Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Bernie Sanders tells Democrats to back off primary attacks [View all]JCanete
(5,272 posts)than you make it sound.
the reason banks and other institutions give money to the more "friendly", less pugilistic democrats, is because those are perfectly acceptable alternates should their republican favorites lose. What they are doing is preventing a populist from winning the primary on the democratic side of the aisle, and then possibly winning in the GE. They are preventing somebody who is going to run on fire and fury against the banks, etc. from galvanizing the people around said cause, and potentially starting off a cascading event that continues to erode the choke-hold that money has on our politics. Then where would these institutions be?
However, if these moderate steps were enough, then shit, we'd be moving in the right direction, and you would be correct in justifying this approach and I would be wrong for demanding that we do something far more drastic and risky, but I think the evidence should suggest to you that this approach has been failing, and miserably.
I have no illusions about what a campaign costs either. That does not change the fact that if these corporations and rich individuals weren't winning, they'd quit gambling. They win every time, and they do it by hedging their bets. When we play with their money we still lose. You are 100 percent correct that a challenge to them without money to support our outreach, campaign, expenses, etc. is a essentially a goliath versus an ant story, but with it, it isn't a challenge to them at all. It is simply a cost of doing business.