Conversation
![David Watson 🥑](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
Obviously moderate electeds and advocacy groups have donors, too (how could you not?) but the bulk of $$$ is with the groups and with very progressive small donors. The days of money as a moderating force are long behind us.
I’m glad Graham Platner is raising money in Maine, but that’s the new paradigm we’re living in — a guy who’s plugged in to national progressive media and hires the right team to make his launch video can score much more cash than someone running as a moderate in an R+4 district.
Extremists attribute their failure to nefarious forces, they refuse to believe the simpler explanation that their extremism makes people not want to vote for them.
Yeah but those mainline leaders are reliant on the funding that only exists for them because they’re moderate, regardless of the grass roots funding of others.
They also get a huge amount to PACs.
The problem is that Dems need Bullock and Tester and the like to govern, not the leftists.
The worst part is they honestly believe we are all stupid enough to buy their BS. This whole crowd is allergic to good faith debate and accurate understanding of the issues at hand. I definitely don’t understand why anyone takes them seriously.
Wasn’t the biggest difference that in Sanders’s case it was mostly small donors, while for others it was rather a few billionaires and their Super PACs?
yeah lets just skip right past all the outside spending through pacs/superPacs. great contribution to the campaign finance discourse MattY.
i’m gonna assume you’re being disingenuous because the alternative is that you’re genuinely this dumb and that feels mean to say.
Aren't Bernie and Warren sellouts and not lefties, according to leftists. Especially AOC. According to them.
It's corporate donors, Matt not individual donors.
Nice try though.
Yeha they (or at least sanders) had a lot of small dollar donors, not big dollar donors. Bit of a difference there
Convenient that you left out the word “billionaire” in front of “donors”
Bernie did that with a fundraising network focused far more on individual small donors than anyone else, who were all much more reliant on large donations from fewer institutional sources, as you very well know.
The problem is big donors not millions of small donors.
Joe Biden had a Super PAC during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary.
Automated
The 2020 primary's focus on small-dollar armies feels like a quaint historical footnote. Today, the 'donor' isn't a hidden influence; they're a client buying policy à la carte at a $5 million Mar-a-Lago meeting.
The current admin's model is brutally transactional. A $1M club fee
lol your take is really that corporate donor-backed candidates are the underdogs, and the progressives that refuse corporate money and rely on small donors feom normal people are bought and paid for. Your disdain for democracy is showing.
That’s because left wing dems get duped into $ supporting Bernie’s and AOC’s rhetoric when all they are really doing is shepherding people away from creating a viable alternative. And it was donors who led charge in creating super delegates which made 2016 primary moot
Matt, the issue was that there were 8 other "moderate" candidates that "moderates" could have donated to instead. I remember reading that you had spread out your donations, yourself.
If democrats were smart they'd start recognizing the median democrat, and campaign for them.
You deliberately ignore spending by PACs like AIPAC.
They spent over $10 million against Bowman and
Cori Bush.
At least you admit you're not of the left. Small Individual Contributions 63.2%