Can't support Warren anymore. Superpac was last straw

[ProfessorPlum]

I still believe at her core is a fierce fighter for social justice, a sharp advocate for consumers against the fraud and greed of Wall Street, and a tough opponent to Trump's mafia.

I have to believe she is just getting terrible advice from the usual class of Democratic campaign advisors who want to run away from populism. But I can't avoid her own bad judgment in listening to that advice.

Not that anyone cares .

[showblue22]

1. I never cared about whether a candidate has superpacs.

I suspect most democrats don't really care. See all the support Bloomberg has? It's just not that big of issue. Bernie has super pacs but I guess those are "approved"

[Squinch]

2. But BS's superpac doesn't bother you.

[showblue22]

4. That's different.

Those are "approved" pacs. Even though no one knows who the donors are. Just take their word for it, they are NOT Russian oligarchs. You know. Bernie can have pacs because everyone knows his pacs are PURE.

[Squinch]

8. Totally. And all those SC republicans who pledged last night to vote for BS should not be taken

into consideration when one is wondering who might be contributing to that pure superpac.

Because We The People would rather you didn't consider that.

[2naSalit]

26. +1

[thesquanderer]

63. re: "all those SC republicans who pledged last night to vote for BS"

I know about Trump's comments at the rally... are you talking about something else? I hadn't seen anything about a pledge. Any more info or a link?

FWIW, at least one article says there's little enthusiasm for this strategy:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/south-carolina-operation-chaos-trump-sanders_n_5e599575c5b6450a30be7c26

But nearly a dozen Trump supporters who spoke with HuffPost at the president’s rally in North Charleston on Friday said they weren’t planning on casting their ballot for Sanders, even though most of them were aware of the scheme. “I’m not doing that. I have better things to do with my time,” said Elizabeth Angelone, a nature photographer from Bluffton. “None of my friends are doing it.”
...
Jeffrey Rubin, 67, who moved to South Carolina from Chicago, warned before the event that Republicans pushing the scheme ought to be careful what they wish for. “Years ago, when Obama was first running as a candidate for Democrat, all the Republicans back then said vote for Obama because he’s Black and he’ll never get elected,” Rubin said. “No, I’m not going to do that. I don’t think there’s any candidate the Democrats can get that’s better or worse for Trump.”
...
Deitress Smith, a Black supporter of the president who lives in Charleston, expressed a similar sentiment.“Bernie wouldn’t be easy to beat because he’s like Trump. A lot of people thought Trump was easy to beat,” she said.

Alan Woods, 70, a retired general contractor from Edisto Island, said that voting in the Democratic primary would be a waste of his time. “I’ve got other things to do tomorrow. I’m not coming down here and voting with a bunch of Democrats,” he said. Nina Ortiz, a retiree from Myrtle Beach, agreed. “I don’t want to encourage them. I don’t want them to see they have as much support as they do,” Ortiz said.

[JaneQPublic]

11. AP: Shadow group provides Sanders superPAC he scorns

https://apnews.com/345bbd1af529cfb1e41305fa3ab1e604

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders says he doesn’t want a super PAC. Instead, he has Our Revolution, a nonprofit political organization he founded that functions much the same as one.

Like a super PAC, which is shorthand for super political action committee, Our Revolution can raise unlimited sums from wealthy patrons that dwarf the limits faced by candidates and conventional PACs. Unlike a super PAC, however, the group doesn’t have to disclose its donors — a stream of revenue commonly referred to as “dark money.”

[Squinch]

14. Yep. But Liz doesn't have the requisite purity, doncha know?

(Yes, OF COURSE that is sarcasm, if anyone needs to be told that.)

I wonder if her superpac would be considered pure if it was named something like Revolutions R Us?

[JaneQPublic]

72. "Revolutions R Us" -- love it!

Rare is the claim of ideological purity that stands up to scrutiny, even those involving Bernie.

Love your sarcasm, by the way.

[TheFarseer]

3. I was between Warren and Bernie for a long time.

I still like her but she turned me off with her bad non-issue based attacks. I agree, I think she is listening to the kind of conventional wisdom idiots that lost to a clown like DT.

[ProfessorPlum]

13. +1

[beastie boy]

5. If the super PAC money was the last straw, you may need to reconsider your current choice as well:

https://apnews.com/345bbd1af529cfb1e41305fa3ab1e604

[DanTex]

6. Especially when her website says she rejects SuperPACs.

I still like Warren, and I agree she is probably getting terrible advice from consultants.

Third, Elizabeth rejects the help of Super PACs and would disavow any Super PAC formed to support her in the Democratic primary. We’ve got to overturn Citizens United because our democracy is not for sale. In the meantime, Democrats should show some moral backbone by refusing their own Super PACs in the 2020 primary.

https://facts.elizabethwarren.com/the-best-president-money-cant-buy/

[thesquanderer]

33. Yes, she needs to update that page on her web site.

Her position changed about a week ago. From https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/elizabeth-warren-super-pac-2020-campaign

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is a longtime critic of the big-money organizations known as super PACs — and of candidates who are supported by them. But she reversed course on Thursday and refused to disavow a super PAC, called Persist PAC, created to support her presidential campaign.

It was a change so sudden that Warren's own campaign website still said the Massachusetts senator "rejects all super PACs" and "would disavow any super PAC formed to support her in the Democratic primary." She had criticized other candidates for them as late as last week on the debate stage in New Hampshire.

Warren told reporters she had called "dozens" of times for other candidates to agree not to accept the support of super PACs, with no success.

"So here’s where I stand: If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in — I’ll lead the charge," she told reporters at a campaign stop Thursday. "But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t."

[Hassin Bin Sober]

65. Removing paragraphs from websites takes time.

[ehrnst]

68. Now can we get a statement from Sanders concerning Our Revolution's lack of disclosure

on the identity of donors who have given $100,000 - $300,000 to them for the campaign?

That would be helpful in terms of his credibility in railing against SuperPacs, or at least benefiting financially from them, wouldn't it?

According to Our Revolution’s tax returns showing contribution amounts but not contributor names, data compiled and first reported by the Associated Press, from 2016 to 2018 Our Revolution raised almost $1 million dollars from contributors who gave in excess of the applicable $5,000 contribution limit, including multiple contributions of between $100,000 and $300,000. Our Revolution has not disclosed any of its contributors to the FEC, as required by federal campaign finance law.

https://www.commoncause.org/press-release/common-cause-files-complaint-against-pro-bernie-sanders-group-our-revolution-for-violating-soft-money-ban/

[ehrnst]

73. Crickets...

[wyldwolf]

7. Yeah, I doubt anyone cares a Bernie supporter can't support Warren anymore.

[Squinch]

9. This. And over her superpac, no less.

[NurseJackie]

21. AP: Shadow group provides Sanders super PAC support he scorns

https://apnews.com/345bbd1af529cfb1e41305fa3ab1e604
Shadow group provides Sanders super PAC support he scorns

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders says he doesn’t want a super PAC. Instead, he has Our Revolution, a nonprofit political organization he founded that functions much the same as one.

Like a super PAC, which is shorthand for super political action committee, Our Revolution can raise unlimited sums from wealthy patrons that dwarf the limits faced by candidates and conventional PACs. Unlike a super PAC, however, the group doesn’t have to disclose its donors — a stream of revenue commonly referred to as “dark money.”

Now, with less than one month to go before the Iowa caucuses, Our Revolution appears to be skirting campaign finance law, which forbids groups founded by federal candidates and officeholders from using large donations to finance federal election activity, including Sanders’ 2020 bid.

A debate over big money in politics has riven the Democratic primary with Sanders and fellow progressive, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, leading the attack on rivals including former Vice President Joe Biden and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who have relied on big-dollar donors.

But while Warren has come under fire for courting wealthy financiers in her past Senate campaigns, Sanders and Our Revolution have largely avoided scrutiny during the primary, even as he has accelerated his criticism of others, among them Biden, for relying on super PACs founded by their allies.

In the case of Our Revolution, which aims to boost voter turnout for Sanders, the Vermont senator was the founder. As recently as last week, Sanders continued his criticism.

[Squinch]

24. Exactly.

[judeling]

10. You have to play with the rules that are there or get run over.

I wish she had decided this at the start. Along with you that just adds another tick mark against her.

She remains my second choice.
My biggest problem with Liz is she doesn't seem to realize when she has been out maneuvered.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. I know what you mean. Even staying in the race at this point

Will only enrich her advisers. It's yet another example of her taking their bad advice.

But she has been outflanked on both sides, counting on the appeal of being the compromise candidate.

[SidDithers]

15. Wow. Irony is dead...nt

Sid

[Hortensis]

16. Your vote as a personal statement rather than

as action determining which party will take power on January 20, 2021. Got it.

I just wish all who feel that way could paste it on their foreheads and go stand at our borders. You know, to inspire all those who yearn to HAVE a vote and be free.

[Squinch]

18. BAM! Damn, girl! Make this an OP!!!!!

[Bettie]

17. You forgot to put in the line of

snake emojis that generally accompany this type of thing.

[ProfessorPlum]

20. This is more in sadness than in anger, lol

I wish her well. Just a badly run campaign, and with principals that don't seem to match what I know of her.

[Hav]

19. So SuperPacs for Warren are a dealbreaker,

the same for Sanders with his dark money groups and undisclosed donations is ok. That's a stunning double standard.

[ProfessorPlum]

23. It's rather the last straw

In a string of broken ideals and reversals on her part.

[Squinch]

25. So it WASN'T the superpac then? And BSs superpac IS ok with you?

[thesquanderer]

34. re: "the last straw in a string of broken ideals and reversals on her part."

Can you name some of the others?

[Moderateguy]

37. Only Bernie can be "pure" regardless of what he does...

Everyone has to eschew anything that resembles money for them to be pure

[ProfessorPlum]

40. Watering down her support for Medicare for all

With her bizarre, complicated two tier implementation plan is the biggest one.

Implying but not actually stating that Sanders is anti-wo an. Suddenly.

Are two that come immediately to mind. I'm running errands, I have to sit down for a longer reply.

[thesquanderer]

50. I think people are confused about her change on MFA

I believe Sanders' plan and Warren's revised version of that plan BOTH envision a 4 year transition to MFA. What changed is how to handle the transition period.

From a political standpoint, I think the key difference is that Sanders begins forcing people off their old plans on to the new one right away (though it will still take 4 years to move them all off of them); Warren doesn't force anyone off their old plan until after a few years.

Essentially, Sanders starts MFA right away for people over 55, and lowers the entry age in the subsequent years, until it covers everyone. Warren introduces an ACA public option for everyone right away, but doesn't envision ending the option of keeping your private plan until about 4 years later (saying that plan would be something she would work to pass by her third year).

Which is better? Well, in the first year, Sanders' plan may be better if you're at least 55, and Warren's plan is better if you're under 55. In the second year, Sanders' plan may be better if you're at least 45, and Warren's plan is better if you're under 45.

But this level of difference in the details doesn't really concern me. In the end, neither of their plans are going to get through congress without changes anyway. What's important to me is that they share the end goal of a single payer system that covers everyone. No one can yet predict the exact details that will make it through Congress. Heck, we'll be lucky if ANY mfa plan gets passed!

[ProfessorPlum]

55. yes, we will

couldn't agree more on that point

[2naSalit]

56. What I see is that she is willing to work out whatever will be beneficial and pass through

Congress and sign any Bil that will be of benefit to the most. She's flexible and that's exactly what I liked about HRC, a willingness to listen, learn and adapt.

[shanti]

22. I already voted for her by mail

Super Tuesday'er here, but will go with whomever wins the primaries. At this point, I don't care - I'd vote for a radish over Chump.

[TDale313]

27. Still with Warren.

Voting for her in CA on Tuesday. That’s all.

[ProfessorPlum]

29. I respect it

[Fresh_Start]

28. I think Bloomberg is the only candidate without a superpac

so I guess you are going to switch your vote to Bloomberg now?

[2naSalit]

30. I find that an intersting decision

since everyone else has one advocating for them. She isn't TAKING money from them and she is bound, by law, to not coordinate with them. So how is this her fault? How is that a deal-breaker?

I don't get it.

[ProfessorPlum]

31. So... This isn't a change in her previously stated position?

Or are you just arguing it's not a bad thing of itself?

[2naSalit]

38. I don't think

it should be held against her as she did not organize the group, does not coordinate with them and is accepting no $$ from them so how is this a bad thing since she did not set this up?

And if she's holding to her pledge to not accept $$ from them.

Everybody is all over the idea that Bloomberg will support the nominee and hope he spends a lot, but someone deciding to advocate for her is somehow a bad thing when everyone else is okay with having PACs.

It totally smacks of a double standard and I wonder if there are underlying prejudices that brought you to that decision.

[ProfessorPlum]

52. please don't accuse me of "underlying prejudicies"

I've literally been a Warren supporter since _before_ the 2016 race, and have been waiting for my chance to vote for her for president. I think I chose her as my candidate the very day that DU made it possible to do so, and literally only changed my preference this morning.

the book that she wrote, and almost all of her public statements, show what is going on with her and the way she understands policy to intersect with people's lives.

I just wish that her campaign hadn't been run so as to shy away from (what I think is her natural) populism.

[2naSalit]

58. Not an accusation, rather a ponderance

which was indicated by the preceding "I wonder". Please do not make false claims about what I said, not a personal attack but expressing my questions regarding your thought process. Which, last time I checked, was not considered an accusation.

I still wonder as it seems you may have based your decision to switch on some kind of purity test which might indicate some set of standards that she is expected to fulfill in your thinking that you don't apply to others who also are critical of money in elections.

That's what I wonder about and other than that, whatever you think is best for you is whatever you think is best for you.

[ProfessorPlum]

59. ok, fair enough

My "underlying prejudices" are against the conventional wisdom, self-dealing, campaign consultant class that attaches itself to these candidates and pulls big salaries, and doesn't seem to care about policy or winning. To the extant that Warren's campaign seems to be making a lot of decisions based on this kind of attitude, I have been disappointed with her run. when she speaks of protecting working people, reining in wall street corruption, taxing the grotesquely wealthy to make life slightly less shitty for everyone else, it feels like a fantastic, powerful sincere energy coming through. Hedging on those feelings feels (to me) like the consultant class coming through and screwing things up.

[2naSalit]

61. And fair eonugh.

I disagree but I thank you for expressing what it is that made you switch.

[ProfessorPlum]

62. Thank you

Best wishes for the rest of the primary season

[2naSalit]

64. Indeed.

And best of luck to all the candidates who are on our side!

[blm]

32. It's a large group of women who begged her to let them fundraise for a year.

She gave in last week, since NO OTHER CAMPAIGN would join her in refusing it. Their focus is on women’s issues. No corporate interests.

Odd that it’s OK with you that Sanders founded the pac that raises millions for him, but you find it objectionable when, after a year of being turned down byWarren, progressive women form a pac to support Warren?

[RelativelyJones]

36. +1000

[ProfessorPlum]

46. Blm it pains me to not be in your camp, or Warren's camp, on this one

I love her both as a human and as a policy maker.

[blm]

70. Why is it OK for Our Revolution for 3yrs but not for Persist for 1week?

[AGeddy]

35. Bernie has 6 dark money PACs supporting him

So I'm puzzled at how this is a dealbreaker for you that Warren has one?

[Moderateguy]

39. ProfessorPlum Welcome to the Bloomberg Camp

He does not have a SuperPac and since you do not like candidates who have one, he's your only logical choice

[ProfessorPlum]

41. I'm not allowed to say what I think of Bloomberg here

I dont have a problem with superpacs per se, except they are a part of the obviously corrupt system. It's the vacillating tenets that bother me.

[Moderateguy]

43. Yet you refuse to support the one Liberal candidate in the race who actually has a history

of getting s##t done because she has a SuperPac now

[ProfessorPlum]

44. No, it's because she keeps going back on previous positions

[Moderateguy]

48. And Sanders did the same with the Super delegates...

In 2016 he was all gungho for them to award him the nomination even though Hillary lead in pledged delegates and now he has reversed his position because he is leading in pledged delegates and all of a sudden super-delegates are the evil "establishment". Why is that? They were largely the same group of people they were in 2016

[tritsofme]

42. Right, I guess Super PACs are bad until you are desperate to turn around a failing campaign

I wasn’t supporting her to begin with, but this is not exactly a good look. It’s not that she is using a Super PAC, it’s the holier than thou hypocrisy.

[LizBeth]

45. Sanders had them before Warren.

[George II]

47. Sanders has about a half dozen Super PACs working for him and a couple of "dark money" groups.

[TwilightZone]

49. Sanders not only has a SuperPAC, it's one he started.

Your reasoning here is a bit curious.

[ProfessorPlum]

51. it's not the superpac, it's the vacillation

sorry - my title is probably poorly written

[TwilightZone]

53. Sanders has railed against SuperPACs for years.

And then started one, which is helping him in his campaign.

Frankly, I think that's probably more egregious.

[LizBeth]

60. A couple weeks ago Sanders said M4A would not pass, a staffer said the same and AOC came out stating

it wouldn't pass and we would have to settle.

Your argument makes no sense. Sanders does the same, only worse because he denies and still argues what he has contradicted himself with. At least Warren is honest with supporters. The only thing you seem to be hold onto now is that Warren stated Sanders told her a woman could not win. So, you take his side of the argument not that you know any better.

[Squinch]

66. You mean the way it says that her superpac was the last straw? When really

you are now saying you meant something else entirely?

[samnsara]

54. i dont give a rats ass if they take $ from super pacs...

..

[Peacetrain]

57. And nothing over 200 dollars has to be reported so dirty money can come in

over and over and over again..but you can sit and judge from your throne of purity.. oh please...

[peggysue2]

67. Warren's decision on the super pac marks her as a realist, a pragmatic contender

You can't run these campaigns on air or hope; national campaigns are obscenely expensive. Unlike Sanders' campaign that refuses to disclose their big money donations (even in the face of a FEC complaint and demand) or hide behind the Our Revolution front, Warren has been honest and upfront.

If she wants to compete, she needs the money to do so. Everyone knows that. And if she were to repeat her upswing from October/November of last year, I wouldn't hold it against her.

She is a very good candidate, stronger IMHO than Sanders will ever be. And in 2020? It's all about WINNING. Otherwise, we all lose. Everything.

[Blue_true]

71. So you switch from a person that just set up a superpac to one that has had two helping

him all along. Yea, that makes sense.