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.