782
Michigan governor says not voting for Biden over Gaza war ‘supports second Trump term’
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
782 points (100.0% liked)
politics
18894 readers
2685 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Just ignoring that small donors exist and add up...
The DNC doesn't like them tho. Large entities giving huge amounts of money involves, dinners, fancy fundraisers, trips, and all types of situations the money spreads around where it shouldn't.
Small donors just want common sense politicians who are actually going to try and help Americans. Large donors want corporations to pay less taxes if were lucky. AIPAC wants billions a year and unquestioed support.
So large so ors and small donors want opposite things, and since large donors are more likely to personally enrich the people running the party, the people running the party decided that's who they go with.
Even if it means Dems are less likely to win elections.
Right, exactly. Sure, the Dems have a bunch of formal structure, and yes, you can participate in it, and if you persuade the decision makers inside the party (who are industry tools more often than not), then yes, you can have an influence. But if you want to challenge them on something genuinely democratic, like calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, which 76% of the Democratic base is in support of, then all of a sudden the elitist liberalism comes out and we all have to get in line behind our august statespeople, who know infinitely better than us measly citizens...
It's what Bernie has been saying for decades.
The first step is replacing neoliberals with progressives. We can't fix anything while they're in power, because they're the problem
Which is why the DNC fights harder against progressives than republicans. Losing to republicans just isn't a big deal to them, they know in 4-8 years they'll be in power again, and they'll be a shit ton of donations to Dems because of it.
If they lose to progressives...
That could be the end of the gravy train forever.
The more people understand that, the sooner it happens.
That's why the neoliberals demand absolutely loyalty to Biden.
The DNC has the state infrastructure and most federal and state-level campaigns tied so deeply into their infrastructure there's no real hope of replacing them.
Local politics are a tiny bit more open-ended, but again, the stakes are lower and local governments are explicity subordinate to states. Cities and counties can't do much if the state doesn't like it.
I have no idea how you fix this situation up, but as I see it, whatever the solution is has to look like making the DNC and its infrastructure obsolete. I don't see this happening inside the Democratic Party.
...
The DNC is not the state parties...
The state parties exist independent of the DNC, but due to how funding is supposed to trickle down, the state parties do kind of have to listen to them.
And while the state parties are in charge of their primary votes, the DNC can choose to ignore them.
Which is what happened when NH Dems refused to break NH state law so that Biden wouldn't have to lose the first primary after NH picked progressive over party favorite in 2016 and 2020.
It's confusing, but please try to learn more about our poltical system.
I'm noticing lots of Bidens supporters are incredibly opinionated, they just don't know what they're talking about about. When they do, they finally start understanding how fucked up we are and that if we dont act soon it's too late.
It's hard enough when one party is antidemocratic, if both are...
Right, they're formally separate, I know. The DNC intentionally uses their version of the power of the purse to control state parties. Like you said. They don't need perfect control as long as they can starve any campaign they don't like of funding.
It costs more money to get ten million $1 donations than it does to get one $10,000,000 donation. You have to advertise, put up a website, collect donations, and possibly pay service fees for the charges. One giant novelty check from a billionaire means more of that money goes into their coffers.
It's the same reason websites have advertising rather than memberships: Ad dollars are cheaper to get.
Lol
You think thos 20k a plate fundraisers cost zero?
The difference is the in person schmoozing with all those donors. The people running the party want to be paid to attend shit like that and having wealthy people suck up to them
I think getting $19,000 out of $20,000 is better than getting $0.90 out of a $1 donation, yes. It's called cost-of-revenue.
But you're right about the schmoozing. The donors love that shit. But there's also massive armies of political operatives whose livelihood depends on getting paid a ton of money to repeat facts back at the candidates.
Advertisers, analysts, pundits, news orgs, and a ton of other people rely on elections being both as expensive and as frustrating as possible. That way they get a ton of money, and sell a ton of eyeballs.
Sure, if you're making up random numbers anything can be justified...
But talking to someone who does that isnt something a lot of people are going to want to do bud.
Talking to someone who can't understand a common business concept isn't much fun either
I think they understand that concept fine, it's just that getting 97¢ out of twenty thousand $1 donations is better than getting $18k out of $20k, so if we're making up numbers it can go either way.
It costs more money to get the $10M donation, but it's paid for by taxpayers rather than the candidate.