This "billionaire donor" talking point is a dud, destined to fall on deaf ears

[scheming daemons]

A. Individually, they each can only donate $2800 max, just like the rest of us.

B. Yes, they can form PACs to get around that. Buttigieg only has one PAC, VoteVets.org, supporting him. Bernie has 6 PACs. It is a disingenuous talking point.

C. Unilaterally disarming in the money war against Trump is pretty stupid.

D. The reason Bloomberg is doing better and better in polls is because people are desperate and don't care how much money is spent, just get Trump out!

E. Everybody who cares about "billionaires donating" is already a Bernie supporter. These attacks don't sway a single voter.

[BlueIdaho]

1. FDR was the first Billionaire President.

When adjusted for inflation. So where do we go from there?

[Iliyah]

2. Not all billionaires are right wingers . . .

actually some are caring.

[scheming daemons]

4. According to Bernie, they're all the enemy

And accepting a $2800 donation from one at a fundraiser means you're selling your soul to the devil.

[Wellstone ruled]

3. Your part D is spot on.

Did a trip to the Super Market on Thursday. Part D was kind of the topic in that Store. Even my Old White Folks MAGA neighbors run that one up the Pole.

So much pent up anger and distrust of the present bunch of Thieves in the White House.

[iluvtennis]

16. Yes, I'm seeing Part D in my sphere as well. nt

[Wellstone ruled]

21. Have a retirred

Chief Petty Officer as a Phone Banking and Door Knocking partner during campaign season. And he as a AA said the other day,just living the dream but that dream is in trouble,in don't were the money comes from,just get that Assh*le out of there.

Hunch says,the Nevada Caucus will be the roadmap.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Any candidate who is "in the pocket of the billionaires" is going to be a GOPer.

We don't have any of those. And even so, if the billionaires are donating tons of bucks (like Bloomberg), good. We need the money. As long as we're stuck with our fucked-up process and Citizens United, money is what wins elections.

[pandr32]

26. I agree completely

[spooky3]

6. Agree. I wish Warren would reconsider her stance on this.

She can’t compete without adequate resources.

[mopinko]

7. there arent lgbt groups giving him money?

i assumed they were, as they are here in chi, i think. the gay victory fund is very active here. they have brought illinois some amazing electeds, including lori lightfoot, and my rep, kelly cassidy, who was the point person on both marriage equality and legal mj.
lots of those folks are on team pete, tho most are on team warren.

this whole "all rich people are alike" thing makes me nuts, anyway.

it just magnifies bernie's habit of seeing everything through his little lens. he doesnt care that he doesnt have a full picture.

[FarPoint]

8. I agree!

We have fine candidates...that said, the fight is all about tRump...we probably need a Billionaire to beat the dictatorship we have now...both of our Billionaire candidates are capable of leadership and compassion....I believe we can only best tRump with this strategy....we can find our way back to normal constitutional democracy after tRump is beaten

[58Sunliner]

9. Is it projection? I don't watch enough of the debates but it seems like

Bernie usually has to make a point of not relating to anyone else and reiterating his campaign stump issues with an emphasis tailored to put people on the defensive.

[JoeOtterbein]

10. Don't worry about the billionaires...

...they buy their friends from the very best places!

[scheming daemons]

11. Bernie has 6 dark money PACs supporting him

Disingenuous talking point.

[JoeOtterbein]

12. I wish I could buy a PAC. If I could, it would be for...

...MFA. Because it would be healthy for all of us!

[R B Garr]

14. Doesn't he also have FEC complaints about violations?

I think it was about violating soft money limits or anonymous donors, etc.

[sheshe2]

27. Yes

[betsuni]

13. The billionaires of today wear jeans and sneakers and drink Starbucks like anybody else.

Trying to turn them into cartoon villains like in old movies doesn't work.

[R B Garr]

15. +1000

[reACTIONary]

19. +100 nt & k/r

[spooky3]

28. Some won't buy Starbucks coffees because they'd rather

invest the $!

[betsuni]

31. I refuse to buy those expensive coffee beverages. It's crushed beans and water.

I think thermoses should make a come-back. Prepare the bean and water beverages at home, bring them with you if you must. Common sense.

[Docreed2003]

30. Wait...you mean they're not all like Mr Potter???

[betsuni]

32. He was really the best one.

[DENVERPOPS]

17. Who was it in Hitler's crowd

that said: You don't need to control the votes, just the people that count the votes.

If that hasn't been crystal clear to be their objective, you have been sleeping since 2000.............

[paleotn]

24. Stalin.

Possibly. No one's sure. Boss Tweed certainly did say it.

[EndlessWire]

42. Isn't that the EC? n/t

[George II]

18. Guess who has accepted the maximum $2800 from Tom Steyer?

[yaesu]

20. I support Bernie as he is on my very short primary pick list but I could care less how much money

somebody has as long as they stand for what is right, on the side of we the people.

[Dem2]

22. Good points

Can't disagree with you.

[paleotn]

23. You are exactly correct.

It's bumper sticker politics. Haven't we had enough of that?

[denem]

25. Is it? The VP of Citi's Corporate and Investment Banking was made a UK ambassador

after bundling half a million for Obama's 2008 campaign.

Citi's Investment Banking was at the very heart of the financial meltdown. Louis Sussman bought his way out of ignominy.

And it's not as if it was an appointment to upper Bulgaria. The UK for heaven's sake, to a man with no professional experience in diplomacy.

[beachbumbob]

29. to me, vilifying wealth and success is NOT a plus in my book

wealthy people, rich people CAN be democrats and liberals just as well as poor college students are, with obvious BIG difference, they can contribute to campaigns

[Fla Dem]

37. I agree with you. The fact that he will be beholden to no one is a big plus for me.

I still haven't decided. I like Amy. I like Elizabeth. I was leaning Biden, but he seems to be fading.

I think Bloomberg is one of the strongest candidates to go up against Trump. I think Trump is actually scared of him. Bloomberg won't be afraid to challenge him in a debate and hit back harder than he gets. So if Bloomberg ends up the winning candidate, I won't be disappointed. And I bet he'll pick a running mate that will be an excellent Presidential candidate to follow him.

[bucolic_frolic]

33. That is the mindset we need: just get Trump out!

Of course he can now do anything he deems in the interest of the state, including presumably rigging elections, cancelling elections, invalidating elections. So I'm wondering how many dictators leave voluntarily. Can you name any?

[Kurt V.]

34. Bloomberg is going win. good grief. Millions of times better than trump tho

[TexasBushwhacker]

35. And he would choose a cabinet of experts

Not a bunch of corporate rubes and asskissers.

[LakeArenal]

36. To me it's not about what billionaires have

It’s about what my family doesn’t have.

If life was halfway fair I wouldn’t care if they were zillionaires.

[CarlitosMMT]

38. I'm a Sanders supporter and I agree with a lot of this

But....
If markets were to work as they are supposed to.....
Conditioned such that they are free of fraud, free of asymmetries, free of unbalanced market power, and free of govt interventions for sake of special interests serving no public purpose....(this is the classical definition of free markets...which is the opposite of what idiot conservatives/libertarians tell us)
And that the govt spends/lends for public purpose, regulates the economy for public purpose, and maintains full employment/full output.....
Theory would then indicate that we would have much less inequality and less opportunity for billionaires or .1%ers to emerge from the checks and balances of markets and state.
So the existence of billionaires or .1%ers in a society with massive poverty is a failure of public policy.

That might not play well politically....but we cannot delude ourselves in private conversation.
The point in 2020 might be Everybody vs Trump...but we should not ignore what it means to continue to rely on the moneyed classes for political campaigns. They will invariably further entrench themselves in the direction of public policy. And if we are to have the nice things...the progressive things....there will have to be reckoning...and there may not ever be a convenient time for it.

[SunSeeker]

39. K & R

[krissey]

40. I am all for our candidates raising money. These are the rules and how we need to play.

When the rules change, then we can have the conversation. I have seen Sanders over the last 5 yrs and he is not real clear where his money is coming from so, I do not really trust that argument from him. If he ignores FEC violations and ignores his own super pacs, then all it is, is rhetoric.

[DanTex]

41. Right, because nobody cares about big money in politics.

[Demsrule86]

43. Yep...waste of time.

[Cha]

44. Well said, scheming.

[gollygee]

45. If he has wealthy donors, maybe it'll give him a better chance to win

I sooooo don't care about this. It just makes me annoyed at Sanders.

[Progressive dog]

46. Good analysis

[cwydro]

47. Spot on.