169

Biden's campaign raised $90 million in March. Trump's war chest isn't even close (www.usatoday.com)

submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

President Joe Biden's reelection campaign says it raised a whopping $90 million last month with help from the national party.

Democrats' $192 million war chest more than doubles the $93.1 million Republicans reported having on hand as the general election battle between Biden and former President Donald Trump begins to take shape.

Trump's campaign and the Republican National Committee announced $65.6 million in fundraising for the month of March. The party committee and the former president's campaign are sharing resources now that Trump has clinched the Republican nomination.

…

Republicans' fundraising has lagged for the last several months. The presumptive Republican nominee's campaign and the RNC have routinely raised less than Biden. Trump has hawked sneakers and Bibles as he juggles paying his legal fees with raising cash for his presidential campaign.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] pineapple_pizza@lemmy.dexlit.xyz 8 points 7 months ago

Who do you have in mind?

[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 10 points 7 months ago

This going to sound super far fetch, I know... But one can identify a problem without knowing the solution. OP isn't running for president.

[-] pineapple_pizza@lemmy.dexlit.xyz 7 points 7 months ago

Yeah sure, just curious what names people have in mind. If none that's fine

[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

None is my first choice, Literally Anybody Else is my second.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Elizabeth Warren would be great, and she's also old enough boomers won't freak out about being replaced like when Obama ran.

There's lots of options, but you asked for one.

[-] protist@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

Elizabeth Warren ran for the nomination and lost, and gave a full-throated endorsement of Biden after she withdrew

[-] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

She didn't lose as much as she wasn't picked.

[-] protist@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Yes, she wasn't picked by Democratic primary voters

[-] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

2016 taught me the DNC isn't shy about putting a thumb on the scale.

[-] protist@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

The superdelegate system that caused very real controversy in 2016 was changed after that. Superdelegates no longer get to vote in the first round, so they only influence the outcome if there's a contested convention. I believe they also decreased how many superdelegates there are

[-] Godric@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

she wasn't picked.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

When was that?

And can you name a single major primary candidate that didn't do that for the nominee except Hillary Clinton?

Because I'm like 99% sure she's the only one from the Dem side who didn't.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Jon Stewart would be just fine, but we can also just open up the convention and do it there.

The idea that you need to have a solution to bring up a problem is idiotic.

this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024

169 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19089 readers

4538 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News