Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 10:43 AM Mar 2015

Hillary donors WILL support any Democratic Presidential candidate

Is all hyperventilating about Hillary raising
the most campaign funds overblown?

If Hillary is NOT the candidate, who will
the big money donors support?

Will they go all in for the repubs?
Seems doubtful, otherwise why back Hillary to begin?
If those money interests prefer republicans,
their safest bet is with republicans, not Hillary.

Any serious look at funding a presidential run by
Warren or any other Democrat would see
those who would support Hillary will support
any other candidate the party puts forth.

Where else will they go?
Will they sit it out, or give to republicans?
Doubtful

42 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary donors WILL support any Democratic Presidential candidate (Original Post) Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 OP
It is delusional to think Wall Street is going to shovel money at anyone serious about reining in TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #1
Then we can shift aspirant Mar 2015 #3
Mmm Hmm Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #7
Shifting the blame? They detect the stench now which is why some don't bother TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #18
If they aspirant Mar 2015 #23
Willful ignorance, greed, and cognitive dissonance... Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #29
Hmm, interesting perspective Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #5
Surefire business as usual. A safer bet to keep the trains running on time BUT TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #9
It's called covering your bets. delrem Mar 2015 #24
Right. That's why they will support the dems Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #31
Wall Street donated to the Warren Senate campaign, they would probably donate again. Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #26
Exactly. That's why it's NOT Hillary or repubs win. Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #28
What about other possible candidates who have received Wall Street funds? Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #30
What about them? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #32
I got you, never thought it was the money, just wonder why some dwells on it so much. Thinkingabout Mar 2015 #33
Same reason they shriek SCOTUS!!!1!1! Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #34
There is the possibility she could throw her support (and money) KoKo Mar 2015 #2
That is what SHOULD happen! Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #6
Which donors? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #4
Agreed. This could serve as a weeding out process? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #8
None of that matters, how is it not abundantly clear what the score is? TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #10
For you and me it's abundantly clear. Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #11
I don't think it has to be Hillary Clinton, plenty of Democrats would be acceptable but the ones TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #13
That's the question/point... Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #21
Big money includes heavy duty war profiteers. delrem Mar 2015 #25
At what cost to average Americans? Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #27
I don't think the big money right-wing is all that interested in democracy. delrem Mar 2015 #35
WOW! Nail on the head! Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #36
When I describe political reality as I see it, I can be harsh, all right. delrem Mar 2015 #38
+1 we all need to keep talking Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #41
What is your solution aspirant Mar 2015 #12
To refuse to elect them, take "viability" off their ledger. TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #14
If we don't elect them, aspirant Mar 2015 #15
How does electing corporatist going to make sure they don't get nominated? TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #19
When Grimes lost aspirant Mar 2015 #22
To interject, like TheKentuckian I don't get it either. delrem Mar 2015 #39
This OP aspirant Mar 2015 #40
I agree, there needs to be balance, wall street is smart enough to hedge bets whereisjustice Mar 2015 #16
Do they hedge their bets between aspirant Mar 2015 #17
That's why the 3rd-Way exists, as a hedge. Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #20
There's no one more Third Way than Jebby dflprincess Mar 2015 #37
Yep, that's triangulation. Cosmic Kitten Mar 2015 #42

TheKentuckian

(25,026 posts)
1. It is delusional to think Wall Street is going to shovel money at anyone serious about reining in
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 11:00 AM
Mar 2015

the vulture class.

Multinationals hell bent on squeezing aren't going to fund anyone that would so much as act as a speed bump to their ambitions much less anyone earnestly pushing back.

The extraction industry won't lend a hand to an environmental minded candidate.

The military industrial complex is not going to fund a peace candidate.

Yes, Virginia major bundlers can and have fallen off or flipped before. Yes, Clinton's see Rothschild in 08.

No, you cannot support in any real way that individuals are all transferable either. Some folks are bigger draws than others and they are not always the same people.

aspirant

(3,533 posts)
3. Then we can shift
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 11:20 AM
Mar 2015

the blame from the voters to the donors if we lose.

"The People" will start detecting the stench surrounding the Corporatists.

TheKentuckian

(25,026 posts)
18. Shifting the blame? They detect the stench now which is why some don't bother
Fri Mar 20, 2015, 08:39 AM
Mar 2015

and others just keep talking about a more stinky stink and that since it could smell worse then it doesn't smell so bad.

aspirant

(3,533 posts)
23. If they
Fri Mar 20, 2015, 11:01 AM
Mar 2015

"just keep TALKING about a more stinky stink", how do they actually smell the stinky stink?

"could smell worse" How much more stinky stench will it take before lots of "others" decide not to bother?

If they participate in Grassroots movements they will then smell it and have to clean their shoes daily.

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
5. Hmm, interesting perspective
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:45 PM
Mar 2015

So you think the MIC and Wall St will
either sit it out or support the republicans?

Either way they will get a republican president, no?

If we accept that would be the outcome,
a republican president,
why are they supporting Hillary?

TheKentuckian

(25,026 posts)
9. Surefire business as usual. A safer bet to keep the trains running on time BUT
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 10:36 AM
Mar 2015

a legitimate threat to even reel in the existing order is a horse of a different color.

Maybe the focuses of big fiscal players and of some politicians are not the same as yours and it is adding parallax to your picture make objects appear closer than they actually are.

Why wouldn't corporate interests and wealthy folk that can find common cause with a Turd Way type back a TeaPubliKlan if their money was on the line?

I'm not getting the gist of your question, what is the hard to get part? Follow the money and stop getting distracted by sentiment and unrelated matters.

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
31. Right. That's why they will support the dems
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:45 AM
Mar 2015

even if Hillary is not the nominee...
to hedge their bets.

And, I don't think most 1%ers
want a Teapublican president.
They want to loot the nation,
not burn it to the ground.

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
32. What about them?
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 11:48 AM
Mar 2015

Taking money is part of the reality
in campaigning for office.

That in and of itself is not the problem.
It's the fealty to large donors, the quid pro quo.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
2. There is the possibility she could throw her support (and money)
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 11:15 AM
Mar 2015

behind a candidate of her choosing. That would still be a power trip if she decides not to run.

I wonder who she would choose?

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
6. That is what SHOULD happen!
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:47 PM
Mar 2015

If she is a "good Democrat" she should
support whoever wins the nomination.

Unless you mean, if Hillery doesn't run
in the primaries? I'll assume she's in the primary.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
4. Which donors?
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 12:06 PM
Mar 2015

Small money type of donors, sure. The big money? They actually might sit it out or give to whichever Republican emerges waving the 'moderate' banner if an actual lefty were to come out of the Dem primary. They're not like the DU 'Party First' people. They're 'wealth first', 'party second' in a lot of ways.

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
8. Agreed. This could serve as a weeding out process?
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 05:56 PM
Mar 2015

If the Big Money sits out it would be
painfully obvious that the 3rd-Way
is not interested in the Democratic party
but only certain candidates.

If the Big Money backs a "moderate" republican,
again, we will see who and what those interests
are actually invested in. Maybe then the party
would cut ties with the "centrists", who would
also ironically be out of power.

If Hillery isn't the nominee the Big Money
"centrists" will be in a difficult position...
1) back republicans
2) sit it out and lose control
3) fund a less desirable Democratic candidate.

It's a lose-lose if Hillary is not their candidate.
If they don't pony up, they will be exposed.

TheKentuckian

(25,026 posts)
10. None of that matters, how is it not abundantly clear what the score is?
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 10:41 AM
Mar 2015

What difference does "exposing" make?

Who do you think is running the party?

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
11. For you and me it's abundantly clear.
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 11:03 AM
Mar 2015

Amongst family, friends,
and neighbors it is not as obvious.

We are in agreement.
It helps to make our case when
it's been "exposed" that our interests
are not being served, or worse, undermined.

I'm trying to make two points.

1) Big Money has a binary choice.
OR they can hedge their bets and give
to both parties, which they already do.

It's reasonable to consider that they won't go
full T-party and would still support Democrats
not named HRC

If that's true, then the argument that only
HRC can raise enough money to win is false.

2) The "centrists" and 3rd-Way democrats
who demand fealty to HRC because, democrat,
would be put to the test.

Going forward, the Democratic party needs to
put it's house in order and a reckoning of
our values is central to that process.

We will continue to lose elections as long
as there are interests embedded in the party
that undermine democratic values.

How do you think we should view Big Money?
Is it that they ONLY support HRC or repubs?

TheKentuckian

(25,026 posts)
13. I don't think it has to be Hillary Clinton, plenty of Democrats would be acceptable but the ones
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 02:27 PM
Mar 2015

worth a damn would see a lot of the money run the other way.

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
21. That's the question/point...
Fri Mar 20, 2015, 08:49 AM
Mar 2015

Would the money run the other way?

The downside of a Populist Democratic
president is a possible hit to profits and/or taxes.

A republican president would represent a radicalization
of policies, possibly leading to a contagion of war.

Of the two options, Big Money is better served
by the Populists. I think Big Money understands
that stable markets, and increasing productivity
if preferable to the inevitable carnage of a
republican dominated Govt..

delrem

(9,688 posts)
35. I don't think the big money right-wing is all that interested in democracy.
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 04:18 PM
Mar 2015

Or has any respect for it.
I don't think the heart/driving-force of big money right-wing is composed of individuals, as in individual voters/actors. I think it's composed of extremely entrenched systems that include employees (in think tanks, the media, in law firms, banks, ...) as well as an ownership investor class. (I'm not denying the existence of horror-shows like the Koch bros.!)

The even mildly socialist-oriented left across the world has found that out the hard way as coup after coup follows mild democratic socialist interventions that run counter to their dictates. The US has been their base of operations, so the US hasn't been their main target except to an extraordinary degree a target for brainwashing the population. For most of my life the US has benefited from that system, it's only recently that the US has become part of their targeted prey.

Even today, the USA has declared Venezuela (a democracy, Bolivarian socialist) a national security threat, and that's the first step in ramping up economic warfare -> a coup. This is under a Dem administration, which has proven to be identical in this respect to Republican admins. Why? Because the Venezuelan people insist on re-electing Bolivarian socialists time after time. There was the coup in Honduras. A coup took out Iran's democracy, when Iran got uppity and retook ownership of their oil. Well, you know all this. I'm mentioning it because *elsewhere* than the USA seems to be fair pickings for democracies (and dicatatorships, monarchies,..., as well) that don't play the big money corporate/war-profiteering game. It's unsustainable, and it death-spirals inward.

At the moment the right wing big money corporate/war-profiteers have it cushy with HRC on one flank, the entire Republican party on the other. HRC isn't alone on their Dem side, not by any means. There are other third-way Dems, think tanks, PACs, institutes,... everything that money can buy. But if a fluke happened and that third-way bulwark is taken out by a progressive populist movement in primaries, I'm not sure I can predict what that big money war-profiteering power structure will do, but I wouldn't underestimate the horror that they're willing to inflict on the masses of people who get in their way. They have no respect for life, or for anything except their own profit. And they have more power and resources now than ever before.

I'm not totally pessimistic. But the US population isn't even close to being as experienced in the ways and means of the right-wing big money as, say, the population of Venezuela, Chile, and the other countries of SA, nor does the US population, in general or in the majority, seem prepared to listen and learn. Even on DU it's a very hard sell, to promote the leftward democratic swing of central/south american politics, and the pushback is unrelenting and is supported by top Dem leaders, to say nothing of Republicans.

I figure it'll be a long slog and I don't underestimate the inhumanity of big money corporate privateers war profiteers.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
38. When I describe political reality as I see it, I can be harsh, all right.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:31 AM
Mar 2015

Tonight's joy was being totally enthralled while reading an exchange of posts between bravenak and merrily.
Their discussion was about the worth of voting, comparing experiences.
Well, each person is one among billions and the worth of voting is hard to calculate.
But if it weren't for the existence of the vote, there wouldn't be conversations like that.
So just the fact of it is supremely important.

It's when they try to shut down the conversation that I get really irate.

aspirant

(3,533 posts)
15. If we don't elect them,
Thu Mar 19, 2015, 04:39 PM
Mar 2015

how do we make sure Grimes isn't challenging Rand Paul in 2016, with Ashley Judd sitting on the sidelines again?

Corporatism must become a nasty word, not a trickle down job creator. When you can make the Kochs and their allies RADIOACTIVE to candidates, we have a start. Do any corporatists try to keep their contributions secret?

TheKentuckian

(25,026 posts)
19. How does electing corporatist going to make sure they don't get nominated?
Fri Mar 20, 2015, 08:42 AM
Mar 2015

We can't be on the same topic here.

aspirant

(3,533 posts)
22. When Grimes lost
Fri Mar 20, 2015, 10:37 AM
Mar 2015

you didn't elect a corporatist, but when you elect a corporatist their is no need to fund that nominee.

See how that topic works.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
39. To interject, like TheKentuckian I don't get it either.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 03:46 AM
Mar 2015

Are you saying that Mitch McConnell isn't a corporatist?
Are you saying that Mitch McConnell wasn't funded?
Or what?

If you're trying to say that it was a travesty that Alison Case Lundergan Grimes was put forward as the Democratic candidate vs the Republican candidate Addison Mitchell "Mitch" McConnell, Jr., you aren't saying that.
Are you trying to say that Alison Case Lundergan Grimes shouldn't be the (Democratic) Secretary of State of Kentucky?

aspirant

(3,533 posts)
40. This OP
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 11:56 AM
Mar 2015

is about the Dem party and funding DEM candidates as was my question to the Kentuckian. That's why I included Judd and Grimes together.

I'm saying Bill and Hill Clinton elbowed in with their corporate money to put Grimes in the drivers seat, has nothing to do with the Turtle.

Did Grimes run against Judd for SoS? We are trying to elect and fund more Populists and evolve away from the "Blue Dogs".

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
20. That's why the 3rd-Way exists, as a hedge.
Fri Mar 20, 2015, 08:43 AM
Mar 2015

However, if there is no viable 3rd-Way
candidate where will Wall St "invest"?

Would Wall St go "all in" with the Teapublicans?
If Big Money withholds from Democrats
they virtually guarantee a republican
dominated Govt..

I don't think Big Money wants a Teapublican Govt..
They will give to whoever is the Democratic nominee.

dflprincess

(28,079 posts)
37. There's no one more Third Way than Jebby
Sat Mar 21, 2015, 10:30 PM
Mar 2015

I'm sure Wall Street would just love him.

(Yes, I know Third Way generally refers to a sell out Democrat but really, Jeb is a much a Third Wayer as any of the Democrats who fit that mold.)

Cosmic Kitten

(3,498 posts)
42. Yep, that's triangulation.
Sun Mar 22, 2015, 12:05 PM
Mar 2015

He's a "moderate" republican.
She's a "centrist" democrat.

Vote "Clush" 2016...
Best of Both Worlds

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Populist Reform of the Democratic Party»Hillary donors WILL suppo...