Handel spent a good bit too - and far more of her $$$ came from groups (Super-Pacs and what not) OUTSIDE of her campaigns direct control:
About 2/3rds of Ossoff’s came from small contributions, compared to Handel’s 1/3rd. The GOPs donors tend to come more often from corporations (although that’s not insignificant in to democratic contributions, it’s just not as much). Plus, she won by 6% rather than either 9% (the percentage of GOP voters more than Democratic voters). Last time Price ran for the seat he won it by 20%. Clinton in 2016 actually WON part of the district (East Cobb, Newt’s old stomping grounds). This was barely a victory for the GOP. They might well lose the 6th next time, because people will remember why they disliked her in the first place, once she’s there in congress, I’m sure. She was not very popular as Sec. of State back in the day.
It was the Democratic Party that abandoned their roots. They dumped the working people in favor of Wall Street, big pharma and the merchants of war. No amount of messaging, focus groups or triangulation will fix this. The voters aren’t wrong. It’s the Democratic Party that needs to return to their political roots.
That isn’t what I said. the problem isn’t the democratic party - it’s the system of funding for both political parties and their connections to dark money (which the GOP is implicated in just as much, if not MORE than the Democratic party is). This is about powerful people shaping the political process in ways that you and I can not.
But keep thinking it’s only the people you dislike more, I guess.
The second monetary contributions was seen as “free speech” was the moment democracy was truly hijacked by the wealthy and special/corporate interests. Democracy is about representing everyone equally, especially those whose voices might not be normally heard. I don’t understand how one person’s vote that has no money attached to it can compete with a lobbyist giving a politician any amount of money.
The argument sometimes is “Well you guys can donate money too!”, i still don’t see how a small group of people are expected to compete with corporations or groups of them.
Yeah, but to be fair, I think it just codified what had been going on for a long while. Just another body blow to democracy, I’m afraid.[quote=“Grey_Devil, post:27, topic:103181”]
The argument sometimes is “Well you guys can donate money too!”, i still don’t see how a small group of people are expected to compete with corporations or groups of them.
[/quote]
There is also the issue of access. You and I can’t just have the same level of communication and access to the people working for us, as say, a rich, corporate donor. For one, even the most populist of politicians can’t meet with us all, or they’d do nothing else with their time. But for the average politician, bucketloads of money from corporations or the ultra-wealthy means being able to compete and giving the people who financially back your campaigns greater access is an accepted part of that transaction.
Well, well, so America still has a few of these left.
I don’t know how or even if it can be done, but the US needs a proper socialist party. So does the UK for that matter, but maybe Labour can be patched up. But the US has only two parties since, well, forever. If you could vote for Clinton or Sanders, and have a coalition, then maybe you would not be in the whatever-it-is you are now in up to the neck.
It would be interesting to see a “proper socialist party” with a serious platform of wealth redistribution.
I wonder if any of the big entertainment and tech donors would switch from the Democrats, who talk about tweaking the tax rates but leave most of the USA’s Scrooge McDucks pretty much unscathed.
Socialism is about more than wealth redistribution. You can give the poor an equal share of the profits, but if the bosses still own the means of production then nothing will have been solved and eventually things will return to as they are now.
WTF does “Berniecrat” even mean? Someone who sits outside the party on a hill of self-regard, deigning to declare themselves a Democrat when they need the money, and then returning to the safety of their ideological ramparts after the checks have been cashed?
You gotta love all the trash-talking about the Democratic party, you know what other organization is defined by a hundred shitty compromises and willingness to work with Republicans when it suits the interest of their members? Unions! In fact, you can trace a pretty direct line from the criminally corrupt, racist, sexist unions of the 1970s and Neoliberalism, as Hardhats became “culturally conservative” Vietnam and “Law and Order” supporters.
This guy seems cool, but all this DSA scenester shit is dumb.
