Gary Hart: Billion-dollar Clinton campaign should 'frighten' Americans

[Dexter]

Elections aren't decided by money, they're decided by voters and their votes.  And in case you haven't noticed, even shoe-string candidates can get picked up by the major money-sources if - if - they have something interesting to say.  On the other hand, no amount of money is going to get a trite, single-issue candidate.  Did you not learn even the most basic of lessons from all the millionaires who ran - and lost - for the GOP nomination in 2012?

How many of those millionaires had campaign funds that rivaled that of the Democrats or Republicans? I'm guessing the answer is approximately zero. Elections are decided by money because the amount of money you have to spend on a campaign determines how much your message will be heard. If money didn't decide elections Hillary Clinton would not be spending a billion dollars on her attempt to become president. Nobody can compete with the main parties because nobody has the funds to compete with them. The barrier to entry is impossibly high.

[truth_seeker]

I am aware that the unions and many of the politicians on the left would not support this idea. However a lot of the left's voter base would support the idea. Politicians on the right and the people that line their pockets would not support the idea either, but I think maybe a lot of the right wing voter base would. Many voters on the left and right seem to understand the problems associated with having too much money in politics. If this is true I don't understand why there can't be solidarity on this issue. If droves of people from all corners of the political spectrum demanded this change I think they would be heard.

The politicians on both sides won't relinquish anything, unless they see it as being even. And the money sources won't relinquish the influence it gives them.

Obama got a ton of money from big banks, and guess what? The financial "recovery" was a huge windfall for them, and the left handed it to them.

The same is true of government employee unions.

[Dexter]

The politicians on both sides won't relinquish anything, unless they see it as being even. And the money sources won't relinquish the influence it gives them.

Obama got a ton of money from big banks, and guess what? The financial "recovery" was a huge windfall for them, and the left handed it to them.

The same is true of government employee unions.

The politicians on both sides won't relinquish anything because they benefit immensely from it. That's why the people need to stand in solidarity and demand a change.

[truth_seeker]

The politicians on both sides won't relinquish anything because they benefit immensely from it. That's why the people need to stand in solidarity and demand a change.

Even with citizens united, the left still raises more money. Therefore the first move towards reducing money in campaigns would logically need to come from the left.

But it won't. BTW the term "solidarity" is mainly associated with the extreme left; socialism/communism.

In actual practice the unions get to take involuntary deductions of members checks, to fund their political contributions, which go to politicians (the left) that will fight to keep big union money flowing.

The idealists on the left will lose to the pragmatists on the left.

[Dexter]

Even with citizens united, the left still raises more money. Therefore the first move towards reducing money in campaigns would logically need to come from the left.

But it won't. BTW the term "solidarity" is mainly associated with the extreme left; socialism/communism.

In actual practice the unions get to take involuntary deductions of members checks, to fund their political contributions, which go to politicians (the left) that will fight to keep big union money flowing.

The idealists on the left will lose to the pragmatists on the left.

sol·i·dar·i·ty
ˌsäləˈderədē/
noun
noun: solidarity; singular proper noun: Solidarity; noun: Solidarity

    1.
    unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group.

There is nothing inherently leftist about that word. The first move towards reducing money in campaigns will have to come from a unified demand for that to happen. You've made your point that the left uses just as much or even more money in a lot of cases. I get that, but there's no way the left is going to put themselves out there in good faith and trust that the Republicans will do the same after they hinder their own ability to finance elections. It has to be a mutual reduction is campaign spending that results in both sides having the same amount of funding. If your willingness to participate in such a thing hinges on the left being willing to take the first step then it will never happen.

[truth_seeker]

Winston S. Churchill supposedly once observed that anyone who was not a liberal at 20 years of age had no heart, while anyone who was still a liberal at 40 had no head.

Similar quotes are attributed to many others.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/

[Oceander]

How many of those millionaires had campaign funds that rivaled that of the Democrats or Republicans? I'm guessing the answer is approximately zero. Elections are decided by money because the amount of money you have to spend on a campaign determines how much your message will be heard. If money didn't decide elections Hillary Clinton would not be spending a billion dollars on her attempt to become president. Nobody can compete with the main parties because nobody has the funds to compete with them. The barrier to entry is impossibly high.

/snicker


Where do you think a political career starts?  Other than the affirmative-action incompetents - like Obama - the Democrat Party foists on us, political careers generally start at the local or state level, either in lower elected offices or in some other involved capacity in local/state politics.  That does not take millions of dollars; it takes someone with drive and the ability to persuade others (in fact, as all the loser millionaires show, those are skills that cannot be bought with any sum of money).  And - again, with the exception of affirmative-action twits like Obama - that means that a candidate's access to the political system is driven by her (or his) skills and ability to draw people, not simply by the amount of money she (or he) has.  The successful "message" gets heard at the local/state level first, if it ever gets heard at all.

And as for all of those hypothetical candidates you're fretting over, the simple, blunt fact of the matter is that most of them don't have anything to say in the first place and those that do are usually one-trick ponies.

The barrier to entry is the high degree of drive, skill, and ability to persuade required to get into national politics, not money.  Sure, someone with enough money to waste can temporarily buy her (or his) way onto the national stage, but the only political neophytes to have managed to actually win national office are, once again, affirmative-action twits like Obama.

[Oceander]

sol·i·dar·i·ty
ˌsäləˈderədē/
noun
noun: solidarity; singular proper noun: Solidarity; noun: Solidarity

    1.
    unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group.

There is nothing inherently leftist about that word. The first move towards reducing money in campaigns will have to come from a unified demand for that to happen. You've made your point that the left uses just as much or even more money in a lot of cases. I get that, but there's no way the left is going to put themselves out there in good faith and trust that the Republicans will do the same after they hinder their own ability to finance elections. It has to be a mutual reduction is campaign spending that results in both sides having the same amount of funding. If your willingness to participate in such a thing hinges on the left being willing to take the first step then it will never happen.

/snicker


Wee, fun with words!

con·no·ta·tion
/känəˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: connotation; plural noun: connotations
 1.
    a)  the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning: A possible connotation of “home” is “a place of warmth, comfort, and affection.”.
    b)  the act of connoting; the suggesting of an additional meaning for a word or expression, apart from its explicit meaning.

2.  something suggested or implied by a word or thing, rather than being explicitly named or described:
“Religion” has always had a negative connotation for me.


The art of politics is as much the art of connotation as it is of denotation.

Consider the word "liberal" - in its original political meaning it meant something much closer to the moderate, centrist republicans; it certainly had nothing to do with left of center politics.  In the US it means left-wing politics and only a fool of a republican would call him or her self a liberal, even though she or he is more entitled to the word than is anyone in the democrat party.  In other countries, such as Australia, it continues to refer to a moderate, right of center political party.

[Dexter]

/snicker


Wee, fun with words!

con·no·ta·tion
/känəˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: connotation; plural noun: connotations
 1.
    a)  the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning: A possible connotation of “home” is “a place of warmth, comfort, and affection.”.
    b)  the act of connoting; the suggesting of an additional meaning for a word or expression, apart from its explicit meaning.

2.  something suggested or implied by a word or thing, rather than being explicitly named or described:
“Religion” has always had a negative connotation for me.


The art of politics is as much the art of connotation as it is of denotation.

Consider the word "liberal" - in its original political meaning it meant something much closer to the moderate, centrist republicans; it certainly had nothing to do with left of center politics.  In the US it means left-wing politics and only a fool of a republican would call him or her self a liberal, even though she or he is more entitled to the word than is anyone in the democrat party.  In other countries, such as Australia, it continues to refer to a moderate, right of center political party.

Even the word liberal is still used for its original meaning in the United States sometimes. I'm not going to limit my vocabulary out of fear that somebody might think the left has a monopoly on a word I would like to use.

[Dexter]

/snicker


Where do you think a political career starts?  Other than the affirmative-action incompetents - like Obama - the Democrat Party foists on us, political careers generally start at the local or state level, either in lower elected offices or in some other involved capacity in local/state politics.  That does not take millions of dollars; it takes someone with drive and the ability to persuade others (in fact, as all the loser millionaires show, those are skills that cannot be bought with any sum of money).  And - again, with the exception of affirmative-action twits like Obama - that means that a candidate's access to the political system is driven by her (or his) skills and ability to draw people, not simply by the amount of money she (or he) has.  The successful "message" gets heard at the local/state level first, if it ever gets heard at all.

And as for all of those hypothetical candidates you're fretting over, the simple, blunt fact of the matter is that most of them don't have anything to say in the first place and those that do are usually one-trick ponies.

The barrier to entry is the high degree of drive, skill, and ability to persuade required to get into national politics, not money.  Sure, someone with enough money to waste can temporarily buy her (or his) way onto the national stage, but the only political neophytes to have managed to actually win national office are, once again, affirmative-action twits like Obama.

If experience and a silver tongue was all that was needed to be a successful politician the main parties would not burn as much cash as they do. To say that money does not play a large role in how votes are distributed is absurd. Lots of low information people vote based on some smear ad they saw on TV.

[Fishrrman]

If money alone could buy political power, Donald Trump would be president today!

[aligncare]

If experience and a silver tongue was all that was needed to be a successful politician the main parties would not burn as much cash as they do. To say that money does not play a large role in how votes are distributed is absurd. Lots of low information people vote based on some smear ad they saw on TV.

 

Notice how some GOPe group is planning to spend $1 million to attack Rand Paul. Big-money influences campaigns. That's obvious to most people.

[aligncare]

If money alone could buy political power, Donald Trump would be president today!

Come on, you're using Donald Trump as an example? Successful campaigns are multifactorial.

The right candidate + money = a Manchurian win. Example: Obama.

The right candidate – money = Romney

[Rivergirl]

One liar promoting another liar.  No doubt the faux indian will be happy for his endorsement.