Just one more respectful question, trying to understand XT’s point of view:
Assume that, as the Democratic primary in your State nears, the field has narrowed to two candidates. You believe that one would have a far better chance than the other of beating Trump. The laws in your State allow you to vote in the Democratic primary without having to register as a Democrat. Do you participate in the primary in order to maximize the chance of Trump losing, or not, and why?
Hell, imagine that Trump and Mitt Romney are running neck-and-neck in the Republican race, and you likewise have the option of voting in the Republican primary. Would you do so?
So, if all the money that was donated to AOC had been sent to, say, Claire McCaskill, instead, things might have been different? Well, AOC supporters aren’t going to give that money to Claire McCaskill if they’re not giving it to AOC. They might donate it to refugee aid or spend it on weed, but I guarantee you donating to corporate-backed politicians isn’t on their list of discretionary spending options. So that’s not any net loss of money for moderate Senate campaigns. And I’m not going to look it up right now, but I’m guessing AOC’s primary campaign budget was insignificant relative to any establishment Senate campaign.
So, yep, still not seeing your point about how replacing lame Democrats with good ones hurts the Democratic Party.
I have tremendous respect for Obama, but his legacy was severely marred by his support for the Democratic establishment’s efforts to anoint Clinton as the nominee long before voting began. That…didn’t work out well.
How much money has Beto taken from oil companies? (Serious question, I have no idea). If it’s a nontrivial amount, that’s a legitimate criticism, regardless of what he might “constantly talk” about.
Well, did he consistently use “millionaires and billionaires” in his stump speeches before he himself was outed as a millionaire, and then switched to consistently using only “billionaires”? If so, that’s a reasonable thing to point out, maybe, if you have a deadline and no real news to write about.
Or has he always used the terms interchangeably, and they just cherry-picked some videos to take a cheap shot by implying that he had shifted? If so, that’s a bad-faith smear.
I will note, per your linked article, that Sanders’ outrage was at least not entirely self-serving:
Zero. At least knowingly. Unless he’s willing to go to prison.
There were some complaints last year that workers in the industry were the largest source of donations, but it’s the largest industry in Texas, so that will be true for pretty much any candidate in Texas.
Why is it a legitimate criticism? Do GOP voters obsess over this? I haven’t seen it.
What you seem to be saying is that if Dem candidates hobble themselves by not accepting donations, so that they lose, that’s a Good Thing.:dubious::rolleyes:
It’s not a legitimate criticism, it’s a fucking* Purity Test. *Which we have to stop.
The Democrats are simply following the lead set by Libertarians. Winning elections doesn’t matter. Enacting any of the party policies or reforms doesn’t matter. What matters is being seen as the ideologically purest. Discussions among Democrats right now strongly remind me of the infighting among Libertarians a couple decades ago as they spiraled into complete irrelevance.
Getting big corporate money out of elections and climate change are notable Democratic positions. Taking money from Big Oil is at least symbolically saying, you don’t really care much about those issues. When important votes come up, a representative’s campaign funding is often scrutinized. Why is it a purity test to do it before they get elected?
Why? Look, Big Oil may be a big job producer in your state. They often also do alternate clean energy.
So, do we not support Green Energy? What’s wrong with Big Oil when they want to start divesting fossil fuels and slowly making their way into renewables?
So taking money from Big Oil can mean you are into Green Energy.
Sure, if half their campaign funds come from a Big Oil, maybe we need to take a look.
But if Mobil (example) is one of many moderate contributors, then there’s nothing wrong.
And sure it would be nice to get big corporate money out of elections, but we can’t hobble ourselves when the GOP is face deep in the trough.
It’s not unreasonable for you to take that position. I’m not sure it’s fair for you to declare that ok, half his campaign funding from oil would require a look but anything below that is a purity test.
Ok, but let’s not make one modest donation a No-Go. Let’s turn this into a real issue, not a Purity test.
Hey Candidate xxx gets a $% or how many $tens of thousands from this industry is one thing, but XXX is a tool of Big Oil because he got $500 check once is just a purity test.
So, just saying “They accuse Beto of being in the pocket of Big Oil,…” is bogus. Lets see some real numbers. Crappy accusations with no real numbers behind them are bogus.
There will always be progressives trying to push the center of the party left. And there will always be moderates trying to push it back towards the center. And everyone in between will be trying to push it towards their specific level of progressiveness. None of this is new, and none of it is terrible. All this discussion and even disagreement is good for the party IMO, in general – which doesn’t mean that you can’t point to a specific race and say “this is or is not the right district to push the progressive alternative”. Feel free to do that, but it’s pointless to try and advocate that very progressive folks stop trying to make the party more progressive.
You’re the one who is claiming people are saying that. Do you have a cite of anyone saying so? If they are doing so without providing supporting evidence, that would reflect badly on whoever these unknown people are. Alternately, since you appear to know for certain that Beto’s support from the oil industry was limited to one $500 check, could you link to a cite for that claim? Or are you just doing your usual thing of making up strawmen and flailing at them?
Yes, you’re right. Crowley absolutely should have resolved to run a fair campaign by spending no more than his opponent, and donate the rest of his campaign fund to Democrats running in purple seats. Shame on him for not doing so.