Well, 2 possibilities come to mind:
-
“I never really had any reason to look into this issue, it didn’t affect me, don’t you know?”
-
Does the term “plausible deniability” ring a bell?
Neither is a good possibility, nor do they reflect well on Pete. I continue to think that he may be a good candidate some day, but that day is not this day.
Mike Gravel also was not in it for his ego, he was attempting to move the Overton window to the anti-authoritarian left in the debates.
He would have been 98 at the end of two terms and he knew it.
And in breaking news from the unfunded and unliked:
I’m not sad for her: She’ll represent her district (and rich centrists) well for the rest of her life, becoming another Nancy Pelosi, and YMMV on if that’s a good thing or not.
But the only people really left now are:
a) Populists with broad support the DNC would rather not back (Warren, Sanders)
b) Centrists with money but not much else (Mayor Pete, Klobuchar) who have plenty of don’t-rock-the-boat corporate cash behind them.
c) Your nostalgia/centrism candidate, “Everything is Fine” Joe Biden, who seems to be supported more by nostalgia than by money or, you know, his record.
d) Billionaires with enough money to self-finance a presidential run but without enough self-knowledge to know no one wants them in the race (Steyer, Fricking Bloomerg, Delaney, etc.)
If the DNC wants my money, it’ll change its position on a) because if b-d are our candidates I will a) vote for them of course but also b) not give my money to them but to fairfight2020, which will help actual Democrats down ballot.
Mike Gravel not only wasn’t in it for his ego, he wasn’t even in it --he let a bunch of teens use his name, rep and position to waste time and NOT actually move the Overton window. Is it a run if you’re not running?
That’s a shame about Harris. She brought an important voice on race and women to the debate stage.
Word is on the Hill is that she is and always has been an empty suit. This is no surprise to many.
I couldn’t say. But it seems better to have centrists left in the race who weren’t surprised that the schools in their city were under a consent decree for segregation.
You’re both right. She’s an empty suit, but other empty suits like Buttigieg and Steyer (dafuq is a Steyer?) are still in the running.
I’ve been a fan of her on C-SPAN since she took office because of her skill at questioning people at committee hearings; I can’t remember anyone better in my lifetime.
Evidence that you can have a billion dollars and still have a soul.
sigh
Bloomberg, Steyer et al. just dig some change out of the couch cushions and hop up on stage. That’s not democracy. That has nothing to do with democracy or the will of the people. The US, along with many other countries, needs to take good hard looks at the electoral macine if they even want to pretend to be a democracy. Not just limits on campaign spending, but it also must be eliminated as one of the metrics by which we judge a candidate’s viability.
I don’t mind the fundraising requirements the Dems have laid out for the debates, as it really does matter to candidate viability, but it should be actual fundraising, not personal money. Make Bloomberg go out and shake hands and give rubber-chicken dinner speeches.
It still favours the rich, well-connected and those who can appease them. A guy who appeals to those with disposable income is going to have more funds available from his supporters than one that appeals to more people but who can’t afford even a dollar to support, because that’s today’s food budget. Polls are generally consistent by landline, and thus favour those who can afford to own or rent homes and pay for a landline, not pay-as-you-go cell phone service when they can afford to buy some cards at the gas station. And even if it did go into cell phones, most people don’t pick up anymore due to the vast amounts of spam calls, and someone with limited minutes isn’t going to waste them talking to some pollster.
Which means both polls and fundraising skew to age and wealth. This makes it harder for a candidate who has a base not in those areas to make the debates, which is where a lot of low-info voters get their information. If you can’t make the debates, those same voters won’t say your name when the next pollster calls. And it just snowballs.
Bloomberg is not on the stage.
One would think that the 200,000 unique donor requirement would have kept Steyer off the stage, but he’s hit the target with >165000 donors under $12. I suppose the popular support is either a reward for his long drive to impeach Trump or goodwill/contacts through his community development bank.
Some people have suggested that he got this support through heavy advertising, but if so it must be quite an ad, to convince small donors to contribute their hard-earned dollars to a billionaire.
Hey Rolling Stone, I think The Onion hacked your Twitter account.
Wait, that’s not what happened? This is a real story about an actual event that actual people actually did?
Fuck, this really is the dumbest timeline.
Sounds worth $10 to try and keep some diverse voices on that panel.
Not that I’m sold on anyone just yet.
Or if you want something for your money…
