Fuck, guess I’ll go donate a bit.
Yup the corporate democrats are attempting to throw our man under the bus.
Huh? Who are the corporate democrats pushing in lieu of Biden?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
President Joe Biden’s campaign has already suffered a major slowdown in donations and officials are bracing for a seismic fundraising hit, with the fallout from a debate nearly two weeks ago taking a sizable toll on operations, according to four sources close to the re-election effort.
Hitt did not share how many donors have hit the maximum level of giving allowed under federal law since the debate.
One of the people close to the re-election efforts said earlier this week that the campaign believed major donors who have threatened to jump ship after the debate would come around — if only to avoid helping Trump by sitting out this race.
But several people close to the re-election effort on Wednesday were already doubting that, saying they could see evidence of an intensity in concern around Biden’s ability to win in November growing.
A donor who did max out this month to Biden, Amy Goldman Fowler, explained her reasoning in a statement.
Yesterday I reiterated my support by making an additional significant contribution to President Biden’s election fund."
The original article contains 723 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
A couple of key quotes:
President Joe Biden’s campaign has already suffered a major slowdown in donations and officials are bracing for a seismic fundraising hit, with the fallout from a debate nearly two weeks ago taking a sizable toll on operations, according to four sources close to the re-election effort.
“It’s already disastrous,” one of the sources close to Biden’s re-election said of fundraising.
“The money has absolutely shut off,” another source close to the re-election said.
So nobody actually a part of the campaign and all anonymous sources? I’m not saying I don’t believe it but I’m certainly skeptical.
They aren’t anonymous to the people who wrote the article and there’s obvious reasons why they’d require being anonymously quoted. It’s just whether you trust NBC News not to fabricate quotes.
People don’t understand what “anonymous” sources means FFS. It doesn’t mean that the author doesn’t know who said it, it just means that the source didn’t want their name to be attached (and for good reason in this case).
Any reporter for something as big as NBC probably has dozens of WH associates on direct line of contact and are vetted all the time.
They don’t have to fabricate quotes if they quote people who are dishonest or if they twist words, but I would never trust a news corporation not to push wild exaggerations for profit.
Oh, ok. Fake news.
What is?
Anything you don’t want to hear.
I don’t see how healthy skepticism of unknown sources, explicitly not a primary source, is the same as calling it fake news.
You do not know what “anonymous source” means in reporting.
That’s a fair response, I suppose I could have used slightly different terminology.
