-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Elizabeth Warren Will Forego Big Money Events If Nominated, She Announces
- Thread starter Deleted member 4346
- Start date
I don't know if you know this but large sums of money influence politicians, most of the time in bad ways. Just because you like Warren does not mean she is immune to large sums of money influencing her decision.
OP
OP
This is a dogshit take but I'm not surprised you posted it. One of the biggest criticisms of Warren from the left was her acceptance of corporate/PAC money for the general election. Reversing course and joining Sanders on this issue is definitely going to appease his supporters. Most of who would vote for her in a general election anyway.
I was going to vote for her anyway in the general, but this is a good precedent to set.
They better have some internal numbers to back this up, because if this fucks over down tickets it's going to be the dumbest fucking move to just say no to free money.
I really don't mind her (I'm a 100% Sanders supporter) and she's firmly my number 2 choice as she has been since this race started... but her foreign policy stances and her love of the giant defense budget for who knows what reason is utter trash. She should be pressured on these issues and if she changed her stance on them I could get behind her much more easily.
Decent people - so not Trump - also reimburse the cities/states where they hold rallies for security/police, emergency services, and venues, plus there's travel and other expenses that quickly add up, as well. It's more than just advertising.
She cant go back on this now and if she is drowning under Trumps massive fund-raising advantage then she will be stuck.
I dont necessarily disagree here. IMO once the democratic nominee is chosen...you should do what it takes to win regardless of most anything else. For example if Sanders won and then decided to suddenly start taking all this big money...he'd have a lot of pissed off supporters, but to me it is the smart play. At that point you do what it takes to beat Trump.
Buttt on the other hand they can also do it with the power of the people like you and I. I believe that.
Money is part of the game, even if we don't like the rules.
So she is okay with entering the World Series with Little League money
So she is okay with entering the World Series with Little League money
Honestly I think what she's doing here is saying this now and she'll change her mind if she does win. Again it'd just be the smart play. Align with Sanders now and decide later after you've won something like "welll you know we really just have to beat Trump and I don't think I can do that without all the help I can get".
I think there is a misunderstanding on what her stance is.
This isn't a "OFA" bankrupt the DNC and downballot type of deal. She is still going to do events for the DNC and downballot candidates. She just won't do those shitty private fundraising events that led to stuff like the deplorables and 47% comments.
This isn't a "OFA" bankrupt the DNC and downballot type of deal. She is still going to do events for the DNC and downballot candidates. She just won't do those shitty private fundraising events that led to stuff like the deplorables and 47% comments.
Good. Let's see you stick to that considering your previous history in taking big money.
However, if you are serious about it, it should not have been something you even started your campaign with to get to this point. Absolutely ridiculous when we're at the 4th debate already.
However, if you are serious about it, it should not have been something you even started your campaign with to get to this point. Absolutely ridiculous when we're at the 4th debate already.
Awesome. This is the right thing to do. I'm a bit wary of the cash gap, but if she is doing fundraisers for down ballot where it really counts... that helps to temper my fears.
It's a nice thing to say, but still stopping short of defiantly refusing the kind of money altogether that's disintegrating our society.
Go further, Liz.
Go further, Liz.
This is a big one for me. Really glad Bernie ran so hard all these years. It'll make Warren the best 2020 candidate we could possibly get. Now we need her to shift just a bit more on foreign policy and we're in a great place.
Clinton raised more money than Trump and still lost. It's not strictly about who raises the most money.
Having too much money is never a bad thing to have on the campaign trail. Hillary wasn't going to get the edge on Trump by having less of a war chest.
Her doing this is praise worthy and her not doing this is worth criticizing
This will actually help her win.
The idea that you need to take bribes to win big visible elections is propaganda by the people paying the bribes
Don't get complacent, remember what happened in '16. Everybody thought Hillary had this, including Donald Trump.
Nope, having access to money is why 9 times out of 10 the candidate with the higher funding wins.
She continues to prove her honesty in wishing to improve things. I disagree with her methods but it's clear she has a pure heart with good intentions for the American public first and foremost, unlike the vast majority of the Democratic nominee field.
People poo-pooing her for doing this (as in doing it at all, as opposed to being suspicious of intention) really don't understand what a corrupt system we have on our hands. Corporations should not have influence on politics at all. And if they insist on maintaining their influence by backing monstrous fascists and alleged literal child rapists like Trump, then they're monsters we'll have to find a way to get rid of.
People poo-pooing her for doing this (as in doing it at all, as opposed to being suspicious of intention) really don't understand what a corrupt system we have on our hands. Corporations should not have influence on politics at all. And if they insist on maintaining their influence by backing monstrous fascists and alleged literal child rapists like Trump, then they're monsters we'll have to find a way to get rid of.
hmmmmmmm, curious that this guy is now concern trolling about the DNC's finances.
I'm not sure what the link to the Washington Times is supposed to show, and I kind of refuse to go there...
Anyway, I mean I'm fine with her not going to closed door high dollar events. However, I'd still like to see her set up a Joint Fundraising Committee (something Sanders did in 2016 too) that enables a single donation that covers maxing out to her campaign, as well as the DNC and state parties.
Anyway, I mean I'm fine with her not going to closed door high dollar events. However, I'd still like to see her set up a Joint Fundraising Committee (something Sanders did in 2016 too) that enables a single donation that covers maxing out to her campaign, as well as the DNC and state parties.
So once again she flips stances? What a surprise. Talk about going where the current takes her. This time for the better, granted, but she doesn't really inspire confidence this way, and as a result, I don't know if I should put a lot of faith in her as a politician and as a potential President of the United States. I mean, just a few months ago she said she'd only forgo big donations during the primaries, but would accept them in the general election against Trump. Now all of a sudden she swears it off altogether? As easily she decided to recant that decision, just as easily she could go back to her original stance. She's an opportunist, a pragmatic. And while that may resonate with some people here on Era, and apparently a lot of other people if the polls are to be believed, she really isn't the "leftist champion" a lot of people here are claiming her to be.
In local elections.
In the general you have free media coverage.
Is there any significant number of people who wouldn't have voted for her before, but knowing this will now vote for her in the General? Seems needless.
it only took me 2 seconds of googling to find all these sources. this is some childish shit.
Its the right decision, but she shouldn't have had to reverse her position in the first place. There's another candidate in the race who doesn't have to waffle like this.
I still don't know what exactly the links are supposed to relate to? The DNC being povo?
Use your words.
Use your words.
the thing i quoted when I posted the first link it's really not that hard
You're confusing different things? The person in the tweets ran finance for Obama's re-election campaign.
Obama still raised a lot during election years via a Joint Fundraising Committee, to transfer to the DNC and state parties.
The critique or Obama is his having a parallel organisation in OfA to the detriment of the DNC, DSCC, DCCC both organisationally and in fundraising.
Last edited:
Media coverage is never free unless you're Donald Trump, and the money is not solely for the media. Someone has to pay the bills for the buildings they use, the materials for posters and placards, food for volunteers etc. It's not cheap to run for office.
The candidate who's not winning this election.
Have any votes been cast? The answer is no. You cannot say who is winning or not winning this election until we're able to count delegates that candidates have acquired from primary and caucus elections that begin next year. It's cool I guess to be confident as to who is winning, but its all mere speculation at this point.
No offense but I'd rather someone who can actually admit their mistakes and implement change. Obama also wasn't for gay marriage at the start of his term but he changed his mind on that. Does that make him a lesser person? No I think not.
Yes, it is speculation. Speculation based on fact, Bernie was fading before now and his heart attack isn't a promising sign before the voting starts. The real work hasn't begun.
