Nope. We just know the donation numbers that came from the oil and gas job field, which was a very small amount of his overall donations in the Senate race. Won't stop fans of a certain candidate as trying to promote him as pro oil and gas though
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
IIRC it was just people in the industry giving more than $200 that triggered him breaking the pointless promise.
Honestly, the same people who complain about people bringing up Sirota, who actually has a tangible effect on how Bernie's campaign operates, complaining about this repeatedly, which is an entirely pointless gesture, kinda seems... Well, hypocritical.
I have zero issues with oil and gas workers. I used to work in that industry and have liberal friends and relatives still working in it.
But he pledged to decline large donations (over $200) and from oil executives and he should have worked harder to meet it.
His campaign finance people should have known, since they're the ones who file the Campaign disclosures.
https://readsludge.com/2018/12/10/beto-orourke-oil-and-gas-contributions-2018/
So two dozen.
Again, I don't think it's a big deal.
I just think someone should be called out when they break a pledge. (Like Bernie's dreaded tax returns.)
Don't make a promise you can't keep.
Can you show me where he pledged not to take donations from people that work in the oil and gas field during his Senate run?
Thanks, Tukarrs!
In the article, right under that quote:
Last edited:
Ah, seems like he didn't know it included donations from individuals and thought it was just money from PACs. Don't see him signing it again knowing that now lol
It's going to be an issue with anyone's base for anything, whether we're talking about emails or phone numbers. You're never going to have a 100% retention rate using data that's several years old. Having worked with email databases myself (including Sanders' campaign in 2016) I can say that having outdated data is a common occurrence and the only real way to stay up to date is to stay active with the base and refresh the list as much as possible. There will always be people whose information remains consistent over a long period of time, but those people aren't an overwhelming majority when it comes to donor lists.
Changing your email address is such a pain in the ass I wouldn't guess that the majority would change it over a few year period.
They don't. They just have multiple emails and don't necessarily use their most active one for a one-time donation.
I've dealt with email lists myself and at most 1% of people change their email address frequently. What you may have been seeing was people signing up for his mailing list with fake emails or accidentally doing typos when inputting it.
I never referred to people changing their emails frequently.
You inferred so above, although not in those exact words.
Nope. I was simply talking about databases often containing outdated information and how having a large database of contacts doesn't guarantee that those contacts are still active several years later.
Sounded like you were saying it here, although I might be misinterpreting your post. I think if he had a list of donors from 2016, a good 97-99% of those emails are still valid. You aren't going to see a large percentage of those go defunct over a 3 year period. Either way, this isn't really relevant at this point to the topic at hand so I'll end it there.
Elizabeth Warren was just on Chris Hayes and it sounds like she's already given up on winning and just hopes to stay in to push her ideas now lol
Just donated my first ever political contribution to Bernie Sanders. Feels good.
Does anyone know where is the total number of contributions for Bernie, so I can keep track of it?
Does anyone know where is the total number of contributions for Bernie, so I can keep track of it?
I haven't watched this yet to get a read on Marianne's immediate response but it looks possible that she'll raise her position on the issue to $2 trillion for reparations.
His voting record paints him as pro oil and gas, not a smear. He has voted in favor of drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and consistently has supported lifting moratoriums on exports of crude oil and natural gas. He's from Texas, I get it, but it isnt a smear to question his coziness to the Fossil Fuel industry.
Last edited:
That's not the same as being corrupted by those industries, however. He is a Texan, of course he'd be more inclined to help those industries.
Doesn't look pro oil and gas to me https://votesmart.org/candidate/78533/beto-orourke?categoryId=104&type=V
He has voted against pipelines transporting Canadian Tar Sands, true, and occasionally paid lip service to the dangers of fracking (obviously no problem there) however when it comes to Domestic production he has voted Against bills seeking to curb offshore drilling exploration in the gulf and for increasing natural gas exports. Also for Protecting utilities from liability when they cause fires on federal land and for radical bills Abolishing the ban on oil exports. He certainly supports voting to encourage market conditions that incentivize the rampant proliferation of domestic fossil fuels. He was often of the few democrats voting with republicans on these measures and in fact votes far more often with Republicans than anyone sometimes called "progressive". The outcome of this type of legislation is the increased production of fossil fuels. No other democrat who call themselves environmentalists, or claims Climate Change as an existential threat would vote this way and still expect to be credible.
I get that hes from Texas, but his record is problematic if we are trying to paint him as an environmentalist or a progressive in that respect.
I didn't use the word corrupt. Just pro oIl and natural gas, as you did. I simply said to call him pro oil and gas isn't a smear. You posited one possible explanation, probably valid. Its just that that record belies his claims to be a champion on climate.
Good article on the human cost of Harris's Truancy policy
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kama...ressive-prosecutor_n_5c995789e4b0f7bfa1b57d2e
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kama...ressive-prosecutor_n_5c995789e4b0f7bfa1b57d2e
Specifically on natural gas, if you're pursuing renewable it's impossible for you to have that without a follower power source, of which the only options are natural gas, coal, and oil. So, if you're pro renewable, you're supporting natural gas (Which is why the natural gas lobby is pro renewable).
Not to mention that renewables without energy storage can only take up like 30% of the overall grid over a year. Even if you were to solve the energy storage issues (even water storage costs $100 per kwh, ridiculously expensive) you'd still need 40% of the grid on something like natural gas because of variability in wind and solar generation. Only way to minimize follower use to about 20% is nuclear.
Not to mention that renewables without energy storage can only take up like 30% of the overall grid over a year. Even if you were to solve the energy storage issues (even water storage costs $100 per kwh, ridiculously expensive) you'd still need 40% of the grid on something like natural gas because of variability in wind and solar generation. Only way to minimize follower use to about 20% is nuclear.
I don't disagree. I am not nearly as stridently anti-nuclear as many progressives. ( IMO the maon concern with nuclear is from a consumer/ratepayer protection POV) Encouraging oil and gas exports, however doesnt merely acknowlege the reality that we cannot go 100 percent renewable (yet), but creates market conditions that encourage a boom in fossil fuel production, which is precisely what we've seen happen.
https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/...rs.com/one-million-donations.png?no_replace=1
Yeah. Warren pretty much plainly stated that policy ideas show what we stand for, and that it doesn't matter who the candidate in a year is as long as these ideas permeate to the public.
She deserves a prominent place in whoevers administration is next.
The thing is, renewable will always be a base load power source so it will never be possible to go 100 percent renewable (Since power use is not a flat line).
On the other hand with more advanced nuclear reactors, variability could be possible. Either case, from a rate-payer point of view, if you actually try to get into renewable energy storage, there is no power source more expensive.
Quinnipiac 2020 poll
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2611
Would you want trump to have a primary challenger ?
Yes: 35
No: 56
Would you like the 2020 dem candidate younger or older all things being equal?
Younger 39
Older 21
Doesn't matter 35
Should the candidate be more progressive or more moderate?
Progressive 49
Moderate 44
Should the dem candidate work with republicans or stand up to them
Work with 52
Stand up 39
Should the 2020 dem candidate share your views or be the most electable
Share views 51
Electable 45
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2611
Would you want trump to have a primary challenger ?
Yes: 35
No: 56
Would you like the 2020 dem candidate younger or older all things being equal?
Younger 39
Older 21
Doesn't matter 35
Should the candidate be more progressive or more moderate?
Progressive 49
Moderate 44
Should the dem candidate work with republicans or stand up to them
Work with 52
Stand up 39
Should the 2020 dem candidate share your views or be the most electable
Share views 51
Electable 45
Pete tying Warren for 5th place already is pretty awesome. He still hasn't even technically launched his campaign yet, just the exploratory committee. He's got a whole lot of room to grow once more people learn who he is.
Yup, I'll say he's gonna be in the serious contender tier going forward if this surge lasts/grows.
I know he's currently doubling staff and expanding campaign infrastructure. I'd expect an official launch sometime late next month after they've had some time to expand operations with this new success/ momentum.
There are more than half a dozen DNC debates before the Iowa Caucus. We are so far away from people actually voting it isn't even worth wondering yet
Yeah that's what drives me up a wall about the "stop talking about bipartisanship/compromise/negotiating" crowd.
No Democratic candidate for president, not even Bernie is ever going to go up there and just be like "fuck Republicans, they suck" and win on that platform. Even Trump makes token passes towards winning Democratic support for his bills, even though he doesn't really follow through on it.
Hillary said half of Trump's supporters were deplorable and got reamed for it. And she was 100% fucking right. Too generous if anything. Doesn't mean she should have said it.
I honestly can't think of a single reason why someone who wants to push left policies would vote Bernie over Pete. Pete is left through and through where as Biden, Kamala, and Beto have more moderate tendencies and isn't a cranky old 80 year old straight white dude.
Bernie has nothing over Pete at this point for someone who is far on the left. Pete has a left policy agenda plus is young, far more charismatic, and not a straight white guy.
Bernie has nothing over Pete at this point for someone who is far on the left. Pete has a left policy agenda plus is young, far more charismatic, and not a straight white guy.
There are still some policy differences.
Like if you believe in single-payer health care or federal job guarantee, Bernie would still be preferable. On the other hand, Pete believes in court stacking, which is a plus if one cares about correcting the mess of a supreme court.
Go Mayor Pete! I had never donated to a campaign before until a few weeks ago. I donated to his campaign as they were trying to hit 65,000 unique donations to hit the debate threshold. He's so genuine, smart, progressive, and young (my age). I also don't think I disagree with any policy suggestions he's mentioned yet. Still a large mountain to climb.
Yup. And now I'm hoping Pete takes 'em down one by one at the debate stage and ultimately nabs the nomination. He's still got a long way to go, for sure, but Pete is showing a ton of promise and momentum.
My only concern right now with Pete if he wins the nomination is if he can energize voters beyond the Dem base and lead us to winning big enough that the Democrats take back the Senate. We need that in order to actually get things done.
Pete doesn't really seem like the energizing type. I do like him though.
Yeah, Bernie has nothing on him, except for being a champion of said left agenda for literally decades on end and being the one who popularized it in the first place...
I love Pete, but It's pretty straightforward why a lot of lefties support Bernie over everyone else. They just like Bernie's personality more, some people here might not understand that, but that's the truth, they just like the grandpa vibes they get from him. They also trust him more because they can look back 20-30yrs ago and see him fighting for the same issues, and a lot of them also believe that Bernie will be more isolationist on FP compared to others. I can understand why a lot of people are so in love with Bernie.
The main difference between them is that Bernie ran for president a few years back, so people know about him now. Had he started on the ground level this year they'd likely be equal because nobody knew who Bernie was for the majority of his career.
How is being old enough to push it for decades make Bernie somehow more worthy than Pete who also pushes left policies? Being first doesn't somehow make someone more likely to get the policy through congress. There isn't anything about being "first" that helps a candidate or President.
I'm not sure, personally. He's definitely not like Beto- but the guy has been gaining more and more momentum lately and impresses most people who see his interviews, policies and general rhetoric. Beto might be of the Obama mold, but Pete reminds me a lot of Mr. Rogers with his warmth, positivity and intellect. That's absolutely a form of charisma- just more subtle than Beto's more immediate approach, I think.
Whether that yields massive results on the voting field remains to be seen.
Yeah, I think this is a valid point too. Maybe the theory that Bernie has more popularity right now because of his grandpa persona is the whole truth, but I think at least a chunk of it comes down to Bernie having been more prominent in the public eye for a few years already.
I can compromise with Pete honestly, at least he doesnt have Beto"s gross voting record. Also it would make me very happy to have a gay president, that would mean a lot for many people.
Your framing is dishonest here - we're not Bernie supporters because he's old as fuck, but because he's been screaming about these issues for decades - even when they were wildly unpopular - and that shows real commitment and makes us trust that he WILL implement said policies.
Bernie's appeal comes from him being painted as the loner crazy socialist for like 40 years, only to find out that he has been the voice of reason all along.
And I love Pete, he's easily one of the best candidates and is smart as a whip, but people still want to see commitment from him until the voting starts. Some candidates can't commit to a position for days or weeks let alone an entire year or decades.
- Status