You don’t wrestle a pig in mud because it gets mud all over you and the pig likes it.
It will only drive up donorship to the Republicans and foster more lenient bribery donation policy from the Democrats going forward.
The Democrats need to actually submit themselves to overhauling campaign funding if they want to make any headway. But they want that money. They want it more than they want any of their alleged policy goals.
Republicans spent money and won. So yes it does. I never said spending the most money guarantees a win. That’s a straw man argument you are trying to build.
Was your argument that “democrats have to spend some money”? The position that would be arguing against is that others believe they spend no money.
Not trying to build strawmen, I’m just genuinely confused. No-one is saying they spend no money, or court any donations. Which is why I, and seemingly the person you were having a discussion with thought, you meant most money.
I don’t see them arguing to remove all doners and thus win without them?
Less donors means less chance of winning. Democrats just lost while spending the most. So take those odds of winning and reduce them.
This is still feeling like a “more doners is more better” argument which they rejected with a “not this time” reply so no questions were avoided.
Maybe you should stop bringing your feelings into it and look at it objectively. Citizens united was passed for a reason. It was part of a strategy to buy politicians. How do we win elections to change things without donation?
No wonder you were so quick to level accusations of strawmanning. It was a confession, it’s always a confession.
It’s always a confession? I’ve never spoken to you before. This seems like an emotional knee jerk response.
“every accusation a confession” is a common refrain to describe conservative behavior
Point 1: You accuse people of avoiding questions (they didn’t), it’s because you avoid questions. The question you avoided
I don’t see them arguing to remove all doners and thus win without them?
The question you asked of them was how to win without donors. Not less donors.
Would you like me to extend to you the courtesy you denied me when accusing me of building a strawman. That “without” is an extention of “fewer” the same way “most” is an extention of “more”. But that would take admitting they did, in fact, answer your question. Would you like to admit that? If so I’m good, that was all I wanted to highlight to you in the first place.
Point 2: you accuse people of building strawmen, I didn’t, it’s because you build strawmen. See above.
Regarding the pivot from “money” to “donors”: did democrats have less donors this election? Just as an aside, what is it that these donors donate, what is it that citizens united allowed these donors to donate, that isn’t money. Donors=money
Ignore people all you want but they, and reality, are clearly telling you that optimising for donations/money doesn’t work.
politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other. - Oscar Ameringer
Democrats are too focused on the latter, because reasons explained to you, and thus lost due to the former.
It seems our impasse is that’s I’ve understood, and stated as such, your argument to be “more money, more better” which is counterfactual to this election. You reply
nuh uh, my argument is [defines “more” or uses the word “more”] [synonym for “money” or uses the word money], more better.
I don’t think I can break through that level of double think.
Was your argument that “democrats have to spend some money”? The position that would be arguing against is that others believe they spend no money.
Not trying to build strawmen, I’m just genuinely confused. No-one is saying they spend no money, or court any donations. Which is why I, and seemingly the person you were having a discussion with, thought you meant most money.
Because of citizens united…
part interests me. Before citizens united were parties forbidden from spending money?
Edit to answer your question:
How do we win without doners?
They don’t. But, because we’ve established they don’t need the most money to win they can be more selective in their choices. Taking donations from oil companies at the cost of votes, bad plan. Taking donations from genocidal governments at the cost of votes, bad plan. Promise voters that you’ll level wealth inequality at the cost of money, good plan. They don’t need all the money.
Before citizens united were parties forbidden from spending money?
They were pretty limited because donors have a maximum donation amount, so once you’re maxed that’s it.
Unless you’re a PAC then as long as you follow some rules, people can donate as much as they like to the PAC and the PAC can use that money to do basically everything a normal campaign organization would do…all legal because of citizens united.
The rules are poorly written and even more poorly enforced.
Coordinate with a candidate before they announce their candidacy?
Pass
Coordinate with an individual who is then hired as an advisor to the candidate?
Pass
Coordinate with the children / spouse of an incumbent candidate?
Pass
Coordinate with the candidate themselves through means that prevent detection?
Pass
Coordinate with a candidate explicitly in broad daylight while making no attempt to hide it and leave a paper trail, electronic records, notarized documents, and a plan to do so again in the future and market your services doing so to other candidates?
Candidate elected; you are at a sub 1% chance to be charged with a misdemeanor if investigated by the DoJ because the FEC can’t be arsed
I answered the question in an edit for the sake of fairness. Tldr: they don’t. The doners don’t need to cost votes.
I don’t see the relevance. So long as people aren’t saying they spend no money, which they didn’t, why bring it up? It still implies a “most money” argument to me.
Edit: I don’t read usernames and it bites me everytime
There isn’t a question in your previous comment.
And apparently you haven’t heard the one.
You don’t wrestle a pig in mud because it gets mud all over you and the pig likes it.
It will only drive up donorship to the Republicans and foster more lenient
briberydonation policy from the Democrats going forward.The Democrats need to actually submit themselves to overhauling campaign funding if they want to make any headway. But they want that money. They want it more than they want any of their alleged policy goals.
This was the question that you are avoiding.
To overhaul campaign funding they need to win. For that to happen they need donors.
Also, just because a saying exists doesn’t make it right.
They didn’t avoid it
Is a refutation of the premise. If, as you say, donation money decides elections then the democrats, having gotten and spent more, should have won.
So, did money decide this election win?
Republicans spent money and won. So yes it does. I never said spending the most money guarantees a win. That’s a straw man argument you are trying to build.
Was your argument that “democrats have to spend some money”? The position that would be arguing against is that others believe they spend no money.
Not trying to build strawmen, I’m just genuinely confused. No-one is saying they spend no money, or court any donations. Which is why I, and seemingly the person you were having a discussion with thought, you meant most money.
This was the original comment I responded to.
My question was how do we win elections without donors?
I don’t see them arguing to remove all doners and thus win without them?
This is still feeling like a “more doners is more better” argument which they rejected with a “not this time” reply so no questions were avoided.
No wonder you were so quick to level accusations of strawmanning. It was a confession, it’s always a confession.
Less donors means less chance of winning. Democrats just lost while spending the most. So take those odds of winning and reduce them.
Maybe you should stop bringing your feelings into it and look at it objectively. Citizens united was passed for a reason. It was part of a strategy to buy politicians. How do we win elections to change things without donation?
It’s always a confession? I’ve never spoken to you before. This seems like an emotional knee jerk response.
“every accusation a confession” is a common refrain to describe conservative behavior
Point 1: You accuse people of avoiding questions (they didn’t), it’s because you avoid questions. The question you avoided
The question you asked of them was how to win without donors. Not less donors.
Would you like me to extend to you the courtesy you denied me when accusing me of building a strawman. That “without” is an extention of “fewer” the same way “most” is an extention of “more”. But that would take admitting they did, in fact, answer your question. Would you like to admit that? If so I’m good, that was all I wanted to highlight to you in the first place.
Point 2: you accuse people of building strawmen, I didn’t, it’s because you build strawmen. See above.
Regarding the pivot from “money” to “donors”: did democrats have less donors this election? Just as an aside, what is it that these donors donate, what is it that citizens united allowed these donors to donate, that isn’t money. Donors=money
Ignore people all you want but they, and reality, are clearly telling you that optimising for donations/money doesn’t work.
Democrats are too focused on the latter, because reasons explained to you, and thus lost due to the former.
It seems our impasse is that’s I’ve understood, and stated as such, your argument to be “more money, more better” which is counterfactual to this election. You reply
I don’t think I can break through that level of double think.
Was your argument that “democrats have to spend some money”? The position that would be arguing against is that others believe they spend no money.
Not trying to build strawmen, I’m just genuinely confused. No-one is saying they spend no money, or court any donations. Which is why I, and seemingly the person you were having a discussion with, thought you meant most money.
part interests me. Before citizens united were parties forbidden from spending money?
Edit to answer your question:
They don’t. But, because we’ve established they don’t need the most money to win they can be more selective in their choices. Taking donations from oil companies at the cost of votes, bad plan. Taking donations from genocidal governments at the cost of votes, bad plan. Promise voters that you’ll level wealth inequality at the cost of money, good plan. They don’t need all the money.
They were pretty limited because donors have a maximum donation amount, so once you’re maxed that’s it.
Unless you’re a PAC then as long as you follow some rules, people can donate as much as they like to the PAC and the PAC can use that money to do basically everything a normal campaign organization would do…all legal because of citizens united.
The rules are poorly written and even more poorly enforced.
Coordinate with a candidate before they announce their candidacy?
Pass
Coordinate with an individual who is then hired as an advisor to the candidate?
Pass
Coordinate with the children / spouse of an incumbent candidate?
Pass
Coordinate with the candidate themselves through means that prevent detection?
Pass
Coordinate with a candidate explicitly in broad daylight while making no attempt to hide it and leave a paper trail, electronic records, notarized documents, and a plan to do so again in the future and market your services doing so to other candidates?
Candidate elected; you are at a sub 1% chance to be charged with a misdemeanor if investigated by the DoJ because the FEC can’t be arsed
I answered the question in an edit for the sake of fairness. Tldr: they don’t. The doners don’t need to cost votes.
I don’t see the relevance. So long as people aren’t saying they spend no money, which they didn’t, why bring it up? It still implies a “most money” argument to me.
Edit: I don’t read usernames and it bites me everytime
deleted by creator