You mean you fist pumped to flavor town?
All they would really need to do is get them registered. Explain how much shittier things will be for them if GOP wins, and that should be enough to get more then a handful. After the election they can forget about them.
Obligatory
Unfair to Bourdain though
Is there money in winning?
Youâre correct that I donât know what is involved. However, it seems like these campaigns have nearly infinite money. They should be able to hire a small army of people to at least work on it.
I suppose that if these unregistered voters are what is left after such massive efforts, then theyâve already done what I would have expected of them.
Depends. Political consultants who work with people like AOC find themselves blacklisted by the DCCC. There might be more money in losing.
I am too cynical to not see this a PR stunt first and foremost.
Iâm pretty sure that in his country if you donât vote you get fined. This results in enormous bitching.
Not really. Thereâs money in winning and pushing a corporatist agenda, thereâs no money in trying to enact an anti-corporatist agenda.
Like seriously, the Democratic Party raised nearly ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS for Amy McGrathâs race against Mitch McConnell and lost by nearly 20 points. Conceive of the Democrats not as a political party aiming for political success, but as a collection of consultants, media companies etc who feed off the money that flows into DC. Can you look at that and tell me that winning is a critical ingredient in keeping the spice flowing?
Unlike Victor I think, I would distinguish between Democrats individually and the Democratic Party as essentially a giant corporation which responds to incentives on its own. I think a lot of Democrats, individually, want to win, perhaps up to and including someone like Pelosi, just like Iâm sure there are a lot of Facebook employees who desire to do good in the world and want Facebook to be a force for good. But Facebook isnât capable of doing that because it inexorably responds to the magnetic pull of the incentives which drive it. Itâs the same with the Democratic Party. I donât see how you can make an argument that âwinningâ is anywhere in the list of the major incentives which drive it. Clinton raised a billion dollars, they lost to a mentally defective con man, and the consequence of this was that they raised even more money this time.
10 Likes
Yes. The Democratic Party didnât give McGrath the money, she got it herself from small donors. No strategic thinking necessary, just pure Mitch hate.
Winning helps with contributions due to incumbency advantage, but the money is only useful for holding power to govern.
Theyâll raise more money running against Mitch in six years then theyâd raise to defend McGrathâs seat.
1 Like
Amy McGrath wonât raise more. I know everything is a conspiracy, but the DNC doesnât get to decide McGrath has to give her money to Warnock.
You seem to have missed my point. The Dems will raise more money in six years to try to beat Mitch than theyâd raise to defend a Dem seat there. In other words the money will flow in more with a loss in KY than a win.
I donât think their consultants were trying to lose, but I think theyâd rather lose with McGrath than win with Booker.
This has nothing to do with what McGrath does with her leftovers.
Dude, we are talking about all the former D staffers, etc. that consult for the campaigns. They take like 10% off the top of whatever is raised in consultant/management/additional overcharge fees.
So that $100mm Amy McGrath raises equals $10mm in their pocket. Of course McGrath isnât likely to be the candidate next time, but whoever the candidate is will get the same leeches that worked for McGrath highly recommended to them.
Iâm done donating. The money I spent on 2020 Senate races would have been better used as toilet paper.
8 Likes
I remember a DVaut post saying basically that the class of full time political operatives working for campaigns is really small, only a couple hundred people. There is no class of people grifting huge sums. If you define something like an ad agency as a consultant, they donât have decision making authority.
Nepotism within campaigns is small time, maybe a wife on the payroll, though most donât do that. Itâs illegal to pay them more than fair value for the work, which is why Trump does it far more than anyone else.
I personally know a guy who does ad placement for GOP candidates. He is a massive scumbag, constantly cheating on his wife, lies about everything, zero shame of any kind. This seems pretty standard, at least on the GOP side.
This doesnât seem like he has enough authority to be part of the conspiracy. No one here seems to care which TV stations get ad money.
Oh he is definitely not smart enough to be part of any kind of conspiracy, but he does make like $200k a year for taking donations and passing them along to local TV stations. He may âproduceâ the ads too, no idea what that entails, but I really canât emphasize how devoid of morality and intelligence this guy is. Jason Miller seems like a pretty good representation.
Deep down he knows weâre all scumbags and all this pretending to try to be a decent person is just performative virtue-signaling. Pretty much a given with all higher-info Trumpfans.
1 Like
Most people feel that way about anyone who does anything because they think itâs the right thing to do that they themselves donât do. Everyone one iota less conscientious than me is a scumbag and everyone one iota more conscientious is a virtue signaling fraud. Or at least thatâs the way it is online.
4 Likes