Kamala Harris has raised donations from 38,000 people within 24 hours which beats Bernie’s record

[harmonica]

After Kavanaugh, Independents will spit on her picture.

Not Independent women.

that's how it should be:
vote based on someones skin color or gender, not their values/policies/etc

 

[Billy000]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

Wrong. Conservatives give to our faith: our churches. You give to your faith: politicians. It really is just that simple.

Churches not bound by taxes? Yeah we know that.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Kamala Harris has raised donations from 38,000 people within 24 hours which beats Bernie’s record

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers

 

[Ambivalent1]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

Wrong. Conservatives give to our faith: our churches. You give to your faith: politicians. It really is just that simple.

Churches not bound by taxes? Yeah we know that.

That's actually something you should embrace. If they are bound by 501C3 the Gov can ultimately control their message. If they don't file that way they can say what ever they want.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Were I a Pastor I would not seek a Tax Exempt status

 

[basquebromance]

"During her time in the Senate, her public profile has grown tremendously, planting her flag in a host of progressive policy issues, including backing Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All, teaming up with Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) for a bail reform bill, and sponsoring a historic proposal that would make lynching a federal crime. But her presidential run will certainly invite the most unfriendly fire of Harris’ career, from both sides of the political spectrum.

Her support of laws punishing parents when their children are chronically truant, prosecuting Backpage—some say to the detriment of sex workers—and not going after now-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin for foreclosure violations have already provided her critics with ample ammo."

Trump beat Hilary Clinton in 2016 and yet liberal mags are out here shitting on a progressive former prosecutor for taking down sex trafficking sites. Give me a break. Kamala Harris is a great politician and candidate. We need to focus on what the 2020 candidate will do in the future instead of nitpicking everything we don't like from their past. Not to mention that any criticism of taking down Backpage is unfair.

 

[Leo123]

Kamala is a loon. Pure and simple. The perfect Democrat candidate.

 

[oreo]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

Yes Kamala Harris is running away with it right now. She raised over $2 million in 24 hours in small $20.00 donations and is refusing to take PAC money.

The difference between Kamala Harris & Bernie Sanders, is she is actually capable of winning the DNC nomination, and also the Presidency because she is a moderate that can appeal to everyone, including moderate Republicans, who have fled the Republican party over Trump.

Bernie Sanders couldn't even get Democrats to vote for him. Hillary beat Bernie worse than she did Trump by a whopping 3,775,437 Democrat primary popular votes. In comparison Obama beat Hillary in 2008 by a mere 41,622 democrat primary popular votes.
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Democratic Popular Vote
2008 Democratic Popular Vote | RealClearPolitics

So I imagine with the support that Kamala Harris is getting we will be watching other possible's drop out of the race to give her room to run. You're right it's a little early yet, but as we saw in the 2018 midterm, Blue Dog Democrats have made a huge comeback. To far left will spell disaster.

2020 will be the 100th anniversary of women winning the right to vote. It's time we had a woman President and Kamala Harris may be the one.

Kamala Harris

CNN will be covering a Kamala Harris Town Hall meeting this coming Monday.

 

[McRocket]

I assume she does not care (enough) about a balanced budget, bringing the troops home and removing the Fed's 'full' employment' mandate...so, I hope she loses. Same with all the candidates.

My guess is she could care less about deficits or bringing the troops home and does not have a clue what the Fed 'full employment' mandate even means (though I doubt the vast majority of politicians/citizens do either) to the economy.

Beyond that - single payer is a mistake (and she seems for it). It's better than what America has now, but it is a mistake (I lived in Canada for years - I know). Dual-payer is the answer...with the government looking after those who need it and the private sector, everyone else.

So you want the Nixon\Kennedy plan?

What are you talking about?

When did Nixon or Kennedy post balanced budgets?

Is the U.S. Budget Deficit Really That Bad?

 

[Leo123]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

Yes Kamala Harris is running away with it right now. She raised over $2 million in 24 hours in small $20.00 donations and is refusing to take PAC money.

The difference between Kamala Harris & Bernie Sanders, is she is actually capable of winning the DNC nomination, and also the Presidency because she is a moderate that can appeal to everyone, including moderate Republicans, who have fled the Republican party over Trump.

Bernie Sanders couldn't even get Democrats to vote for him. Hillary beat Bernie worse than she did Trump by a whopping 3,775,437 Democrat primary popular votes. In comparison Obama beat Hillary in 2008 by a mere 41,622 democrat primary popular votes.
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Democratic Popular Vote
2008 Democratic Popular Vote | RealClearPolitics

So I imagine with the support that Kamala Harris is getting we will be watching other possible's drop out of the race to give her room to run. You're right it's a little early yet, but as we saw in the 2018 midterm, Blue Dog Democrats have made a huge comeback. To far left will spell disaster.

2020 will be the 100th anniversary of women winning the right to vote. It's time we had a woman President and this may be it.

Kamala Harris

So, the BEST the Democrats can do is a raving leftist neo-Marxist (Harris) and an old Commie (Sanders?)....Bring it on! MAGA!!! MAGA!!! MAGA!!!

 

[McRocket]

Well, I said it is better than what America has now (if you are poor - worse if you are rich/have great insurance).

But Americans are different than Canadians. The latter are generally less objectionable to government control. The former are mostly about freedom.


Let me ask you this:

Do you think Americans are going to like being trapped in hospitals - possibly for months at a time - not being allowed to leave the hospital while waiting for life-saving operations?

Because that happens in Canada...all the time.

The difference between healthcare for profit and government healthcare is the former depends on customer satisfaction for profit. The latter could care less about customer satisfaction or profit. So they treat you like a number.

I don't think the average American will put up with that for long. I think the poor ones will grin and bear it (because they will have free healthcare). But the rest will probably not.


With all due respect, you cannot know what single-payer is like unless you have lived with it for some time.
If you never get a complicated illness/injury - it can be great. But if you do - it can be a nightmare.

Well, sure, the upside of the American healthcare system is that the quality is great and the treatment can be immediate if you have the coin to pay for it. But Because the middle class is shrinking and the poor are only getting more poor, that doesn’t even mean shit for most Americans. Sure, in Canada big procedures are put off because of a waiting list and that’s a problem, but at least when it comes to immediate healthcare in Canada it’s completely affordable. That kind of care is much more frequent and thus the system works even if it isn’t perfect.

Fair enough.

But you did not answer my question.

Do you think Americans are going to like being trapped in hospitals - possibly for months at a time - not being allowed to leave the hospital while waiting for life-saving operations?

Because that happens in Canada...all the time.

That never happens in a for-profit hospital because it costs SO much for a patient just to stay in a hospital overnight. SO they let you wait at home for the operation (as it should be).
But in Canada, they don't care about waste or patient satisfaction. So the doctors will cover their legal asses and often not let you leave until your operation (in case something happens to you due to your condition). Which could take weeks/months.

And when I say 'trapped'. I mean 'trapped'.

You cannot leave or the doctor's threaten to push you down the waiting list for your operation. You cannot go for a walk around the hospital. You cannot leave the building. And sometimes you cannot even leave the floor.

That happened to a friend of mine (waiting for a bypass operation). He was trapped for over a month, completely miserable and he did not know when the operation would be.
And he was not hooked up to any machines. He could move around and take care of himself. He should have been allowed to go home. But they would not let him...just to cover their legal asses. He just lay there, hour after hour, day after day, week after week...trapped.
Finally, after a (IMO) botched operation...he died.

THAT is single-payer (granted, at/near it's worst - but it is not an uncommon story). Virtually no rights, no choices and you are treated like a number.

I mean that does sound like a nightmare scenario for your friend, but I would be curious to know just how common it really is.

Long waits for surgery and medical treatment costs Canadians

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

I do not know exactly how common it is. But I can tell you that almost everyone on the cardiac floor of that hospital - and it was by far the largest one in that province - were in similar situations to him. Sitting around, waiting for their operations/procedures, not being allowed to leave (unless they were moved down the list) the floor - let alone the hospital, not knowing when their operations would happen.

But the fact is, there is no legal or economic reason why that is not common. The doctors are kings in single-payer. What you want is TOTALLY irrelevant. You have ZERO choices so you MUST do whatever they ask. Now, you can refuse a procedure - but that is about it when it comes to your rights.

In single-payer you are treated like a number. No one gives a shit about you (unless they are nice) and all the doctors/nurses really care about is not getting into legal/procedural trouble (again, unless they are nice).

I will give you another, less drastic example.

I went to an emergency room in a small hospital (different than the one above) at like 5 in the morning. There was only myself and an elderly woman waiting. The woman was in a lot of pain and there were NO patients in the emergency ward. But the doctor did not report until 8 a.m. (unless there was a life-threatening emergency - which neither of us were). This woman had a stomach ailment that she had for years and it was much more comfortable for her to lie down.
I went and asked the receptionist if the old lady could go in the back (where I had seen all the beds were available). She said 'sorry - we are not supposed to do that'.
So, this woman sat on a chair in a near empty waiting room for hours - in a TON of pain - instead of waiting on a bed. ALL because of a legal/rule technicality. Not for the woman's health...STRICTLY for procedural reasons.
The beds were like 10 feet away through one door. And there were nurses there. But because of some STUPID regulation, this woman in pain was not even allowed to lie down.

In a for-profit hospital, that would NEVER happen. As soon as someone posted it on the web - it would go viral and that hospital would be in deep shit for mistreating a senior woman so shabbily. They go on profit and they cannot have patients mistreated like that.

In Canada, it makes NO DIFFERENCE. I could have posted that on line and NOTHING would have happened...because the hospital could care less about public relations as they have no competition.
So long as the hospital does nothing illegal...they can do WHATEVER THEY WANT. Treat people as bad as they want.


Again, unless you have tried it yourself, you cannot know the hell that single payer can be.

So what is the ideal healthcare system then? You said duel payer which I am not familiar with but I wonder if that’s the same as two tier where people can pay more money for better healthcare options in a private market. Corporate lobbyists have corrupted our healthcare system. It’s just too risky to give private industry control over healthcare.

It's similar. The government looks after those who cannot help themselves. And the private sector looks after the rest - with minimal governmental interference.

Corporate lobbyists could not corrupt a truly private, healthcare system because the government would have almost nothing to do with it.

If you just leave that sector to free enterprise, costs would be lowered and service improved.

The problem with America's system now is it is a complete mess. It is neither one nor the other. It leaves WAY too many people without healthcare PLUS the 'private' healthcare system is WAY too regulated by the government...particularly insurance.
It's the worst of both worlds.

I say just take Canada's system but allow the private market to offer ANY healthcare it wishes for any fee it wants to charge. In Canada, that is illegal..only certain things (like cosmetic surgery, for example) are allowed privately.
With two-tiered/dual payer, the poor get full, government coverage and the rest get a choice.

Seems the best of both worlds to me.

 

[oreo]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

Yes Kamala Harris is running away with it right now. She raised over $2 million in 24 hours in small $20.00 donations and is refusing to take PAC money.

The difference between Kamala Harris & Bernie Sanders, is she is actually capable of winning the DNC nomination, and also the Presidency because she is a moderate that can appeal to everyone, including moderate Republicans, who have fled the Republican party over Trump.

Bernie Sanders couldn't even get Democrats to vote for him. Hillary beat Bernie worse than she did Trump by a whopping 3,775,437 Democrat primary popular votes. In comparison Obama beat Hillary in 2008 by a mere 41,622 democrat primary popular votes.
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Democratic Popular Vote
2008 Democratic Popular Vote | RealClearPolitics

So I imagine with the support that Kamala Harris is getting we will be watching other possible's drop out of the race to give her room to run. You're right it's a little early yet, but as we saw in the 2018 midterm, Blue Dog Democrats have made a huge comeback. To far left will spell disaster.

2020 will be the 100th anniversary of women winning the right to vote. It's time we had a woman President and this may be it.

Kamala Harris

So, the BEST the Democrats can do is a raving leftist neo-Marxist (Harris) and an old Commie (Sanders?)....Bring it on! MAGA!!! MAGA!!! MAGA!!!

Kamala Harris is not a liberal democrat, she's a moderate aka Blue Dog Democrat. You know the type of Democrats that kicked your ass's in the 2018 Midterm.

That should scare the bee-gee's out of you, because this gal is SMART, very SMART. Trump would get steamrolled by her in any debate.

 

[Leo123]

Well, sure, the upside of the American healthcare system is that the quality is great and the treatment can be immediate if you have the coin to pay for it. But Because the middle class is shrinking and the poor are only getting more poor, that doesn’t even mean shit for most Americans. Sure, in Canada big procedures are put off because of a waiting list and that’s a problem, but at least when it comes to immediate healthcare in Canada it’s completely affordable. That kind of care is much more frequent and thus the system works even if it isn’t perfect.

Fair enough.

But you did not answer my question.

Do you think Americans are going to like being trapped in hospitals - possibly for months at a time - not being allowed to leave the hospital while waiting for life-saving operations?

Because that happens in Canada...all the time.

That never happens in a for-profit hospital because it costs SO much for a patient just to stay in a hospital overnight. SO they let you wait at home for the operation (as it should be).
But in Canada, they don't care about waste or patient satisfaction. So the doctors will cover their legal asses and often not let you leave until your operation (in case something happens to you due to your condition). Which could take weeks/months.

And when I say 'trapped'. I mean 'trapped'.

You cannot leave or the doctor's threaten to push you down the waiting list for your operation. You cannot go for a walk around the hospital. You cannot leave the building. And sometimes you cannot even leave the floor.

That happened to a friend of mine (waiting for a bypass operation). He was trapped for over a month, completely miserable and he did not know when the operation would be.
And he was not hooked up to any machines. He could move around and take care of himself. He should have been allowed to go home. But they would not let him...just to cover their legal asses. He just lay there, hour after hour, day after day, week after week...trapped.
Finally, after a (IMO) botched operation...he died.

THAT is single-payer (granted, at/near it's worst - but it is not an uncommon story). Virtually no rights, no choices and you are treated like a number.

I mean that does sound like a nightmare scenario for your friend, but I would be curious to know just how common it really is.

Long waits for surgery and medical treatment costs Canadians

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

I do not know exactly how common it is. But I can tell you that almost everyone on the cardiac floor of that hospital - and it was by far the largest one in that province - were in similar situations to him. Sitting around, waiting for their operations/procedures, not being allowed to leave (unless they were moved down the list) the floor - let alone the hospital, not knowing when their operations would happen.

But the fact is, there is no legal or economic reason why that is not common. The doctors are kings in single-payer. What you want is TOTALLY irrelevant. You have ZERO choices so you MUST do whatever they ask. Now, you can refuse a procedure - but that is about it when it comes to your rights.

In single-payer you are treated like a number. No one gives a shit about you (unless they are nice) and all the doctors/nurses really care about is not getting into legal/procedural trouble (again, unless they are nice).

I will give you another, less drastic example.

I went to an emergency room in a small hospital (different than the one above) at like 5 in the morning. There was only myself and an elderly woman waiting. The woman was in a lot of pain and there were NO patients in the emergency ward. But the doctor did not report until 8 a.m. (unless there was a life-threatening emergency - which neither of us were). This woman had a stomach ailment that she had for years and it was much more comfortable for her to lie down.
I went and asked the receptionist if the old lady could go in the back (where I had seen all the beds were available). She said 'sorry - we are not supposed to do that'.
So, this woman sat on a chair in a near empty waiting room for hours - in a TON of pain - instead of waiting on a bed. ALL because of a legal/rule technicality. Not for the woman's health...STRICTLY for procedural reasons.
The beds were like 10 feet away through one door. And there were nurses there. But because of some STUPID regulation, this woman in pain was not even allowed to lie down.

In a for-profit hospital, that would NEVER happen. As soon as someone posted it on the web - it would go viral and that hospital would be in deep shit for mistreating a senior woman so shabbily. They go on profit and they cannot have patients mistreated like that.

In Canada, it makes NO DIFFERENCE. I could have posted that on line and NOTHING would have happened...because the hospital could care less about public relations as they have no competition.
So long as the hospital does nothing illegal...they can do WHATEVER THEY WANT. Treat people as bad as they want.


Again, unless you have tried it yourself, you cannot know the hell that single payer can be.

So what is the ideal healthcare system then? You said duel payer which I am not familiar with but I wonder if that’s the same as two tier where people can pay more money for better healthcare options in a private market. Corporate lobbyists have corrupted our healthcare system. It’s just too risky to give private industry control over healthcare.

It's similar. The government looks after those who cannot help themselves. And the private sector looks after the rest - with minimal governmental interference.

Corporate lobbyists could not corrupt a truly private, healthcare system because the government would have almost nothing to do with it.

If you just leave that sector to free enterprise, costs would be lowered and service improved.

The problem with America's system now is it is a complete mess. It is neither one nor the other. It leaves WAY too many people without healthcare PLUS the 'private' healthcare system is WAY too regulated by the government...particularly insurance.
It's the worst of both worlds.

I say just take Canada's system but allow the private market to offer ANY healthcare it wishes for any fee it wants to charge. In Canada, that is illegal..only certain things (like cosmetic surgery, for example) are allowed privately.
With two-tiered/dual payer, the poor get full, government coverage and the rest get a choice.

Seems the best of both worlds to me.

Define "minimal government interference" THAT is the chink in the armor.

 

[22lcidw]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

Yes Kamala Harris is running away with it right now. She raised over $2 million in 24 hours in small $20.00 donations and is refusing to take PAC money.

The difference between Kamala Harris & Bernie Sanders, is she is actually capable of winning the DNC nomination, and also the Presidency because she is a moderate that can appeal to everyone, including moderate Republicans, who have fled the Republican party over Trump.

Bernie Sanders couldn't even get Democrats to vote for him. Hillary beat Bernie worse than she did Trump by a whopping 3,775,437 Democrat primary popular votes. In comparison Obama beat Hillary in 2008 by a mere 41,622 democrat primary popular votes.
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Democratic Popular Vote
2008 Democratic Popular Vote | RealClearPolitics

So I imagine with the support that Kamala Harris is getting we will be watching other possible's drop out of the race to give her room to run. You're right it's a little early yet, but as we saw in the 2018 midterm, Blue Dog Democrats have made a huge comeback. To far left will spell disaster.

2020 will be the 100th anniversary of women winning the right to vote. It's time we had a woman President and this may be it.

Kamala Harris

So, the BEST the Democrats can do is a raving leftist neo-Marxist (Harris) and an old Commie (Sanders?)....Bring it on! MAGA!!! MAGA!!! MAGA!!!

Kamala Harris is not a liberal democrat, she's a moderate aka Blue Dog Democrat. You know the type of Democrats that kicked your ass's in the 2018 Midterm.

That should scare the bee-gee's out of you, because this gal is SMART, very SMART. Trump would get steamrolled by her in any debate.

She sure votes like a Progressive Socialist though.

 

[ptbw forever]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

Yes Kamala Harris is running away with it right now. She raised over $2 million in 24 hours in small $20.00 donations and is refusing to take PAC money.

The difference between Kamala Harris & Bernie Sanders, is she is actually capable of winning the DNC nomination, and also the Presidency because she is a moderate that can appeal to everyone, including moderate Republicans, who have fled the Republican party over Trump.

Bernie Sanders couldn't even get Democrats to vote for him. Hillary beat Bernie worse than she did Trump by a whopping 3,775,437 Democrat primary popular votes. In comparison Obama beat Hillary in 2008 by a mere 41,622 democrat primary popular votes.
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Democratic Popular Vote
2008 Democratic Popular Vote | RealClearPolitics

So I imagine with the support that Kamala Harris is getting we will be watching other possible's drop out of the race to give her room to run. You're right it's a little early yet, but as we saw in the 2018 midterm, Blue Dog Democrats have made a huge comeback. To far left will spell disaster.

2020 will be the 100th anniversary of women winning the right to vote. It's time we had a woman President and this may be it.

Kamala Harris

So, the BEST the Democrats can do is a raving leftist neo-Marxist (Harris) and an old Commie (Sanders?)....Bring it on! MAGA!!! MAGA!!! MAGA!!!

Kamala Harris is not a liberal democrat, she's a moderate aka Blue Dog Democrat. You know the type of Democrats that kicked your ass's in the 2018 Midterm.

That should scare the bee-gee's out of you, because this gal is SMART, very SMART. Trump would get steamrolled by her in any debate.

Blue dog Democrats no longer exist.

She is a typical California loon.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

Yes Kamala Harris is running away with it right now. She raised over $2 million in 24 hours in small $20.00 donations and is refusing to take PAC money.

The difference between Kamala Harris & Bernie Sanders, is she is actually capable of winning the DNC nomination, and also the Presidency because she is a moderate that can appeal to everyone, including moderate Republicans, who have fled the Republican party over Trump.

Bernie Sanders couldn't even get Democrats to vote for him. Hillary beat Bernie worse than she did Trump by a whopping 3,775,437 Democrat primary popular votes. In comparison Obama beat Hillary in 2008 by a mere 41,622 democrat primary popular votes.
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Democratic Popular Vote
2008 Democratic Popular Vote | RealClearPolitics

So I imagine with the support that Kamala Harris is getting we will be watching other possible's drop out of the race to give her room to run. You're right it's a little early yet, but as we saw in the 2018 midterm, Blue Dog Democrats have made a huge comeback. To far left will spell disaster.

2020 will be the 100th anniversary of women winning the right to vote. It's time we had a woman President and this may be it.

Kamala Harris

So, the BEST the Democrats can do is a raving leftist neo-Marxist (Harris) and an old Commie (Sanders?)....Bring it on! MAGA!!! MAGA!!! MAGA!!!

Kamala Harris is not a liberal democrat, she's a moderate aka Blue Dog Democrat. You know the type of Democrats that kicked your ass's in the 2018 Midterm.

That should scare the bee-gee's out of you, because this gal is SMART, very SMART. Trump would get steamrolled by her in any debate.

Kamala Harris is a very far left lunatic. She has a visceral hatred of all business both big and small. She measures her success by the number of sanctuaries and how many streets flow with open sewage. She knows that Democrats won by fraud and she's okay with that. She would take harvesting votes nationwide.

 

[basquebromance]

there are more cows in my ranch than there are Kamala supporters! MWAHAHAHAHA

 

[SweetSue92]

I don’t necessarily think this means Harris has a real shot because it is still way too early to make the assumption. The takeaway here is that republican voters don’t seem to appreciate the power of a grassroots movement on the left. See, while candidates for the GOP or Hillary have always relied on super PAC funding for their campaigns, Bernie and Kamala have proven that real support from the people comes from rejecting super PAC funding and relying on small time donations to get a feel of how the American public sees you. The Koch Brothers may try to make republicans look powerful with their funding, the truth of the matter is that it only makes the candidate look weak if you see his finance campaign.

The second point to take away from this is that this achievement by Bernie or Kamala puts to rest the narrative from the right that liberals are just selfish bottom feeders living off the government. These fundraising milestones make it clear that liberal voters more than conservatives are willing to give up their own money for a cause. Republican voters don’t do this because A) they are really just more selfish than they want to admit and only care about voting or B) the GOP candidate doesn’t even push for their financial support because he ultimately doesn’t need it. He has Citizen’s United to coast on for a campaign. Man is that pathetic.

Kamala Harris presidential campaign attracts more donors in day one than Bernie Sanders’ first 24 hours in 2016

Wrong. Conservatives give to our faith: our churches. You give to your faith: politicians. It really is just that simple.

Churches not bound by taxes? Yeah we know that.

 

[basquebromance]

you dont need everyone to like you, and you shouldn't waste your time trying. you just need 50+1.

 

[basquebromance]

you should only run if you have conviction. you need a thick skin. you need to ask everyone you know who is experienced in politics to meet 1 on 1. dont get discouraged now. DONT GET DISCOURAGED! FOCUS! FOCUS! FOCUS!