, what is that money even doing? Why won't the DNC tell us (at all) what that money is being used for?

If the money that she's raising for down tickets is sooooooo great, then why does the DNC not want to talk about it?

It's not kinda true... It's objectively true.

Further than just fundraising for down-ticket Democrats, she does more to support them. I got the pleasure to see Hillary speak at my university in 2014 because she was campaigning for Allison Lundergan Grimes during her campaign to beat Mitch McConnell for the Senator election of my state. She traveled across the state of KY to help a progressive get into the Senate and to help get rid of the one of the worst career politicians in the country. She is incredibly devoted to supporting down-ticket Democrats.

[ALIEN]

Originally posted by Damien M

Never been a fan of Warren (and she faked being an Indian to get minority scholarships, kinda disgusting).

did Donald Trump hack your account? Native American, not Indian.

[Cheetos]

Originally posted by Bad Wolf

You all do realize this 2 million # is inflated, right?

Also, it doesn't even count caucus votes. It's very misleading to say she's ahead like that.

Wouldn't popular vote be irrelevant when you mix caucus and primaries?

Do the parties even disclose the voter turnout numbers?

Not to mention HRC hasn't gained pledged delegates in the last 6 weeks.

Just some questions to pose here, feel free to yell at me about how wrong I might be for asking.

The 2.4 million does include caucus votes and she gained delegates in Wyoming.

And voter turnout is down this year, so how's that political revolution working out?

[Bad Wolf]

Originally posted by Giselle

Girl what? It's used for campaign funding

Let's really not do this today.

Doesn't that Victory Fund money just go to the states and then sent right back to the DNC?

[Skywalker]

She's winning by a huge majority - both delegate and popular voter wise. And it's only going to grow when New York and the 26th States happen. That isn't an argument, it is actual fact.

[Marvin]

Caucuses discourage voters from showing up. If Washington was a primary and he won by the same percentage, he would have a bigger popular vote number.

And Hillary's "fundraising" clearly isn't working, so I don't see why that matters.

[@michael]

Originally posted by The Countess

She's winning by a huge majority - both delegate and popular voter wise. And it's only going to grow when New York and the 26th States happen. That isn't an argument, it is actual fact.

I love it when you talk math to me

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by Marvin

Caucuses discourage voters from showing up. If Washington was a primary and he won by the same percentage, he would have a bigger popular vote number.

And Hillary's "fundraising" clearly isn't working, so I don't see why that matters.

Well she would too. And if it was a primary he wouldn't have won it by that percentage.

[Bloo]

Originally posted by Marvin

Caucuses discourage voters from showing up. If Washington was a primary and he won by the same percentage, he would have a bigger popular vote number.

And Hillary's "fundraising" clearly isn't working, so I don't see why that matters.

Hillary didn't spend a dime in Wyoming and she walked away with more delegates from the state than Bernie. Her fundraising is working just fine. You tried, though.

[Skywalker]

Take with a grain of salt but..

Local NY reporter with some juicy rumors that Devine and Weaver disagree with this silly Vatican trip that took Bernie out of NY. Apparently, Devine thinks its silly to leave the state a few days before the primary- can't say I disagree.

https://twitter.com/AlGiord

[Marvin]

Originally posted by RatedG²

Well she would too. And if it was a primary he wouldn't have won it by that percentage.

There's no way to know that. Washington is a very liberal state and they've already enacted some of his policies. I think he would've won by a similar percentage

Originally posted by Bloo

Hillary didn't spend a dime in Wyoming and she walked away with more delegates from the state than Bernie. Her fundraising is working just fine. You tried, though.

1) Because of superdelegates
2) You just proved my point

[RatedG²]

There's no way to know he would have won by the same percentage in a primary too Marvin . Wyd

[Bloo]

Originally posted by Marvin

1) Because of superdelegates
2) You just proved my point

Without them, she still tied him. I don't see how the super delegates prove your point. You commented on her fundraising, saying that it's failing. I made the claim that she was very cost-efficient in Wyoming.