The DNC Reports Lowest Fundraising Since 2003

[UncleBuck]

Imagine how a well funded progressive campaign might have done?

huh, i thought money was evil.

probably would have lost by a few more points than ossoff, just like every single candidate bernie has ever endorsed has lost.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Tax deduction

Wrong. It's so that when it comes down to a vote, the Democratic politician will remember who is funding their campaign, as we just witnessed in CA

 

[srh88]

Wrong. It's so that when it comes down to a vote, the Democratic politician will remember who is funding their campaign, as we just witnessed in CA

It's good that you know how every ceo thinks

 

[Padawanbater2]

Money's money.. they are campaigning, every penny goes to use.

Ding ding ding

And you don't believe any of the money they receive has any influence on them?

 

[srh88]

And you don't believe any of the money they receive has any influence on them?

Depends on the person.

 

[Padawanbater2]

It's good that you know how every ceo thinks

I'm just not naive. I know that people don't give politicians money for no reason, or for "tax deductions" (that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard). They give them money because they expect a return on their investment.

 

[UncleBuck]

Wrong. It's so that when it comes down to a vote, the Democratic politician will remember who is funding their campaign, as we just witnessed in CA

where literally all but one of them voted for single payer?

you're fucking retarded.

 

[srh88]

I'm just not naive. I know that people don't give politicians money for no reason, or for "tax deductions" (that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard). They give them money because they expect a return on their investment.

But is it a guarantee that the politician will support the CEO?

 

[ttystikk]

where literally all but one of them voted for single payer?

you're fucking retarded.

So why was it killed?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Depends on the person.

How would you be able to tell what politicians are influenced by corporate, PAC, and/or special interest campaign contributions?

 

[ttystikk]

But is it a guarantee that the politician will support the CEO?

Only the policies and positions he wants to see.

 

[Justin-case]

Wrong. It's so that when it comes down to a vote, the Democratic politician will remember who is funding their campaign, as we just witnessed in CA

I state a fact and you immediately say I'm 'wrong' gfypr

 

[Padawanbater2]

But is it a guarantee that the politician will support the CEO?

The only thing that's guaranteed is if the politicians votes the "wrong way", they won't be receiving campaign contributions from that donor anymore

 

[UncleBuck]

So why was it killed?

same reason it failed in hawaii, illinois, new york, and even fucking vermont. and then some.

 

[srh88]

How would you be able to tell what politicians are influenced by corporate, PAC, and/or special interest campaign contributions?

Holy fuck.. you're ridiculous. With that logic, how can you know if any candidate is taking contributions or not.

 

[ttystikk]

The only thing that's guaranteed is if the politicians votes the "wrong way", they won't be receiving campaign contributions from that donor anymore

... Or other donors, because they'll be seen as unreliable. Instead, all that money will shift to their competitor- which greatly increases the chance said unreliable politician will find themselves out of a job.

But I'm pointing out basic logic to Democratic Party cultists. I'm not exactly expecting to make much headway.

 

[srh88]

The only thing that's guaranteed is if the politicians votes the "wrong way", they won't be receiving campaign contributions from that donor anymore

If they already won and believe what they ran on who gives a shit?

 

[srh88]

... Or other donors, because they'll be seen as unreliable. Instead, all that money will shift to their competitor- which greatly increases the chance said unreliable politician will find themselves out of a job.

Sure.. if they were a bad leader.

 

[ttystikk]

Sure.. if they were a bad leader.

In this case, all 'bad' has to mean is 'unwilling to follow the money'.

Remember that he who spends the most money wins 90% of the time.

 

[srh88]

In this case, all 'bad' has to mean is 'unwilling to follow the money'.

Remember that he who spends the most money wins 90% of the time.

Still got 10% out there and we are talking about reelection. If somebody really came out and did something really great for once all they would really have to do is say they are running again and nail a debate