Karl Rove’s super-PAC, American Crossroads, spent $100 million trying to defeat the Democrats in 2012. “American Crossroads and Bernie Sanders helped Nevada caucus-goers see right through Hillary Clinton … that one-two punch [Crossroads and Sanders] shaved Clinton’s 50-point lead a year ago to a slim, single-digit win.” That’s according to Steven Law, Crossroads CEO. Crossroads also funded a TV ad for the Iowa primary that features Sanders’ talking points insinuating that Clinton has been bought by Wall Street. How to explain this?
Sanders Keeps Silent
The Daily Beast asked the Sanders campaign for a comment on this and other super-PAC spending aimed at helping him defeat Clinton, but the campaign did not respond. Why not disown these Wall Street-funded super PACs that Sanders rails against? No, Sanders is not colluding with Karl Rove. He doesn’t need to.
To be clear, conservative spending for Sanders does not indicate corruption. That’s missing the point. It indicates that conservatives want him to knock off or at least weaken Clinton. Of course, they’d prefer to run against Sanders. There’s also a question of why he will not condemn this particular kind of political interference from Big $$ and Wall Street. Is it OK for Wall Street to buy elections as long as they are helping Bernie?
This page just presents some missing facts, and asks why. It makes no accusations. The facts are correct, and they are ominous. The right is not mistaken to support Sanders.
Officially, as of today (2/26/16) “outside organizations” (mainly super-PACs) have spent $4.3 million against Clinton and $0.83 million supposedly against Sanders. Just watch this Ad by the conservative ESA Fund, which spent $0.77 million of the so-called anti-Sanders money. That ad presents Sanders’ position in glowing terms that would appeal to any Democrat, thereby helping Sanders against Clinton. Even in the final frame where it pretends to be anti-Sanders, it only says he’s “too liberal for Iowa.” Again this is music to Bernie’s ears. After, all he calls himself a socialist.
|Almost all of the $6.8 M “outside money” (mainly super-PACs) supporting Sanders is super conservative, while nearly all of the $6.7 M of “outside money” supporting Clinton is progressive.|
Why are Republicans backing a socialist?
There’s no evidence of anti-Sanders spending by Republicans, only spending that helps him. Why is that? It’s really too obvious, but just to be clear, Republicans really, really, really want to run against a big-government, atheistic socialist. It would be a dream come true. Especially a socialist with a Trotskyite past, who is a member of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which recently joined a conference in New York aimed at cooperating with the Communist Party USA.
Even short of Sanders’ nomination, strengthening Sanders now weakens Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee. Criticisms from the left may stick and reduce Democratic turnout. In addition, campaign money that Clinton spends now to fend off Sanders is that much less her campaign will have in the general election.
DSA’s flier about this conference asks, “How can we build a stronger democratic socialist movement … capable of taking down the capitalist system?” The first substantive line in their constitution states, “We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit.” All the little right-wing websites are busy digging up this ammunition, and I’m sure Karl Rove and his gang already have it all neatly organized.
What do Democrats think about Sanders’ chances?
When elected Democrats endorse Bernie or Hillary, their careers are on the line. The presidential candidate has “coattails,” and a presidential win helps them get re-elected. And the more Democrats elected, the more they can accomplish and the more popular they become with voters. Few politicians will risk their job by helping a loser get nominated.
Top level elected Democrats are betting 12 to zero (governors), 40 to zero (senators) and 154 to 3 (congressmen) that Bernie would more likely be a loser and/or carry fewer of them back into office with him. That’s 206 to 3, or 98.5% that think Clinton’s the stronger candidate. Combine that with 100% of the Republican money, and you have one heck of a strong prediction.
So why don’t the polls reflect this now?
Simple. Now Republicans are all rooting for Bernie and holding their fire. And they’re all attacking Hillary. But when the Koch Brothers super PAC and and top Republican Party operatives start spending the $1,500+ million that they plan to spend, things will change.
The reason Hillary taps all the money she can for her campaign is because she knows what she’s up against. She’s suffered through it for decades. And no, that was not liberal money (like Bernie’s) being spent against her, it was super-conservative money. They know who their most dangerous enemy is, and elected Democrats know who will be best for their re-election.
See prior post (3k+ likes): Clinton’s Wall Street Money Is Mostly from Progressives
Conservative super-PACs that are “For Sanders” are listed as “anti-Sanders,” because they pretend to be “anti” (see The Daily Beast) in order to avoid the bad publicity for him that comes from Wall Street money. Here’s a good example of how they do it. Of course, Sanders is not in touch with them or asking them for help.
|$776,201||For Sanders||Conservative super PAC||ESA Fund|
|$1,754,124||For Sanders||Liberal super PAC||National Nurses United|
|$44,909||For Sanders||Conservative super PAC||Future45|
|$607,160||Against Clinton||Conservative super PAC||Future45|
|$1,066,318||Against Clinton||Conservative super PAC||Tea Party Majority|
|$113,495||Against Clinton||Conservative super PAC||American Crossroads|
Other conservative PACs
and Super PACs
|$6,870,292|| For Sander &
|Mainly Super PACs||Total|
No candidate has, or can control, as super-PAC. That’s not allowed. But of course they can and do coordinate by reading the press. For example National Nurses United will read Sanders’ positions in the press and see his talking points and will support those. The same goes for super-PACs that support Clinton. There is also $6,748,244 “Outside Money” for Clinton, very nearly as much as for Sanders (see OpenSecrets.org). But almost all of the “outside money” for Clinton is progressive, and almost all of the “outside money” for Sanders is far-right conservative. (see also NYT)