2020 Democratic Primary Thread: Focus on House & Senate races

[AnonymityX1000]

Obviously only those benefiting are cool with the idea, that is a pretty dumb question.

The point is it is asinine and a waste of time for a candidate to claim they aren't taking corporate or PAC money in an attempt to demonstrate their political integrity. Especially when we know the nominee is going to follow a platform developed by the party, the same party who will almost certainly turn not a single dollar away no matter who it came from. It also is not the only way a candidate could be influenced to hold the interest of others before their constituency or the country, see comrade nothing berder as an example.

I personally don't care where the campaign contributions come from as long as they are transparently documented and the candidates actions are justifiably for the overall betterment of the majority rather than the few.

So you are not cool with it but recognize that is how things are done now. So do I, now what would be some of the first steps to change conditions we don't like?
PAC money is anonymous so there goes transparency. And we see what the current system has wrought. Trump is president! The rules and conditions that brought him into office your are uninterested in changing or supporting candidates that do?
I mean are people about progress/assisting their best case situation occur or not? I just don't understand your perspective.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

politics is about communal governance. you want organizations dedicated to a better society? there are tons of religions and non-profits working toward that.

furthermore, "better" becomes subjective when dealing with policy as there is always more than one view. you acquiesce one side and another feels like things got worse

Communal governance to what end? Laws aren't made to improve life for the collective? 'Better' is developed thru consensus. The candidate with the most votes win/ propositions are votes in or out based on which got more votes.

 

[Hood Critic]

So you are not cool with it but recognize that is how things are done now. So do I, now what would be some of the first steps to change conditions we don't like?
PAC money is anonymous so there goes transparency. And we see what the current system has wrought. Trump is president! The rules and conditions that brought him into office your are uninterested in changing or supporting candidates that do?
I mean are people about progress/assisting their best case situation occur or not? I just don't understand your perspective.

So now we're back full circle - saying you are not accepting corporate or PAC money during your campaign is NOT taking money out of politics. It is a false assertion to build confidence with voters. It does not address the removal of big money from politics, I'm all for you master plan on how we should go about that.

My personal feeling is that until you can successfully remove it, you force all candidates AND the party to show and prove for the sake of accountability of their future political actions.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

So now we're back full circle - saying you are not accepting corporate or PAC money during your campaign is NOT taking money out of politics. It is a false assertion to build confidence with voters. It does not address the removal of big money from politics, I'm all for you master plan on how we should go about that.

My personal feeling is that until you can successfully remove it, you force all candidates AND the party to show and prove for the sake of accountability of their future political actions.

The
master plan is already in place and I didn't come up with it;
Not taking dark/corporate money builds confidence with voters -> voters support candidates who are for getting money out of politics legislatively -> legislation gets passed that curtails money in politics.
Not taking PAC money is self-enforcement of what you want. That is the only anonymous money in the game. But you don't think it is worth a politicians time to not take it? Makes sense . . . wait no it doesn't. lol

 

[Hood Critic]

The
master plan is already in place and I didn't come up with it;
Not taking dark/corporate money builds confidence with voters -> voters support candidates who are for getting money out of politics legislatively -> legislation gets passed that curtails money in politics.

That. Is. Not. How. This. Works.

 

[AnonymityX1000]

That. Is. Not. How. This. Works.

Thanks, now why not?

 

[Pressure]

Joe Biden builds massive lead among black voters

That Obama stimulus

 

[the cac mamba]

That Obama stimulus

i gotta say im picturing obama and biden campaigning and i like it a lot. a return to normalcy

i know biden's not everyone's favorite candidate, and he's not very progressive, but it's not the president who writes laws we need a president who can win the general, and to elect better lawmakers

 

[Atlrocafella]

Joe Biden builds massive lead among black voters

“But but but Joe is a racist, he won’t get the black vote..” BidenBoyz going to the chip. Get down or lay down.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Thanks, now why not?

1. because a large segment of people dont give af about corporate donations
2. because people who have their own bills to pay and lives to worry about aren't funding national campaigns. needing 500,000 donors to raise $18M is not scalable when you need 44 times that amount to run a campaign. you think 1:6 voters are taking their hard earned money and giving it to a politician? you can't get people to donate to people in need in their community yet all of a suddenly we're supposed to have tens of millions of people want to donate to national politicians

 

[AnonymityX1000]

1. because a large segment of people dont give af about corporate donations
2. because people who have their own bills to pay and lives to worry about aren't funding national campaigns. needing 500,000 donors to raise $18M is not scalable when you need 44 times that amount to run a campaign. you think 1:6 voters are taking their hard earned money and giving it to a politician? you can't get people to donate to people in need in their community yet all of a suddenly we're supposed to have tens of millions of people want to donate to national politicians

1. Most people don't like money in politics and think it needs to be limited. You think 50% of the country doesn't vote just cause? www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/
2. Why are campaigns even that expensive? It is a huge unnecessary bloat. There are policies out there from foreign countries that could cut the cost considerably. Limiting ads by law, providing equal access to airwaves by law, restricting campaigning to a month before the election, publicly funded campaigns etc. I mentioned a couple of these earlier not sure how you missed it.
3. Lastly, our point of disagreement seems to be you just accept what is, there are better ways to do things and we should try and achieve them. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

“But but but Joe is a racist, he won’t get the black vote..” BidenBoyz going to the chip. Get down or lay down.

imagine celebrating the success of a racist

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

That Obama stimulus

To me it really highlights how the other candidates have failed it make inroads.

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

imagine celebrating the success of a racist

Bernie and his followers have gone to extraordinary lengths to alienate black voters.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

1. Most people don't like money in politics and think it needs to be limited. You think 50% of the country doesn't vote just cause? www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/08/most-americans-want-to-limit-campaign-spending-say-big-donors-have-greater-political-influence/
2. Why are campaigns even that expensive? It is a huge unnecessary bloat. There are policies out there from foreign countries that could cut the cost considerably. Limiting ads by law, providing equal access to airwaves by law, restricting campaigning to a month before the election, publicly funded campaigns etc. I mentioned a couple of these earlier not sure how you missed it.
3. Lastly, our point of disagreement seems to be you just accept what is, there are better ways to do things and we should try and achieve them. That's what I'm talking about.

1. ask a random 10 people and unbiased question - those in the poll you cited are leading - about how they feel about corporate donations and they won't care
2. you call it unnecessary bloat, ok fine, that doesn't affect what the reality is and that reality is that is continues to cost more and more to run a campaign - part of that is simply the # of channels you have to engage across - tv, in person, out of home, field, online, social media, radio, print - and each of these channels has become hyper-segmented, never mind our shorter attention spans which means you have to create more content to maintain engagement and stay top of mind.

good luck getting politicians to agree on campaign limitations.
3. no, our point of disagreement is you live in an idealistic world that is not going to happen. if we got rid of corporate money, the wealthy individual donors would still have the same pull...that changes nothing when it comes to how money can influence politics - a look at america from the 1800's-1940's proves that point