• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

On the other hand here's another Pete guy (note Pete says he doesn't accept fossil fuel money next to the donate button on his site):

Hamilton James—executive vice chairman of Blackstone, the world’s largest private equity firm

James hosted a Buttigieg fundraiser at his home on June 13, drawing finance industry support. James is a longtime Democratic donor who The New York Times described in 2016 as “one of the leading Wall Street contenders for an economic policy post in a future Clinton administration.”

Blackstone are significant investors in the fossil fuel industry, and while large donations from their executives don’t technically violate the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge, signed by Buttigieg and other presidential candidates, their firms are active drivers of the current boom in U.S. fossil fuel production. For example, read this about their credit division:

https://www.institutionalinvestor.c...Company-Hiding-in-Stephen-Schwarzman-s-Pocket
 
PhDeac said:
I'm not sure how any candidate I like would get elected only with support from people I like. So that part doesn't bother me. It's a huge country.

I'm bothered by the influence of money on politics, but I think democracy much like health care is difficult to do in a capitalist economy.

I'm not sure how any candidate is supposed to run for president without any contributions or help from anybody in a major corporation, people with money, and/or assholes.
Click to expand...

but I mean some of those guys -- lobbyist against M4A, lawyer for the Laquan McDonald cover-up -- are pretty egregious

politicians vet and return money all the time, they hire people to handle that


returned money is evidence that the pressure from the left can be effective
 
Shooshmoo said:
Well, Townie posted two bundlers, and it looks like both are lobbyists and Pete later said he would not accept money from lobbyists or allow them to raise money for him, and I also understand he returned the money ($2800) from Elmendorf and the $30k total he received from lobbyists. If true, I am not sure why anyone would be bothered.
Click to expand...

Looks like the campaign did cancel events with Elmendorf (not sure if they gave his money back, can't seem to find it, but I'll assume he did). Tusk on the other hand has continued to fundraise and bundle for Pete. From the list just posted a few days ago, again if you look at the list for just people from DC, many of them look like lobbyists. I don't know if you should be bothered by this, that's up to you. The fundraisers seem a lot worse, raising lots more money.

Most of these are Hillary ppl looking for places to put their 2020 cash. They seem reluctant to get behind Biden, and Sanders and Warren have actively turned them away.
 
PhDeac said:
Who? How much scrutiny goes into it? Like if someone who worked at a cell center for Merck donated to Bernie, would they return it?
Click to expand...

Scrutiny comes from his volunteers. They look at anything over $200. I know because I did it one weekend I worked a phone bank. Here's some of the people Bernie's returned money to:

https://theweek.com/speedreads/8778...70-from-only-billionaire-who-donated-campaign
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/18/poli...rn-health-insurance-drug-companies/index.html
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
but I mean some of those guys -- lobbyist against M4A, lawyer for the Laquan McDonald cover-up -- are pretty egregious

politicians vet and return money all the time, they hire people to handle that


returned money is evidence that the pressure from the left can be effective
Click to expand...

So, then it's weird that you focus on the people Pete ended up rejecting as a negative for Pete???? What am I missing?
 
TownieDeac said:
Looks like the campaign did cancel events with Elmendorf (not sure if they gave his money back, can't seem to find it, but I'll assume he did). Tusk on the other hand has continued to fundraise and bundle for Pete. From the list just posted a few days ago, again if you look at the list for just people from DC, many of them look like lobbyists. I don't know if you should be bothered by this, that's up to you. The fundraisers seem a lot worse, raising lots more money.

Most of these are Hillary ppl looking for places to put their 2020 cash. They seem reluctant to get behind Biden, and Sanders and Warren have actively turned them away.
Click to expand...

I get that. That's Pete's lane. He's an alternative to the established candidates. He's an alternative to the old candidates. He's an alternative to the left and the center-left.

As I've mentioned before, Pete's new and doesn't have the luxury of turning down $$$ or votes. And it's worse if those Hillary people park their money and votes with Republicans. I think the real problem is people giving cash, not which people give cash.
 
TownieDeac said:
Looks like the campaign did cancel events with Elmendorf (not sure if they gave his money back, can't seem to find it, but I'll assume he did). Tusk on the other hand has continued to fundraise and bundle for Pete. From the list just posted a few days ago, again if you look at the list for just people from DC, many of them look like lobbyists. I don't know if you should be bothered by this, that's up to you. The fundraisers seem a lot worse, raising lots more money.

Most of these are Hillary ppl looking for places to put their 2020 cash. They seem reluctant to get behind Biden, and Sanders and Warren have actively turned them away.
Click to expand...

If Pete said he would no longer accept money from lobbyists or allow them to fundraise for him, and then he continued to do so, that would be troubling (though, obviously, not 1/100th as troubling as what is currently sitting in the oval office, as I try probably unsuccessfully again to help you get your priorities in line). Has that been confirmed? If that's the case, I imagine Bernie supporters will eat him alive.
 
tiltdeac said:
Do you think that's a good use of volunteers time?
Click to expand...

It's not the worst thing I've ever done volunteering. I was the only person that day who had Excel skills, I also wrote a mail merge macro for Ohio so the campaign there didn't have to hand copy-paste mailing addresses out of Excel and into Outlook like they were doing.

Bernie is going to err on the side of giving money back--he's rolling fundraising. He wouldn't survive anything like Pete's SC inventing black support thing.
 
Shooshmoo said:
If Pete said he would no longer accept money from lobbyists or allow them to fundraise for him, and then he continued to do so, that would be troubling (though, obviously, not 1/100th as troubling as what is currently sitting in the oval office, as I try probably unsuccessfully again to help you get your priorities in line). Has that been confirmed? If that's the case, I imagine Bernie supporters will eat him alive.
Click to expand...

I'm not really interested in eating him alive. This is a primary, and I don't want him to win, though. I'm just presenting some stuff as I find it.

I think Bernie poses a really good chance at winning the presidency, and unseating Trump is very important to me. Unseating him for a corporate Dem would be a disappointment to me, so I choose to spend my effort and support elsewhere.
 
ChrisL68 said:
When you have to pass the progressive purity test that many of Bernie's naive followers demand, some things are necessary.
Click to expand...

Back in 2015 my wife volunteered for Hillary in PA. She was giving out "Yass Hillary" buttons to a district that went 74% for Trump.
 
TownieDeac said:
Back in 2015 my wife volunteered for Hillary in PA. She was giving out "Yass Hillary" buttons to a district that went 74% for Trump.
Click to expand...

That's a good way to protect progressive cred.
 
With the sheer amount of information out there and accessible to the world, it's so easy to dig up past statements, find donors or surrogates with shady connections, and build and amplify a narrative about what it all means. Like you can find out a hedge fund manager whose fund invests in fossil fuel companies has donated to Pete, fine. And in a vacuum, if he was palling around with oil execs all day you might assume he wouldn't be great for the environment. But, he has a climate plan, and it's good (and certainly not good for team fossil fuel)! I guess you could just assume it's all a big lie, but if that's the case there's not much point in participating in any debate at all.

Any you could do it to Bernie and the DSA, too. In another corner of the internet, you'd be hearing how just this week he had to quickly change course because he accidentally endorsed a scumbag congressional candidate in California, and the DSA candidate trying to primary Castro in Texas said Pete should be hanged and he hopes Obama gets cancer. Some might say M4A is actually purposefully misleading, preying on the misunderstandings of voters for political popularity, and that the small donor stuff is more about politics than political influence. But that's dumb, Bernie obviously cares a shit ton about getting people good health care. And while some of his surrogates have resorted to calling anyone who isn't a supporter of M4A a murderer, Bernie's own team is clearly much more realistic about the likelihood of success and the understanding that there are still wins to be had even without M4A.

In terms of style, they envision a government driven by impatience, one that sees itself with a mandate to confront climate change vigorously, to shore up the nation’s labor unions and defend its immigrant populations. Maybe there won’t really be “Medicare for All,” thanks to Mitch McConnell and a Republican Senate, but they at least see less expensive prescription drugs and health care for more people than currently have it.
Click to expand...
https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...s-president-white-house-administration-084447

It's just all so damn cynical and tiresome, and I have to think it ultimately works against what should a major goal going forward, getting more people interested and engaged in politics.
 
Imagine naively being concerned about the role money plays in elections.
 
TownieDeac said:
Back in 2015 my wife volunteered for Hillary in PA. She was giving out "Yass Hillary" buttons to a district that went 74% for Trump.
Click to expand...

ChrisL sat in his living room in Greensboro and complained about Bernie Bros on the Internet

ETA: I volunteered, too, and I’ll do it again in 2020. I hope ChrisL and itc - both of whom live in important states - will join me.
 
tiltdeac said:
With the sheer amount of information out there and accessible to the world, it's so easy to dig up past statements, find donors or surrogates with shady connections, and build and amplify a narrative about what it all means. Like you can find out a hedge fund manager whose fund invests in fossil fuel companies has donated to Pete, fine. And in a vacuum, if he was palling around with oil execs all day you might assume he wouldn't be great for the environment. But, he has a climate plan, and it's good (and certainly not good for team fossil fuel)! I guess you could just assume it's all a big lie, but if that's the case there's not much point in participating in any debate at all.

Any you could do it to Bernie and the DSA, too. In another corner of the internet, you'd be hearing how just this week he had to quickly change course because he accidentally endorsed a scumbag congressional candidate in California, and the DSA candidate trying to primary Castro in Texas said Pete should be hanged and he hopes Obama gets cancer. Some might say M4A is actually purposefully misleading, preying on the misunderstandings of voters for political popularity, and that the small donor stuff is more about politics than political influence. But that's dumb, Bernie obviously cares a shit ton about getting people good health care. And while some of his surrogates have resorted to calling anyone who isn't a supporter of M4A a murderer, Bernie's own team is clearly much more realistic about the likelihood of success and the understanding that there are still wins to be had even without M4A.


https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...s-president-white-house-administration-084447

It's just all so damn cynical and tiresome, and I have to think it ultimately works against what should a major goal going forward, getting more people interested and engaged in politics.
Click to expand...

perhaps not the case in the race for president, but nothing tells me more about what state and municipal politicians will do once elected than tracking the campaign money
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top