dagblog - Comments for "Emily's List 30th Anniversary-Part 1 The Women Behind It "

The biggest problem, in my

HSG — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 11:02:18 +0000

In reply to Progressive media remains an

The biggest problem, in my view, is that progressives failed to purchase outlets. Instead, they formed production companies. But, you're right there really aren't a lot of examples of liberal media successes. In this case, Emily's List raises millions every year. It could use that money to fund a non-profit liberal media concern rather than economically conservative women's campaigns.

This organization was founded

trkingmomoe — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 04:36:28 +0000

In reply to We and Ellen Malcolm would

This organization was founded to financially support Democratic pro-choice women political campaigns. This is a very large tent which also includes women from conservative states as well as NYC. The organization interviews women who are running for office and then chooses who they think will be viable candidates. A profile is sent to all members of these candidates and the members then select from that list to donate. This is a pro choice pac that bundles money for candidates.

The growth in membership in the last few years is because of the GOP's war on women.

Progressive and Liberals have

trkingmomoe — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 03:50:13 +0000

In reply to Progressive media remains an

Progressive and Liberals have embraced the internet. Also most of us who are liberal like to get the news about politics unfiltered by big media personalities and the internet offers that. You can search in depth many things that are current and of interest. I feel better informed then if I only watched TV or listened on the radio for news.

Progressive media remains an

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 22:57:35 +0000

In reply to We and Ellen Malcolm would

Progressive media remains an oxymoron. There have been several well-publicized good attempts at it, and it mostly just sucks. Not sure why exactly, but until someone figures out the equation, throwing more money at it will just make it suck more visibly.

We and Ellen Malcolm would

HSG — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 22:45:57 +0000

In reply to Emily's List 30th Anniversary-Part 1 The Women Behind It

We and Ellen Malcolm would have been better served if she raised capital to buy radio and TV stations and programmed them with progressive female and male talk show hosts. Every cycle Emily's List raises a lot of money.

A good chunk goes to pro-1%ers like Wall Street darlings: 1) Gina Raimondo who "invested" Rhode Island pension money in private hedge funds that generated below-market returns with high fees. 2) Christine C. Quinn, Michael Bloomberg's choice to succeed him as Mayor of New York and continue the process of turning New York City into a playground for investment bankers and corporate lawyers.

A couple of years later the cycle continues. Progressive media could have been a gift that keeps on giving to poor, working, and middle-income Americans. Also, every talk radio station that is not owned by a corporate titan is less likely to become a propaganda outlet for the right-wing.

Actually the MSM likes to

trkingmomoe — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 20:03:50 +0000

In reply to I don't own a TV, so all of

Actually the MSM likes to cover C-Pac because they can get plenty of really nutty sound bites to show. They don't have to go too far because it is held in D.C. Emily's List event, even though it is also held in the area, doesn't get covered from start to finish. The ladies are just too well behaved. This year the coverage was better because of Hillary being a key note speaker and the media wanted to see if she would take their bait on the private email pretend scandal and say something.

As I looked around on the web to answer your question I could see that C-pac was covered very heavily by right wing organizations. Emily's List seems not to have the same support from the left. Though I think this is changing in the last few years because they are getting hard to ignore.

Emily’s List reached three million members, and raised more than $60 million in donations in 2014, up from 500,000 members and $38 million in 2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/-2016-election-emilys-list-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

They have grown 6 times larger since 2010. That is the real story here that journalist are missing. If you do the math, this group has the potential of raising at the minimum of $600 million for 2016. A sleeping giant is waking up.

I don't own a TV, so all of

Verified Atheist — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:27:40 +0000

In reply to Emily's List 30th Anniversary-Part 1 The Women Behind It

I don't own a TV, so all of my news is through the internet, and I'm afraid my own biases form a distinct filter on that. What's the relative coverage of the Emily's List event versus the C-PAC event? Am I right in assuming the (supposedly liberally-biased) media covered C-PAC a lot more than the Emily's List event?