In Money Terms, Democratic Party Bigwigs Won BIG in 2016


The road that the DNC is currently on, and refuses to move off of, most certainly will result in a repeat of 2016’s election some three years hence. Their strategy guarantees a two-term President Trump. The people at the top of the DNC, however, will again be big winners, as so much money gets siphoned off the campaign funding. (And calling it “campaign funding” is a stretch, because so much of this is about the livelihoods of those at the top of the DNC. If you work there, you’re able to “make bank.”)

As perhaps many of us who are educating ourselves about “free elections” know, last year, Hillary Rodham Clinton had a $1.2 billion war chest by which she propelled herself into becoming the shoo-in candidate for the presidency. In a sense, the massive amounts of money her campaign had to spend on their candidate was a hindrance. The campaign was so overloaded with money that staff at the campaign headquarters were able to purchase not only various pollsters’ services but even allowed them to purchase the fudging of the results.

The results of some of that polling meant that by November 1, 2016, HRC backers were absolutely sure that Hillary had already won, as they managed to fall for their own bought and paid-for polling services.

But of that 1.2 billion bucks, a thinking person might ask themselves: “Where did such huge sums come from?”

The following interview with Jared Beck explains all this. Some large portion of the $1.2 billion came from the money that Bernie Sanders supporters had donated to their candidate. That this money was apprehended by the DNC is the basis for a lawsuit being filed by Jared and Elizabeth Beck on behalf of any and all of Sanders’s donors.

Beck is very informative in pulling back the curtain on the election process. I have heard that the presidential elections enable major TV networks to garner at least 15 billion extra dollars, with some people saying the amount is more on the scale of $50 billion and above. People watch their TVs more right before a major election. Candidates for every position from dog catcher to senator need to buy airtime. And normal advertisers have to cough up more money as they are competing with those candidates for a limited number of prime-time spots.

Had the Democratic National Committee not anointed Hillary Clinton but allowed a floor vote during the convention, there was an outside chance that Sanders might have won the party’s nomination. However, it had been decided prior to the convention that Hillary would simply be proclaimed the winner.

Even as many observers know that Bernie has been given the signal that he will be allowed to run for the presidency in 2020, it is far from an outside chance that the Democratic leadership will emphatically insist that the candidate favored by the corporate side of their party should also have a shot at being the 2020 candidate. So why will there be a continuation of these two conflicting viewpoints?

As Beck explains it, for the DNC to guarantee that sums over $1 billion can be donated, they must have a candidate who will appeal to their party’s younger members and some older but more progressive members. So perhaps the DNC is quite smart to insist on having a Bernie-style candidate. (Tulsi Gabbard is one suggested replacement should Bernie not make it to 2020.) This progressive “sucker” candidate sucks off the money of the burgeoning demographics of its party.

Of course, this is only speculation, since we are two years away from any serious announcement of who will run for the “Big D” party in 2020. But one thing that is totally guaranteed — the DNC is not at any point in time about to put down its corrupt policies and influences. Also, since most voters remain unaware, our “Fictional Election Entertainment Activities,” as Beck refers to them, will probably continue for at least another decade or so.


https://youtu.be/ve2rMl7scC8