I agree with this. Both parts.
This is definitely the best reason to support Pete, but some of that stuff is pretty pie in the sky. For example, getting rid of the electoral college via constitutional amendment is a complete non-starter. It requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress AND then ratification by 38 states, neither of which has a prayer of happening in the current climate. The only plausible way to get rid of the electoral college is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which will succeed or fail independent of the Presidency.
Similarly, there is currently, as far as Iām aware, nothing the President can do about gerrymandering. Itās a state issue. PR/DC statehood and altering the composition of the Supreme Court are more plausible, but both require acts of Congress. You can argue that leadership is helpful, but thereās currently nothing within the actual powers of the Executive that will help with any of these issues. (Iām aware the same is true of, say, healthcare).
Honestly, it depends on your definition of ācorporate donorsā. And what is ābig moneyā? According to the FEC filings and somewhat disingenuous definitions put forth by certain people, ābig moneyā is basically anyone who has donated more than $200 and has to be listed on the reports by name. In that case, I am a ābig donorā and should also be the target of the far left, correct?
Pete does not accept money from corporate PACs. He does accept individual donations from people who work for corporations. Those individuals, like you and I, are limited to donating $2800 for the primary (and $2800 for the general). If I donate a total of $2800 to Pete but itās spread out over months of smaller donations + merchandise purchases, is that somehow more virtuous than someone who writes one $2800 check? Why? I deal and play poker, yet I have enough saved that I could write one big check. is my $2800 check somehow better than a $2800 from a VP at a bank?
My point is, a lot of this arguing about ābig moneyā donors is a strawman. Often, people who get angry at Pete for accepting $2800 checks from people at a hollywood party have no answer when I ask them about the people who donated the max to Bernie or Liz. Every single person in this country has a donation limit of $2800 (unless you lobby for the sierra club or planned parenthood or the ACLU, then your limit is $0 because ooh lobbyists are terrible people). Why are we so concerned about how people reach that limit? Is donating $2800 through actblue from your house inherently more virtuous and pure than donating it at a party?
As for PACs in general, unfortunately, the limit for group fundraising is really really really low. Itās $1000. For example, my grassroots group here in San Diego put together a Pete contingent to march in our Pride Parade. The registration for a political group was $1000. we crowdfunded that. Unfortunately, now if we want to crowdfund or spend anything else, we MUST file as a PAC. Weāre trying to avoid that by paying for stuff out of our own pockets, but itās hard, and you may see a āSan Diego for Peteā PAC in the near future.
I suppose if you think $2800 buys a say in future proposals. As for Peteās case, Heās had a consistent message since basically college, so Iām not sure I buy that donations from anyone are going to sway him. Experiences and feedback from constituents will, but money, i donāt think so.
1 Like
that seems to be a good indicator of name recognition, but not much else.
I was referring to this type of fundraising.
which is still, fundamentally, people who work for corporations giving $2800 each.
Was going to edit my post, but you were fast. I did want to add that I think itās disingenuous to say that individuals can only have a $2800 financial impact. I recall Hillary pulling all sort of shenanigans with the Victory Fund with state campaigns. But maybe Iām wrong and Iāll let some others comment.
Peteās still more pros than cons for me though so donāt want to pile on. I could be way off base on the fundraising thing.
I think Hillary took corporate PAC money, which is separate from what weāre talking about (and bad, i agree). Victory Fund is a non-profit, so Iām not sure how they fall into campaign finance laws. Theyāve endorsed Pete, but not sure how fundraising works with them. Probably similar to my anecdote about the San Diego group. They probably have a PAC, but i donāt know if youād consider it corporate or not.
Iāve learned more than i ever wanted about campaign finance in the last couple of months. the main takeaway is: there are a shit ton of weird rules.
Yes and I open admit to knowing very little. There seem to many important distinctions that make significant differences. Thanks for taking time to educate me a little.
1 Like
This is still the case, at least as per Morning Consultās polling. Second choice numbers by first-choice candidate:
Biden: Sanders 27%, Harris 19%, Warren 16%
Sanders: Biden 31%, Warren 22%, Harris 9%
Warren: Harris 30%, Sanders 21%, Biden 18%
Harris: Warren 26%, Biden 25%, Buttigieg 12%
Buttigieg: Harris 23%, Biden 21%, Warren 20%
Definitely a reality check that there are big factors at play other than ideology. Name-recognition in the case of Sanders/Biden, but also what appears to be a bloc who are keen to vote for a woman, with the Harris/Warren nexus going on there. Also a demonstration of why Warren is likely to be a stronger candidate than Bernie - she is broadly acceptable to everyone, while Sanders drops completely off the map as a second choice for Buttigieg and Harris fans.
Edit: Although I guess Biden voters are a fairly large cohort, so itās important that they go Sanders over Warren by a large margin. You do have to wonder how much of that is pure name recognition and subject to change, though.
1 Like
This is a good counterargument. I think part of it could be just name recognition, as Iād guess that low-information voters are most likely to choose Biden right now. Part of it could also be that Matt and Ezra (and by extension, me) are just wrong.
It seems bonkers to me that Biden votersā second choice is Sanders and vice versa. Iād really question that poll.
When you think of:
A) Name recognition
B) The level of misogyny in this country
It makes perfect sense.
1 Like
Sure seems to suggest misogyny, but I donāt like that being the reason.
Most people do not follow or know anything about politics. Sanders is probably the only other candidate 50% of registered voters can name. To me, Biden is Hillary in 2008, the better-known candidate who will eventually got beaten by the better candidate once the public actually tunes in.
Trump has caused a lot more dem voters to pay attention, but itās still a minority.
1 Like
Morning consult has consistently had the same results as far as Bernie/Biden voters 2nd choice for 6+ months now, itās no outlier
Itās not misogyny lol. There arenāt significant differences between male and female support for the various candidates - a few more females in the case of Warren perhaps. More Biden voters have a woman as second choice (Harris or Warren) than want Sanders.
Itās that most people are completely clueless about politics and donāt have a political ideology. Hereās a reality check, from a poll in June where people were asked about what they thought āMedicare For Allā actually meant:
They have absolutely no idea (and Democrats are more misinformed on this than Republicans). Expecting people to know where candidates sit ideologically is levels beyond their actual capability. They donāt even know what the various ideologies on offer are or how they operate.
2 Likes
Biden - Bernie is all about name recognition. People who spend every day talking politics have a hard time getting just how little a lot of people know about whatās going on.
Regarding the money, the worst money is obviously the dark unlimited super pac money (not pac money), but candidates arenāt in control of that.