# Democrats should thank Trump for one thing: he showed that money isn't necessary **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 16, 2017, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296 "2017-01-16T06:05:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/1 "2017-01-16T06:05:00Z")
Democrats are clear about the fact that they don’t like it when corporations and the super-rich pour money into politics. Countless threads on this forum, and blog posts and editorials elsewhere, dealing with the Koch Brothers and the _Citizens United_ decision, testify to that. Democrats also raise tons and tons of money. In 2008, [Barack Obama set records](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/19/obama-shatters-monthly-fundraising-record/). In 2012, [he broke his own record](http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/07/obama-sets-all-time-fundraising-record-crushed-final-romney-totals/). In 2016, [Hillary shattered that record](http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraisers-election-2016/). Many have pointed out how little time she spent in key states like Wisconsin, and the reason was that she was busy raising money instead. The Democrats are not shy about courting the super-rich. [Obama once had a fundraiser](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2785161/Obama-slams-GOP-party-billionaires-attends-32k-head-fundraiser-hosted-billionaire-property-tycoon-named-Rich-Richman.html) at the home of a billionaire property tycoon named Rich Richman. Cost: $32,400 per person. But that’s a trifle compared to the [$353,400](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/george-clooney-hillary-clinton-fundraiser-obscene-money) that was charged to sit with Hillary and Hollywood celebrities last April. So it would seem that the only argument that Democrats can make would go like this: raising truckloads of money from the rich is bad, but we need to win, and in order to win we need to raise truckloads of money from the rich. And thus they end up doing what they say they hate, and Democrats end up lining up to vote for candidates who are floating on piles of money, time after time. But now Donald Trump has shown up and proved that you can win an election without devoting all your time to fundraising. Indeed, without devoting barely any time to it. During the Republican primary, he faced a huge number of challengers backed by huge sums of money. At the lead was Jeb Bush, whose SuperPAC raised a nine-figure sum. Trump spent virtually nothing. We all know how that ended: Trump got 1,543 delegates while Jeb got 4. In the general election campaign Trump did raise money, but not with the same consuming zeal that Hillary did. Counting the money he raised and SuperPAC money, Trump spend about half as much as Hillary. Of course he had the advantage of being a billionaire who gave his own campaign millions. However, the lesson to take away from the election is that winning the spending game _does not matter_. Hillary [rolled a tidal wave of money through Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina, sometimes outspending Trump by 20 to 1](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-slated-spend-53-times-donald-trump/story?id=42230361). She lost all four of those states. It’s worth noting that this isn’t the only race where big spending didn’t lead to victory. For example, in the 2014 North Carolina Senate Race, [Democrat Kay Hagan outspent her opponent and lost anyway](http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2014/11/05/hagan-tillis-us-senate-campaign-spending-nc.html). So it seems pretty clear. Democrats have been liberated from the need to soil themselves with obsessive fundraising from corporations and billionaires. The approach of trying to grab billions of dollars from those sources each cycle, and then use that money to flood the airwaves with advertising clearly isn’t working, so the Democrats might as well abandon it. Switch to putting limits on how much they’ll take from the corporate sources and how much one billionaire can give. Focus on small donors. (Bernie Sanders has shown that you can raise a respectable amount this way.) Then the Democrats won’t look so hypocritical and won’t be vulnerable to the “crooked” attack that Trump used so effectively. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/2 "2017-01-16T06:13:40Z")
Trump only proved that you don’t need to spend a lot of money to win the moron vote. It’s not applicable. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/3 "2017-01-16T06:52:21Z")
Hey, you don’t need to spend that much money on the campaign, if you spend thirty years spending as much of your time and your fortune as you can getting yourself in the papers. Brilliant. A masterful plan for elderly gloryhounds to win office at the end of long lives. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/4 "2017-01-16T06:54:03Z")
Honestly, I am grateful to him. I just wonder if it works for someone who isn’t a notorious gadfly buzzing in the eyes of the entire island of Manhattan. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/5 "2017-01-16T07:17:25Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Hey, you don’t need to spend that much money on the campaign, if you spend thirty years spending as much of your time and your fortune as you can getting yourself in the papers. > > Brilliant. A masterful plan for elderly gloryhounds to win office at the end of long lives. Exactly. You also have to make sure that your wacky and appalling campaign antics are riveting enough to warrant lots of free media coverage. In short, the OP is wrong, except for one thing: Trump showed that money isn’t necessary _for Donald Trump_ to win the Presidency. For most other people, I’m afraid, they’ll still either have to go the Bernie route and crowdsource from the little people or kiss up to the wealthy donors, or both. Public funding of elections won’t fix this problem entirely, but it would certainly help. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/6 "2017-01-16T09:46:12Z")
Sure money isn’t necessary if you’re already a celebrity. So it’s being suggested that the Democrats should basically do the same thing next time. Pick a well liked actor with no political experience as the figurehead, make sure they have competent advisors. > **[Democrats Should Run a Celebrity for President, Too](https://newrepublic.com/article/139756/democrats-run-celebrity-president)** > > It worked for Republicans—twice. And charismatic candidates like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton don't appear every four years. So how about Tom Hanks as DNC candidate 2020. Come on, everyone likes Tom Hanks ! ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/7 "2017-01-16T10:01:17Z")
Michael Moore should run. Famous. Interested in politics. An “outsider” (though people may well be screaming for an INsider by 2020) Solidly working class and non-“Elite” Predicted the results of the last election very accurately Of course, if he had any sense he’d run screaming from the prospect - that’s where Trump had a major advantage over most folk ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/8 "2017-01-16T10:25:07Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So it would seem that the only argument that Democrats can make would go like this: raising truckloads of money from the rich is bad, but we need to win, and in order to win we need to raise truckloads of money from the rich. And thus they end up doing what they say they hate, and Democrats end up lining up to vote for candidates who are floating on piles of money, time after time. This was one of their arguments, but not the most pernicious one. [To protect Hillary Clinton, Democrats wage war on their own core Citizens United argument:](https://theintercept.com/2016/04/14/to-protect-clinton-democrats-wage-war-on-their-own-core-citizens-united-argument/) > [@](#): > > Indeed, the Clinton argument actually goes well beyond the Court’s conservatives: In Citizens United, the right-wing justices merely denied the corrupting effect of independent expenditures (i.e., ones not coordinated with the campaign). But Clinton supporters in 2016 are denying the corrupting effect of direct campaign donations by large banks and corporations and, even worse, huge speaking fees paid to an individual politician shortly before and after that person holds massive political power. I’d tend to agree that celebrity and media saturation play key roles. Sanders raised a lot of money, but wasn’t taken seriously in the media and was swept aside by the Clinton campaign. Trump was covered incessantly, given billions in free advertising, and is a well known celebrity going back decades and with a brand of being a successful businessman. If you wanted to be cute you could say that money is still necessary, it’s just that Dems are incompetent at political strategy and don’t spend it properly. So they need much more than Republicans get just to have the same effect. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/9 "2017-01-16T10:31:47Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Michael Moore should run. Not sure if you were serious. Michael Moore is far too controversial a figure, too divisive. He’d win the Bernie Sanders fan’s and that’s about it. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/10 "2017-01-16T10:56:38Z")
I actually am completely serious (I also seriously think he wouldn’t want to do it, but that’s another story). _Trump_ is a divisive figure, and look where he is now. Lots of people said about Trump ‘well, he’ll win the KKK fanboys and that’s about it’ - but as it turns out, there were enough rusted-on voters who simply couldn’t bear to put their mark against anything but an ‘R’ to carry him over the line, as well as the “because fuck you” vote that Moore himself [identified](http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/), that want to ‘shake things up’ Apparently a lot of people think that Democrats are “elites” and “don’t care about ordinary guys” **even though** Democrat policies are more likely to help them than Republican policies, even though Democrats have a [better record on the economy](http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/10/28/which-presidents-have-been-best-for-the-economy) than Republicans. You want to combat that? Put up a working class kid whose dad worked on an assembly line. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/11 "2017-01-16T11:07:40Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Michael Moore should run. > > Famous. > Interested in politics. > An “outsider” (though people may well be screaming for an INsider by 2020) > Solidly working class and non-“Elite” > Predicted the results of the last election very accurately > > Of course, if he had any sense he’d run screaming from the prospect - that’s where Trump had a major advantage over most folk They need to nominate a person with a proven track record of stunning Trump. Ladies and gentlemen; [Stone Cold Steve Austin](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UTtfVOyVsf0). And that’s the bottom line cause… ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/12 "2017-01-16T11:16:46Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > I actually am completely serious (I also seriously think he wouldn’t want to do it, but that’s another story). _Trump_ is a divisive figure, and look where he is now. Lots of people said about Trump ‘well, he’ll win the KKK fanboys and that’s about it’ - but as it turns out, there were enough rusted-on voters who simply couldn’t bear to put their mark against anything but an ‘R’ to carry him over the line, as well as the “because fuck you” vote that Moore himself [identified](http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/), that want to ‘shake things up’ I think what this analysis is missing is the “nutcase gap”. A ton of democrats weren’t willing to vote for Hillary Clinton over trivial bullshit like her speeches to banks. You think they’d just fall in line to vote for Michael Moore, a harline radical partisan who is basically the closest thing on the left wing to Ann Coulter? ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/13 "2017-01-16T13:12:47Z")
Is the list of Democrats who wouldn’t vote for Clinton because bank speeches bigger than this [list of Republicans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016) who publicly made known they wouldn’t vote for Trump? And yet…he more than made up for it on the backs of people with a real hankering for an irrational demagogue. Obviously matching demagogue for demagogue is a high-risk strategy. But then, you just _tried_ a low-risk strategy. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/14 "2017-01-16T13:16:52Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Is the list of Democrats who wouldn’t vote for Clinton because bank speeches bigger than this [list of Republicans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016) who publicly made known they wouldn’t vote for Trump? And yet…he more than made up for it on the backs of people with a real hankering for an irrational demagogue. > > Obviously matching demagogue for demagogue is a high-risk strategy. But then, you just _tried_ a low-risk strategy. And how many of the people hankering for an irrational demagogue are even remotely interested in a democrat? ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/15 "2017-01-16T13:25:33Z")
Yeah, _trivial bullshit_. Half the people I know charge $250,000 a speech to banksters. It’s a useful little source of pin-money for elderly women in America. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/16 "2017-01-16T13:40:10Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > Yeah, _trivial bullshit_. Yes. Trivial bullshit. It’s a pretty common thing for politicos, to demand large speaking fees. Obviously, it’s not the norm for, say, you or me, but you or me doesn’t have the perspective offered by being a former president or secretary of state. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/17 "2017-01-16T16:39:06Z")
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again … what we have to thank Trump for is laying bare the bullshit that Republican’s laid on us for decades that, “character matters.” Chrissakes, Obama caught shit for wearing a tan suit and allowing his teenage daughter to wear a mini-skirt. Now presidents can just grab broads by the pussy and no one gives a shit. So, I say we run Anthony Weiner in 2020 with the slogan: “Fuck it. They ran Trump.” ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/18 "2017-01-16T16:52:03Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Yes. Trivial bullshit. It’s a pretty common thing for politicos, to demand large speaking fees. Obviously, a lot of people didn’t want to vote for a “politico” anymore. Including Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/19 "2017-01-16T16:53:05Z")
I think I have known for a long time that you don’t have to raise tons of money to get the second-most votes in an election. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296/20 "2017-01-16T16:54:03Z")
> [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > Yeah, _trivial bullshit_. > Half the people I know charge $250,000 a speech to banksters. It’s a useful little source of pin-money for elderly women in America. Organizations are willing to pay for interesting people to speak at their functions. Clinton is a former first lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. She’s interesting. She is doing a service for them. If you think that somehow beholdens her to them, you’re not thinking clearly. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-thank-trump-for-one-thing-he-showed-that-money-isnt-necessary/777296.md?page=2)