Hillary Clinton officially launches "Onward Together" PAC

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

I have never clicked "Donate" faster in my life...

https://www.onwardtogether.org/

[Technocracy Timmy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reading this makes me want to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. The Democrats need to a hire a marketing team, and that marketing team has to be exclusively millennials.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reading this makes me want to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. The Democrats need to a hire a marketing team, and that marketing team has to be exclusively millennials.

     When you lose backing an out-of-touch fogey, clearly the answer is to double down on said out-of-touch fogey.

[Virginiá]

So she is basically trying to fund progressive groups, and I'm sure some groups people will not like because not liberal enough or something.

As I said in a previous thread about this new venture, if there is one thing Hillary does well, it is raising money. Let her raise money for groups if that is what she wants to do. I think it is kind of unfair to immediately assume she is going to somehow screw everything up, as if she is even in a position to do that anymore. So far it just seems like she is trying to provide support. I don't see what the problem is with that. Lots of groups on both sides do similar things.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Who!?

[Technocracy Timmy]

So she is basically trying to fund progressive groups, and I'm sure some groups people will not like because not liberal enough or something.

As I said in a previous thread about this new venture, if there is one thing Hillary does well, it is raising money. Let her raise money for groups if that is what she wants to do. I think it is kind of unfair to immediately assume she is going to somehow screw everything up, as if she is even in a position to do that anymore. So far it just seems like she is trying to provide support. I don't see what the problem is with that. Lots of groups on both sides do similar things.

I fully support raising money, but Democrats need to fix their messaging and that criticism isn't unique just to Hillary Clinton. That slogan along with "donate" and "Onward Together" was the first thing I saw and it made me cringe.

[Beet]

I'm tapped out. The problem isn't money; Clinton raised plenty of money last year. The problem isn't marketing, infrastructure, voter registration, or any of that.

The problem is, a voting system that is stacked against urban areas and, failing that, the message and the messenger. Clinton was a bad messenger and she tried a bad message.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Puke. More platitudes that mean nothing.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I have never clicked "Donate" faster in my life...

https://www.onwardtogether.org/

Because political efforts organized by Clinton and co have such an excellent history of results per dollar spent?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So basically the Selina Meyer Foundation for Adult Literacy, AIDS, and Global Democracy?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But I was told she's irrelevant now.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

The response from Democrats on this forum has honestly been disturbing. We shouldn't be shunning the former nominee of our party just because she lost an election which, she of course, won by almost 3 million votes. We should be gratefully embracing her efforts to help take down Chief Baby-Hands by propping up Democrats of all ideologies including the Berniecrats who spat on her name.

[DrScholl]

And the problem with this is? She got almost three million more votes than Trump, so she clearly has a big enough following to get things done. She's not out trying to sabotage candidates that don't fit her standards like Sanders tried to do Ossoff, she's actually trying to accomplish wins.

[Suburbia]

I think that Hillary Clinton may run again in 2020.

[Hammy]

I think that Hillary Clinton may run again in 2020.

If the Dems are really stupid enough to nominate the person that lost to Trump to try and defeat Trump, then the party deserves to become obsolete.

[Confused Democrat]

I could see "taking money from Hillary Clinton" or "funded by Hillary Clinton" being an effective attack line against Democratic candidates who take money from this PAC.

[DrScholl]

People who hate Hillary Clinton desperately want her to run again and are convinced that she is actually running again.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

I could see "taking money from Hillary Clinton" or "funded by Hillary Clinton" being an effective attack line against Democratic candidates who take money from this PAC.

Not as effective as congressional republicans embracing Trump.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The response from Democrats on this forum has honestly been disturbing. We shouldn't be shunning the former nominee of our party just because she lost an election which, she of course, won by almost 3 million votes. We should be gratefully embracing her efforts to help take down Chief Baby-Hands by propping up Democrats of all ideologies including the Berniecrats who spat on her name.

While we certainly want to avoid the left's circular firing squad problem, Secretary Clinton does not get some sort of free pass that puts her at the front of the queue for leading the Resistance. (We tried that once already, and it's how we got Trump in the first place!)

She is perfectly free to go demonstrate that she IS a good anti-Trump leader, and if she does so I WILL be glad to back her efforts. She can also lend her considerable fundraising talents to supporting (and finding) others who can successfully spike the wheels of the GOP's train of destruction. But if you think for one second that I'm going to accept Secretary Clinton as a leader of the anti-Trump movement on faith and credit, you're as deluded as the people who voted for Trump.

[DrScholl]

I could see "taking money from Hillary Clinton" or "funded by Hillary Clinton" being an effective attack line against Democratic candidates who take money from this PAC.

Effective where? In the ghost coal mining towns that are already voting Republican, but Bernie Sanders is convinced are winnable with a super socialist message? Give me a break.

[Hammy]

I could see "taking money from Hillary Clinton" or "funded by Hillary Clinton" being an effective attack line against Democratic candidates who take money from this PAC.

Not as effective as congressional republicans embracing Trump.

Problem is that the Dems don't know how to make the campaign national. If Clinton is involved in the congressional campaign at all, it'll do nothing but remind people who didn't vote in 2016 why they didn't, and you'll end up seeing a 2014 landslide repeat for the GOP.

[Koharu]

As I said in a previous thread about this new venture, if there is one thing Hillary does well, it is raising money. Let her raise money for groups if that is what she wants to do.

Precisely this. She's a skilled fundraiser if nothing else, and PACs exist to raise funds. I'm not sure if I'll donate or not, mostly because money is tight, but I am intrigued by the concept.

[DrScholl]

I could see "taking money from Hillary Clinton" or "funded by Hillary Clinton" being an effective attack line against Democratic candidates who take money from this PAC.

Not as effective as congressional republicans embracing Trump.

Problem is that the Dems don't know how to make the campaign national. If Clinton is involved in the congressional campaign at all, it'll do nothing but remind people who didn't vote in 2016 why they didn't, and you'll end up seeing a 2014 landslide repeat for the GOP.

A 2014 repeat is pretty much impossible considering that Republicans control all three branches. People who didn't vote in 2016 are reminded of what it was a bad idea not to vote every day when they hear about what Trump is doing.

[Hammy]

I could see "taking money from Hillary Clinton" or "funded by Hillary Clinton" being an effective attack line against Democratic candidates who take money from this PAC.

Not as effective as congressional republicans embracing Trump.

Problem is that the Dems don't know how to make the campaign national. If Clinton is involved in the congressional campaign at all, it'll do nothing but remind people who didn't vote in 2016 why they didn't, and you'll end up seeing a 2014 landslide repeat for the GOP.

A 2014 repeat is pretty much impossible considering that Republicans control all three branches. People who didn't vote in 2016 are reminded of what it was a bad idea not to vote every day when they hear about what Trump is doing.

It's not like these voters didn't know what was at stake when they cast their non-vote last time. Many don't see much of a difference between Clinton and Trump, and I doubt anything has changed in that time. And despite voting for her in 2016, I'll withhold my vote in the future on anything the Clintons are involved in.

[catographer]

The response from Democrats on this forum has honestly been disturbing. We shouldn't be shunning the former nominee of our party just because she lost an election which, she of course, won by almost 3 million votes. We should be gratefully embracing her efforts to help take down Chief Baby-Hands by propping up Democrats of all ideologies including the Berniecrats who spat on her name.

People forget that Clinton won the support of her party and most of the nation. To throw her movement to the side would be ignoring the will of the majority of Democrats. Don't Dems want a big tent, with Clinton and Sanders supporters? Include the majority, folks.