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.One less thing for disingenuous trolls to attack her for. I like it.
Unilateral disarmament works right?
If this plays a non-zero role in getting Trump re-elected can we thank Bernie and his folks for "pushing the Dem field further to the left"?
I guess we'll have to wait and see.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.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 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.
Where does all the money for a presidential election go?
Assuming ads are targeted to battleground areas, does it not reach a saturation point long before a BILLION dollars is necessary?
TV must be unwatchable in purple states in election years
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.
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".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
Clinton raised more money than Trump and still lost. It's not strictly about who raises the most money.
One less thing for disingenuous trolls to attack her for. I like it.
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
In local elections.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.
I'm not sure what the link to the Washington Times is supposed to show, and I kind of refuse to go there...
the thing i quoted when I posted the first link it's really not that hardI still don't know what exactly the links are supposed to relate to? The DNC being povo?
You're confusing different things? The person in the tweets ran finance for Obama's re-election campaign.the thing i quoted when I posted the first link it's really not that hard
In local elections.
In the general you have free media coverage.
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.
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.
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.
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.