Just 17 percent of CLINTON'S DONORS meet the definition of SMALL

[Rosa Luxemburg]

FYI

Washington Post fact checkers also note that just 17 percent of Clinton’s donors meet the definition of small (those contributing under $200): “More than 80 percent of her donations come from big donors, compared to just 22 percent for Sanders.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/11/15/the-daily-202-a-defensive-hillary-clinton-lost-last-nights-debate/?tid=pm_pop_b

[99th_Monkey]

1. This is truly pathetic. But never mind, the 'front-runner' can do no wrong. Even lying is just fine

I was just seeing on another thread how she also lied about the number of gun deaths she cited,
which were totally made-up exaggerated numbers, to try to dig her knife deeper into Bernie on
the gun issue.

Here's that link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=813094

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. I don't think her campaign was ready for this debate

[putitinD]

2. Hillary is working for the 1%.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. I think voters have to realize that

if they vote for they are voting for Wall Street

[NurseJackie]

5. And that's why she'll be so formidable against the GOP money machine!

I have no problems with that. To think otherwise is short-sighted and naive about what it takes to win elections in a post Citizens United world. Why would any candidate (who actually wants to win) refuse any advantage against the GOP money-machine?

Or, to put it another way: why would any candidate (who claims to be serious) knowingly do something that would put his campaign at a crippling disadvantage against the GOP money-machine?