The 2020 thread....

Julian, wrote:
Fuck caucuses.

I 100% agree…

Caucasuses are only fun for political theory and game theory. 

Useless for everything else.

show me the MONEY
2Q reporting

1. Buttigieg $24.8M
2. Biden $21.5M
3. Warren $19.1M
4. Sanders $18M
5. Harris $12M
6. Bennet $2.8M
7. Bullock $2M
8. Hickenlooper $1M

yes this was released a few days ago
but man, who would have guessed Mayor Pete to be on top of fundraising
not all campaigns reported yet (not due until July 15th)….what's not clear is the Debate bump in here
as I heard Harris cleaned up

Fundraising…the most useless stat out there…except for the political consultants who gobble it all up…or the media that takes a big chunk

Not to mention you have to look at how much money the candidates spent to get that money

There is something bizarre about arguing rich people should not give money but if it’s “the people” it’s democratic…if a rich person gives $50 that is bad but if a poor person gives $100 that is good?

Literally we have debate lineups being decided on number of contributors

The whole system wants to convince us it’s good to donate when in reality it’s just a waste

It’s sad that in America we literally measure a political campaign’s success by how much money they raise! I don’t know any other place that does it like this

American exceptionalism indeed

Solomonic-Hatch wrote:
show me the MONEY
2Q reporting

1. Buttigieg $24.8M
2. Biden $21.5M
3. Warren $19.1M
4. Sanders $18M
5. Harris $12M
6. Bennet $2.8M
7. Bullock $2M
8. Hickenlooper $1M

yes this was released a few days ago
but man, who would have guessed Mayor Pete to be on top of fundraising
not all campaigns reported yet (not due until July 15th)….what's not clear is the Debate bump in here
as I heard Harris cleaned up

The gays have lots of disposable income, the blacks not so much.

hutch wrote:
It’s sad that in America we literally measure a political campaign’s success by how much money they raise!

like it or not, it does show support
People are not going to give money to a candidate if they don't support them

I by no means think it is the only indicator of 'success' but it definitely a data point that can be looked at to give you a pulse on the campaign's support

other than polling (and I'm sometimes skeptical of that too) how else are you going to judge how much support a campaign has?

hutch wrote:
you have to look at how much money the candidates spent to get that money

that's a data point I'd like to see…is that available

this is interesting too
Majority of Americans say they won’t donate to 2020 presidential campaigns
Only 8% of Americans have given to a 2020 presidential campaign so far,
so this does support your theory that it's too small of a sample of the likely voter…

The only support measure that should matter is the votes counted

hutch wrote:
The only support measure that should matter is the votes counted

well duh…but that vote isn't until the spring and a cluster fuck because the way they do it (should just be on one day or if they have to 4 days …one for every time zone)

Swalwell is announcing just announced this afternoon (west coast time) that he is out.

Interestingly, LAT is reporting that Tom Steyer is in. Hmmm

Cool

vansmack wrote:
Swalwell is announcing just announced this afternoon (west coast time) that he is out.

Interestingly, LAT is reporting that Tom Steyer is in. Hmmm

My old man eyes read that as "Tom Seaver." …who would be an appropriate opponent for Trump.

CNN called Swalwell a "major" candidate. LOL

He is just too green…I saw him on Bill Maher and he was so awkward…he was better on Lawrence O’Donnell

I like him though…I think he should have announced earlier and stuck around until Iowa…the experience would have done him well…as it is it’s hard to even say he ran…I don’t get the point of the exercise

Amy McGrath announces bid to take on Sen. Mitch McConnell in 2020

although…Trump won Kentucky by nearly 30 points in 2016
so seems there's a lot of support for insanity and corruption

This is one out of state campaign I'm considering donating too
I can't stand Mitch and it would be awesome for him to get beat by Amy




and with Swalwell (had to look up how to spell his name) out

…Steyer is in…with a boatload of cash
he promised to sink at least $100 million of his own money into his campaign

You might as well just set an Andrew Jackson on fire.

Mitch is going to be re-elected in a walk

hutch wrote:
Mitch is going to be re-elected in a walk

Boo…let me wear my rose colored glasses

I mean, probably, but why not keep trying to end this shithead?

hutch wrote:
You might as well just set an Andrew Jackson on fire.

Mitch is going to be re-elected in a walk

nkotb wrote:
I mean, probably, but why not keep trying to end this shithead?

hutch wrote:
You might as well just set an Andrew Jackson on fire.

Mitch is going to be re-elected in a walk

Because you could spend that money on a candidate with a chance?

hutch wrote:
He is just too green…I saw him on Bill Maher and he was so awkward…he was better on Lawrence O’Donnell

I like him though…I think he should have announced earlier and stuck around until Iowa…the experience would have done him well…as it is it’s hard to even say he ran…I don’t get the point of the exercise

If there's a rule that you have to be 35 to run for president, there should also be rules that you can't be over 70, and you must have served in some other elected public position first.