Hillary Victory Fund - Campaign Spending Violations

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

Keith, a basic reading of the articles on the site you just sourced is consistently anti-Clinton. That makes it hard for me to take the criticism serious. As you've already noted, it isn't "mainstream." And that is the problem with both Bernie and Trump. The past record of presidential elections is that mainstream people get elected far right and far left folks don't.

Trump is hard to predict because no one really has any idea as to his real positions on anything. Clinton is has been consistently a middle of the road Democrat.

It seems pretty likely to me that the ticket will be Clinton against Trump. The numbers for Bernie aren't good. So are progressives going to tear down Clinton and naively give the election to The Donald? The possibility worries me.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

Criticism of the "Victory Fund" is a Sanders campaign critique. It might be contrary to his principles, but I doubt that there is anything against the law. It's a way for big money to get into a PAC, which he doesn't like. This sounds a lot like the ultra right wing extremist stuff that comes out about her indictment being just hours away, or something she said going viral, costing her votes.

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

It would be difficult to change the campaign finance structure if you didn't get elected to be in a position to do it. Sanders has done a great job fundraising, but with things the way they are now, he would have had to depend heavily on the state party organizations and the DNC for funds to campaign in the general election, or he would have had to set up a PAC. You have to get there to be able to appoint the justices to the Supreme Court who will overturn Citizens United.

Personally, I would have preferred Sanders as the Democratic nominee. After what happened tonight in Indiana, and afterward, I think the Democrats have been given the gift of four more years in the White House with, at the very least, control of the Senate. Sanders and his progressive agenda, while most likely not being able to deliver on all of what he promised, would still make progress, and get some things done. He'd at least put things on the table that would eventually get consideration and make some changes. Hillary, with her PAC money, won't need as much from the DNC or the states, and that money can go to electing Democratic senators. And that will be the key in making sure that there is campaign finance reform. It's a dilemma, for sure.

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy, I could have gotten more excited about Sanders if he had actually chosen to be a Democrat in more than name some time back instead of playing the same game Trump plays on the GOP side of joining a party just to get legitimatecy.

I'd also have been more excited if he proposed an actual way to get the reforms he wants rather than just assume that some how or other he'll get a party he never fully supported, plus those in the GOP, to actually go along with it.

Yes, I'd like universal healthcare. Yes, I the idea of free college sounds good. But I never got any sense that he could deliver on those ideas. Also everything in the universe isn't the fault of big banks.

[KeithE]