wait, I’m wrong. 400k was total as of the end of quarter 2. I’ll have to go look
ok, 294k new donors in Q2, just over 100k donors in Q1.
I know you want to say it came from a few rich people, but let me once again reiterate, as I have a million fucking times, the individual donation cap is $2800, and Pete doesn’t accept money from corporations. I even posted a ss upthread from his website.
I don’t care about the “talking points” thing either. I just think M4A is vastly superior to his plan.
Dubiously sourced? The journalist reporting that has a Masters in Journalism from the University of Washington, and has done work for the New York Post, Fortune, New York Magazine and Institutional Investor. She’s dialed in to those circles, experienced, and by all appearances well trained. I see no reason to doubt her.
It seems like you’re transitioning to more of a spin person with regard to Pete than an advocate who’s just conveying facts. When you say “dubiously sourced” here, you’re attacking the integrity of a journalist with no basis. You might as well be saying “FAKE NEWS!”
A lot of the people arguing with you about Pete’s donor base either don’t have a great understanding of it or are being disingenuous… but in a way, so are you. Like, you want to make it about the people donating $200 who are “big donors” according to the FEC or whatever, but you know as well as anyone that nobody here cares about someone donating $200. I could send $200 to Pete, Warren, and Bernie tomorrow, and the only thing I’d accomplish is making myself $600 poorer and each of them $200 richer. It wouldn’t buy me a meeting or anything.
And to that end, I really don’t care if the average donation size is $27, $50 or $200. But there’s a huge difference between 14 $200 donations and one $2800 donation if that $2800 donation gets someone a line to his senior staff or a minute or two alone with him. And if we get into bundling, PACs, SuperPACs, etc, that’s when it really starts to matter. Now I don’t know if there are SuperPACs or PACs doing stuff on his behalf, I assume there are or will be…
As far as I know, there’s not a lot of publicly available information to figure out what the median donation amount is to each candidate or how many $2,000+ donations they’ve gotten, or how many donations have come at private fundraisers, but that’s the real concern here… and it’s just as much a valid concern as it is very difficult to say definitively that it’s a problem. It’s fair game to discuss and it’s a fair attack on him in the absence of any info proving that we shouldn’t be concerned.
And I assume that’s why you like to spin it back to the $200 thing.
Pete is obviously angling for Biden’s lane.
And as someone who has defended him in here in the past, I was put off by his disingenuous attacks against Warren and m4a.
The Zuckerberg shit is nothing imo.
Yeah that article is very concerning. We are sort of gambling either way - either on Liz being authentic and overcoming those attacks or on Bernie overcoming attacks for being a socialist and on his health. I still think the move is to vote for whichever one has a better shot at winning any given state.
Agreed. The Zuck stuff is no big deal. The report about telling donors he was full of shit on the campaign trail is a big deal, though.
Yeah, didn’t know about this is and it’s a massive liability for her, so much so that I would vote for Shifty Pete in the primary over Warren.
Anyone that has a good job at a tech company, finance company, health related company, large company generally, etc. is at least a little worried, and with good reason, that Warren’s policies will be disruptive to them. When you add up all those people, it’s a shitload of people.
Now, most of these people know Warren is speaking the absolute truth about the problems in their industry so they have to make the decision of a) going to vote to fix the problems Warren has rightly identified in my industry for the benefit of society or b) vote in my own selfish interests to avoid disrupting my job that I’m happy with.
A lot of people are going to quietly choose B even if the candidate is beyond reproach. But give them a legitimate reason to be cynical, and they are Instacalling B and loudly telling all their friends to do so as well.
My hot take is that Pete is the backup QB if Biden has a stroke or something.
Link to the vote? The Global Magnitsky Act was a tiny part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017.
Seems like this is bullshit.
More info in the second half of this article.
Is there more info about how she voted against the Global Magnitsky Act or does everyone just leave off how that was part of a 620 billion dollar appropriation bill?
Seems like Bill Browder (CEO of Hermitage Capital Bill Browder?) was spewing bullshit and Jonathan Alter was legitimizing it.
That it was part of the broader bill is mentioned in the article.
All the people that shouldn’t be elected president defended Tulsi Gabbard. Shocking I know.
In the Daily Kos article, right?
What’s the byline on that article anyway? “Community”?
Community means it is a diary by regular members and not a front page staff person.
It’s a daily Kos thing. Where I landed when searching for Tulsi and the global magnitsky act. It says she didn’t vote for it because she didn’t like the anti-Assad stuff in the bill. Not sure that’s better.
Anyway, I don’t think she is a knowing “asset” of the Russians, but she’s a paradigmatic useful idiot.
She said that she didn’t vote for the bill because it included funding for terrorists in Syria, which is something that we’ve been doing. We’ve been supplying arms to the Islamist mercenary groups that are now murdering people in Northern Syria.