Cruz and Bush donors switch to Hillary. Cruz was anti establishment eh? Bwahahahahahahaha!

[g5000]

Cruz and Bush donors switch to Hillary.

That's should almost make up for the money Trump and his family used to give her.

 

[S.J.]

They're not placing bets, they're funding a campaign.

Actually they are with few exceptions the wealthy always want to be on the side of the politician who wins it might get them favors down the line it might not but they won't get anything if the back the loser. If these same people start to believe Trump has a real shot at winning they will switch.

I disagree. They don't just give you millions of dollars unless they're pretty sure about how you will respond to their interests.

To these people a million dollars is pocket change and you can be pretty sure they have a way to write it off before they give it.

Pocket change or not, the purpose of funding a campaign is to get the person elected. Nobody goes to the trouble to bundle millions to give a candidate on a gamble, and they're sure not gonna give to somebody with "stated" views that are the opposite of the one they funded who dropped out. They know something about Cruz that the public does not.

When you donate money to any campaign it's a gamble you have no guarantee of how long they will be in the race or if they will win. These people are not giving money to the candidate who's views are most like Cruz or even Bush because neither are they are choosing to give money to the one they think will be the likely winner in November.

You're missing my point. There's no guarantee they will will, of course, but you're not gonna try to help somebody win just because you think they will. You're gonna help them because you will get something out of it if they do. For someone to donate to Cruz, then Hillary, it means they BOTH promised something to the donor. That's my point.

 

[blackhawk]

Actually they are with few exceptions the wealthy always want to be on the side of the politician who wins it might get them favors down the line it might not but they won't get anything if the back the loser. If these same people start to believe Trump has a real shot at winning they will switch.

I disagree. They don't just give you millions of dollars unless they're pretty sure about how you will respond to their interests.

To these people a million dollars is pocket change and you can be pretty sure they have a way to write it off before they give it.

Pocket change or not, the purpose of funding a campaign is to get the person elected. Nobody goes to the trouble to bundle millions to give a candidate on a gamble, and they're sure not gonna give to somebody with "stated" views that are the opposite of the one they funded who dropped out. They know something about Cruz that the public does not.

When you donate money to any campaign it's a gamble you have no guarantee of how long they will be in the race or if they will win. These people are not giving money to the candidate who's views are most like Cruz or even Bush because neither are they are choosing to give money to the one they think will be the likely winner in November.

You're missing my point. There's no guarantee they will will, of course, but you're not gonna try to help somebody win just because you think they will. You're gonna help them because you will get something out of it if they do. For someone to donate to Cruz, then Hillary, it means they BOTH promised something to the donor. That's my point.

No it doesn't mean that and you have zero proof of that and given Cruz and Hillary are such political polar opposites the idea they could or would promise them the same thing or even something similar is laughable. This whole thing says something about the donor but nothing about Cruz.

 

[PredFan]

Let me see if I can clear something up for you guys.

Those donors started out as Bush donors. They became "anybody but Trump" donors and Cruz was logically the only choice for them at the end. They are still "anybody but Trump" donors and that means Hillary.

Not really hard to understand and it has nothing at all to do with Cruz.

 

[S.J.]

I disagree. They don't just give you millions of dollars unless they're pretty sure about how you will respond to their interests.

To these people a million dollars is pocket change and you can be pretty sure they have a way to write it off before they give it.

Pocket change or not, the purpose of funding a campaign is to get the person elected. Nobody goes to the trouble to bundle millions to give a candidate on a gamble, and they're sure not gonna give to somebody with "stated" views that are the opposite of the one they funded who dropped out. They know something about Cruz that the public does not.

When you donate money to any campaign it's a gamble you have no guarantee of how long they will be in the race or if they will win. These people are not giving money to the candidate who's views are most like Cruz or even Bush because neither are they are choosing to give money to the one they think will be the likely winner in November.

You're missing my point. There's no guarantee they will will, of course, but you're not gonna try to help somebody win just because you think they will. You're gonna help them because you will get something out of it if they do. For someone to donate to Cruz, then Hillary, it means they BOTH promised something to the donor. That's my point.

No it doesn't mean that and you have zero proof of that and given Cruz and Hillary are such political polar opposites the idea they could or would promise them the same thing or even something similar is laughable. This whole thing says something about the donor but nothing about Cruz.

It says that Cruz promised them something, either directly or indirectly.

 

[blackhawk]

To these people a million dollars is pocket change and you can be pretty sure they have a way to write it off before they give it.

Pocket change or not, the purpose of funding a campaign is to get the person elected. Nobody goes to the trouble to bundle millions to give a candidate on a gamble, and they're sure not gonna give to somebody with "stated" views that are the opposite of the one they funded who dropped out. They know something about Cruz that the public does not.

When you donate money to any campaign it's a gamble you have no guarantee of how long they will be in the race or if they will win. These people are not giving money to the candidate who's views are most like Cruz or even Bush because neither are they are choosing to give money to the one they think will be the likely winner in November.

You're missing my point. There's no guarantee they will will, of course, but you're not gonna try to help somebody win just because you think they will. You're gonna help them because you will get something out of it if they do. For someone to donate to Cruz, then Hillary, it means they BOTH promised something to the donor. That's my point.

No it doesn't mean that and you have zero proof of that and given Cruz and Hillary are such political polar opposites the idea they could or would promise them the same thing or even something similar is laughable. This whole thing says something about the donor but nothing about Cruz.

It says that Cruz promised them something, either directly or indirectly.

That's your opinion not a fact. If these people are never Trump people and no I don't know this for a fact but if they are it could simply mean they are willing to back anyone other than Trump which could very well include Hillary which again would say something about them but nothing about Cruz.

 

[S.J.]

Pocket change or not, the purpose of funding a campaign is to get the person elected. Nobody goes to the trouble to bundle millions to give a candidate on a gamble, and they're sure not gonna give to somebody with "stated" views that are the opposite of the one they funded who dropped out. They know something about Cruz that the public does not.

When you donate money to any campaign it's a gamble you have no guarantee of how long they will be in the race or if they will win. These people are not giving money to the candidate who's views are most like Cruz or even Bush because neither are they are choosing to give money to the one they think will be the likely winner in November.

You're missing my point. There's no guarantee they will will, of course, but you're not gonna try to help somebody win just because you think they will. You're gonna help them because you will get something out of it if they do. For someone to donate to Cruz, then Hillary, it means they BOTH promised something to the donor. That's my point.

No it doesn't mean that and you have zero proof of that and given Cruz and Hillary are such political polar opposites the idea they could or would promise them the same thing or even something similar is laughable. This whole thing says something about the donor but nothing about Cruz.

It says that Cruz promised them something, either directly or indirectly.

That's your opinion not a fact. If these people are never Trump people and no I don't know this for a fact but if they are it could simply mean they are willing to back anyone other than Trump which could very well include Hillary which again would say something about them but nothing about Cruz.

Well, we can agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that. Thanks for the debate.

 

[blackhawk]

When you donate money to any campaign it's a gamble you have no guarantee of how long they will be in the race or if they will win. These people are not giving money to the candidate who's views are most like Cruz or even Bush because neither are they are choosing to give money to the one they think will be the likely winner in November.

You're missing my point. There's no guarantee they will will, of course, but you're not gonna try to help somebody win just because you think they will. You're gonna help them because you will get something out of it if they do. For someone to donate to Cruz, then Hillary, it means they BOTH promised something to the donor. That's my point.

No it doesn't mean that and you have zero proof of that and given Cruz and Hillary are such political polar opposites the idea they could or would promise them the same thing or even something similar is laughable. This whole thing says something about the donor but nothing about Cruz.

It says that Cruz promised them something, either directly or indirectly.

That's your opinion not a fact. If these people are never Trump people and no I don't know this for a fact but if they are it could simply mean they are willing to back anyone other than Trump which could very well include Hillary which again would say something about them but nothing about Cruz.

Well, we can agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that. Thanks for the debate.

Good enough nice to have one without the silly insults and name calling.

 

[guno]

Laura Bush hints she would rather vote for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump

Laura Bush hints she would rather vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump

 

[tinydancer]

He has attacked trade - an issue that can cost the rich a LOT. It does not surprise me that they are jumping across to Hillary. That has always been an issue where both parties agree.

Bush and Hillary shared over 60 of the same donors pre Trump according to what I've been digging up.

And the only reason Jeb entered the race was to give it to Clinton. Cripes, the twins refer to Bill as their uncle. And fully supported Hillary for President.

Then ruh roh. The Donald came along and spoiled the coronation.

And Trump also donated to Hillary. He said she does a great job, and surrounds herself with good people. Was he lying?


Trump has spent years courting Hillary and other Dems

Of course he donated to both parties. He's a business man. Just like Buffet, Gates and a myriad of other wealthy and influential businessmen.

This is different because Cruz and Bush backers are now in some bizarro frenzied war against Trump. I think in that article Jeb Bush shared 60 donors with Hillary.

Point being obviously the elite and establishment figures are backing who they believe to be establishment. All three were considered establishment.

 

[emilynghiem]

How is Cruz or any other candidate supposed to control who donors give money to?

That's not the point. If Hillary is their second choice, there must be something that Cruz and Hillary were both willing to do for them that Trump is against.

How about listen to reason?

 

[Care4all]

How is Cruz or any other candidate supposed to control who donors give money to?

That's not the point. If Hillary is their second choice, there must be something that Cruz and Hillary were both willing to do for them that Trump is against.

that's utter bull crap.

these donors first donated to bush, then donated to rubio then reluctantly donated to cruz, all before the pacs supporting hillary approached them to see if they would contribute to their PACS.

They are nevertrumpers, because donald duck is the most disgusting candidate for President in all of US History....he's a lying duffus, arrogant, ignorant, embarrassing, narcissistic idiot and NO ONE like him should ever in a million years, no matter who he is running against, be President of the USA....he's a great reality tv show host though....

 

[S.J.]

How is Cruz or any other candidate supposed to control who donors give money to?

That's not the point. If Hillary is their second choice, there must be something that Cruz and Hillary were both willing to do for them that Trump is against.

How about listen to reason?

Their reason? The corporate billionaires who want to have the president in their back pocket? You may have a point there.

 

[S.J.]

How is Cruz or any other candidate supposed to control who donors give money to?

That's not the point. If Hillary is their second choice, there must be something that Cruz and Hillary were both willing to do for them that Trump is against.

that's utter bull crap.

these donors first donated to bush, then donated to rubio then reluctantly donated to cruz, all before the pacs supporting hillary approached them to see if they would contribute to their PACS.

They are nevertrumpers, because donald duck is the most disgusting candidate for President in all of US History....he's a lying duffus, arrogant, ignorant, embarrassing, narcissistic idiot and NO ONE like him should ever in a million years, no matter who he is running against, be President of the USA....he's a great reality tv show host though....

No, it's because they can't control him the way they can control any of the other ones. Funny how you liberals suddenly turn into crony corporate capitalists when it's YOUR candidate being bought and paid for.

 

[BULLDOG]

Time for trump to dump a few hundred million of his money into his campaign! Even the stakes.

You haven't heard? After all that talk about self funding,and not having a super pac, Trump decided he really didn't want self fund after all. The money he spent so far did come from him, but the money was LOANED to his campaign and he expects every penny to be paid back by his superpac. This whole thing isn't going to cost him a penny.

 

[BULLDOG]

Time for trump to dump a few hundred million of his money into his campaign! Even the stakes.

I think he's up to 30 million of his own. I think though we'll see a swing of "Never the she beast" donors start to open their wallets.

He LOANED that money to his campaign. He didn't give it. He's been lying about self funding all along.

 

[emilynghiem]

How is Cruz or any other candidate supposed to control who donors give money to?

That's not the point. If Hillary is their second choice, there must be something that Cruz and Hillary were both willing to do for them that Trump is against.

How about listen to reason?

Their reason? The corporate billionaires who want to have the president in their back pocket? You may have a point there.

Sadly S.J. It's more than that.
It's one thing to be independent, and another thing to be able to work with all people to construct and lead good business plans.

Have you ever tried working with a manager who constantly put down, insulted, degraded and undermined
other managers needed to do the work of the company?

The other candidates were GENTLEMEN compared with how Trump was backstabbing his own constituents.
How can you TRUST anyone who would do that to get ahead?
The other candidates were trying to CORRECT the problems in the right way.
Look at how conservatives CORRECTED Ted Nugent when he publicly degraded the President
with a poor choice of words, and they rebuked him to stick to the PRINCIPLES and PROBLEMS instead of attacking the PERSON.

Even Hillary is trying to be more diplomatic and Presidential.

Too bad S.J. I also support the idea of TRUMP leading independent teams to fix the problems with govt and economy.

But because of his lack of check on his own ego, he has turned too many people against him.
He would have been good if he LISTENED to his own peers first, and got them on board so he could
take on the opposition as well and get them on board with solid business plans.

But at the rate Trump is playing the media for points,
I am thinking Hillary can still beat him.

I've seen this before, too many times. By dividing the vote,
the second or third choice can rise to the top.

Nobody gets what they want by dividing from each other this way.
We need unity not division.

You and Trump do the reform needed a DISSERVICE
by attacking Cruz and others who are pushing for reforms and protections from bad govt.

How Trump managed to turn people against the conservatives
who can lead the way is beyond me. The first step is to get
everyone on your side, starting with your own peers, not divide and alienate everyone
to get media attention.

 

[S.J.]

How is Cruz or any other candidate supposed to control who donors give money to?

That's not the point. If Hillary is their second choice, there must be something that Cruz and Hillary were both willing to do for them that Trump is against.

How about listen to reason?

Their reason? The corporate billionaires who want to have the president in their back pocket? You may have a point there.

Sadly S.J. It's more than that.
It's one thing to be independent, and another thing to be able to work with all people to construct and lead good business plans.

Have you ever tried working with a manager who constantly put down, insulted, degraded and undermined
other managers needed to do the work of the company?

The other candidates were GENTLEMEN compared with how Trump was backstabbing his own constituents.
How can you TRUST anyone who would do that to get ahead?
The other candidates were trying to CORRECT the problems in the right way.
Look at how conservatives CORRECTED Ted Nugent when he publicly degraded the President
with a poor choice of words, and they rebuked him to stick to the PRINCIPLES and PROBLEMS instead of attacking the PERSON.

Even Hillary is trying to be more diplomatic and Presidential.

Too bad S.J. I also support the idea of TRUMP leading independent teams to fix the problems with govt and economy.

But because of his lack of check on his own ego, he has turned too many people against him.
He would have been good if he LISTENED to his own peers first, and got them on board so he could
take on the opposition as well and get them on board with solid business plans.

But at the rate Trump is playing the media for points,
I am thinking Hillary can still beat him.

I've seen this before, too many times. By dividing the vote,
the second or third choice can rise to the top.

Nobody gets what they want by dividing from each other this way.
We need unity not division.

You and Trump do the reform needed a DISSERVICE
by attacking Cruz and others who are pushing for reforms and protections from bad govt.

How Trump managed to turn people against the conservatives
who can lead the way is beyond me. The first step is to get
everyone on your side, starting with your own peers, not divide and alienate everyone
to get media attention.

Could you shorten your posts a little? I don't mind responding to one or two points at a time but shit man, I'm not gonna sort through a whole damn book and respond to every one of them in one post.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's not that complicated. Trump would be a terrible president, and would screw up trade agreements before the first week was over. The rich guys are donating to stop Trump from flushing the entire country down the toilet more than they are to help any particular candidate.

 

[L.K.Eder]

the proof of the pudding is in the eating.