I doubt “wine cellar” would have changed the story.
“Wine cave? Ooh la la”
“What do you call it?”
“A wine hole”.
Yeah, this one is self destructive. I pointed that out in 2016 when Sanders was attacking Hillary for taking donations from banks- Doe the GOP ever complain about where it’s candidates are getting their money? No, the more the better. Until we beat trump and get a majority in the senate, we need to shut up about this.
When class conflict is a major brand of two of the top four candidates, that ain’t stopping.
which will kill our chances of winning vs trump, who has no such compunctions.
You cant go into a fight using Queensberry rules and gloves when the other guy is gonna eye gouge, bite ears and groin punch.
You are actually arguing for Queensberry rules by saying “no criticism about where your money comes from”.
Nevertheless agreed that refusing to take money from those who have more of it just because they have it would be self-defeating when competing in a general against a very well funded opponent.
Buttigieg is … uh, right on the money … here. And Klobuchar more so. Change the rules, sure, but don’t promise to go into the general handicapping yourself.
I don’t think he did anything wrong but expecting Warren and Sanders to shut up about it isn’t realistic.
I don’t think they help themselves much by doing it and hurt themselves if either of them somehow did become the nominee.
Their supporters care about that funding purity test but his more center-left demographic does not, and his success or failure at making inroads with the bulk of Black voters does not hinge on that either. Most simply those who care most about that item were already likely in one their camps already.
And if either of them is the nominee they are stuck either not taking donations from those who have more to give (kneecapping their ability to fight), or hypocritically flip-flopping on the pledge.
What comes off instead is the image of Warren bickering about it (Sanders mostly staying out of the squabbling.) Going negative on each other over issues and basic values is fair game but can easily backfire.
I remember after Obama’s first presidential debate, the initial pundit response was mostly a collective “meh.” However the general public response by contrast was quite favorable and had thought he had won.
One pundit I read made the self-reflective comment that on consideration that made sense. Pundits are political junkies and they were very familiar with Obama, but at that point the general public was not. The public appears to have responded quite well to how calm, thoughtful and measured he seemed. Which is something the pundits didn’t care about as much because they already knew he was calm, thoughtful and measured after covering him for quite some time. The pundits were far more interested in the political point-scoring. Something that the general public actually cared a bit less about. As is often the case.
Sanders wasn’t the only one. Trump (hypocritically enough, but it’s Trump after all) went after Clinton for her private fundraisers with Goldman Sachs. I heard anti-Hillary people trumpet it (and trying to say Trump wasn’t going to be in the hands of rich lobbyists because he had money, LOL). It’s something that does tend to have some resonance in this (pseudo) populist time.
I wonder if it’s Klobuchar’s turn to become the next not-Biden.
I think she is an OK candidate and better than the other three not-Bidens. However I am skeptical she will be able to inspire strong minority turnout. Secondly the stories about mistreating her staffers are a red flag. Running a successful presidential campaign and later a White House requires above all a tight ship with a minimum of drama as achieved by Obama. Abusing your staffers to the point where you struggle to fill key posts is a bad sign.
Yeah, that made my brain hurt.
More than any published number of billions of dollars some rich person has, those pictures really bring it home to people just what that means.
If you’re going to try to represent the Democratic Party and be okay with that at the same time, a lot of us are saying no, that’s not really possible.
And as Warren points out, those same people are perfectly welcome to send checks to her campaign. The problem is when the checks are in return for a chunk of your very finite supply of available time. It’s hard to spend ‘call time’ every day talking with rich people, and regularly hobnobbing with them at exclusive parties, without some of their world view rubbing off on you.
Yes. All of the top candidates have run for elective office before. Each of them should have stories about actions they took that ran against the interests of big donors. Tell those stories; talk about their incorruptibility. That’s relevant information.
But the purity testing about who is getting which donations now is stupid and won’t win any of them one additional vote they don’t already have.
In the end, purity tests end up boxing in the people who try to apply them. If Warren ends up winning the nomination, she’ll be leading a Democratic party that will be facing off against an avalanche of Republican money flowing to Trump. Biden and Buttigieg are wise not to go down that road.
10 of 11 Dem voters in this group said Klobuchar did the best in the last debate
The real test will be the polls. It’s what people remember from the debates in the news cycles that follow that really matter.
Have a feeling Biden is going to crash and burn at some point, maybe a health issue or just a big gaffe. If it happens it would be bad if it’s after he is the nominee. At that point I guess they would have to figure out who is plan B.
Well, if Democrats want to campaign on class warfare and resentment, that’s their prerogative. I think it’s a losing strategy, but whatever. I’m pretty sure the number of people who would look at a picture of the wine cave and think “ooooh, I wish I could have that” is much, much larger than those who see it and think “GRRRRR, those spoiled rich bastards, grab the pitchforks! Storm the palace!” More people aspire to the moneyed class than resent it. This is a country that spends unbelievable amounts of time watching shows that consist of nothing more than rich people living lives of conspicuous consumption - and yes, that includes all the home-renovation shows and shit, not just the Kardashians.
And that’s part of why I am very frustrated with Sanders despite liking him a lot - his messaging emphasizes too much “THE BILLIONAIRES HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY, GRRRRRRR!” and not enough “I want YOUR lives to be better by redistributing wealth and reforming healthcare.” That doesn’t just mean “your doctor bills will be lower”. It means “you will be able to save up money so you can buy that Harley-Davidson, or restore that '67 Mustang, or build that addition to your house, or collect more audiophile gear, or whatever you choose to spend your disposable income on, BECAUSE YOU WILL HAVE MORE DISPOSABLE INCOME because you won’t be bled dry by healthcare costs, overpriced prescriptions, ass-gouging insurance premiums, etc.”
Most people in this country do not WANT to be ascetic Luddites. They want to enjoy their lives and part of that is consumption. There’s space for this to coexist with the concept of wealth redistribution and limiting the power of multibillionaires.