On the contrary, I am in the camp that both her and Bernie are kind of dumb for NOT accepting large donations since it hamstrings them in the Democratic campaign against the Republicans. The really nasty corporations are going to be heavily funding the Trump campaign, but not all big donor entities have decision-makers who are completely psychopathic in nature.

I have heard that people think that receiving a donation from some big corporation to an election campaign is the same as that corporation buying the candidate; this is false, there is absolutely no law or rule suggesting candidates must work for those who donate to their campaigns... it sounds like something that is highly illegal. Even Trump isn't going to change his views, those who donate to campaigns know what they are getting for their money, they're not donating to sway them. But I am also in favour of the abolition of corporate donations, and limits placed on donations in general: plus high public rebates on donations so that even a poor person can afford to donate a decent amount.

Those donations mean political ads, banners, and signs - you don't want to sacrifice that.

On the other point, I don't think there's any controversy behind waiting until knowing who's going to win before putting forward an endorsement, even among friends. It's common practice, even Obama and Biden waited until Clinton was clearly going to win before they endorsed her. Obama hasn't endorsed anyone in the current run, despite Biden's bootlicking.

[citation needed]

No really, that is something I see not even a hint for. I see it only ever used as a strategy to smear Sanders. Because, maybe there were a few Bernie or Bust people, but would they have voted for Clinton in the first place? I think it is the other way around: that Sanders fought hard in the primary activated many voters that would have been passive otherwise because they had long given up on voting, as they felt neither party would do anything for them. Sanders could actually bring them back in the political process. That some of these people were in the end disappointed that Clinton was the nominee and didn't show up on election day is meaningless, as they would have been absent if Sanders wouldn't have been in the primary in the first place. But many of the people he activated in the end voted for Clinton.

In the end Clinton got 65 million votes, just about the same as Obama did. To be precise, Obama got 65,915,795 votes 2012, while Clinton got 65,853,514. So she lost about 62K voters, pretty much nothing compared to one of the most beloved presidents. Trump on the other hand got 62,984,828 votes, about 2 million more than Romneys 60,933,504. So in the end Clinton did not lose because she lost voters, Trump won because he convinced voters. In which way he did that is a miracle to me, but he did.

So, people want to tell me, that Clinton - a candidate with certainly a lot of problems and baggage - would have magically gotten more votes than Obama, if not the mean kid Sanders threw a wrench in it? Yeah no, I don't buy that. It is obviously bull to damage Sanders, and it disheartens me that so many people believe that bull.

The chances were none, Clinton had won a majority and the popular vote prior to June 7th. So yes, it IS the same.

I don't like big money in politics period but I expect establishment Dems to take big money so I guess I can't begrudge them for that because I knew it from the beginning. But when you're running a campaign against wealthy big donors and then turn around and take their money in the general that's hypocritical and I'm sure most people will have a problem with it if that becomes the reality.

Alternative interpretation: It's a point that hurts Clinton that many hate her for: Clinton would have won the election if she hadn't (willfully, I must add) screwed over Bernie by working with Debbie Wasserman Shultz to rig the primary, and then refused to disavow any of it, instead HIRING DWS to run her fucking campaign, thus alienating everyone from the other side. If anything, since she cheated at the primary, she should have resigned and withdrawn from the race. There are quite a few who will never forgive her for losing an election that should have been the easiest to win in generations. Bernie would have won.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/beto-o-rourke-ar-robert-francis-tweet-death-threat-fbi-140045177.html

Well that escalated quickly. Honestly, this just makes me like Beto more. He's not even close to my favorite candidate for president, but I love the courage of his statement. And I love that it scares the piss out of the GOP so much that they're literally losing their sanity and making death threats. Exposes them as the nuts they are.

It's not hypocritical to play by the rules while campaigning to change the rules.

If I'm in a kickboxing match, and I am campaigning for rounds to be 3 minutes instead of 5 minutes, it doesn't mean I am going to stop fighting after 3 minutes every single round. Or if I want a ban to knees, it doesn't mean I am never going to throw a knee when those are rules - I would be at a disadvantage.

Bernie Sanders backs the abolition of the electoral college, do you think he should instead NOT base his campaign strategy around winning within the electoral college system?

I used to think Beto and Buttigieg were a couple of wieners, but the reality is that it's just Buttigieg.

Beto had a solid performance last night but he went down on my list of liked candidates since he wants to take away people's automatics and supports reparations.