Reddy

Wait. You mean she has no clue how any of this works and jumps to really bad conclusions on Twitter? It's like we should've been able to see this coming!

He can't legally vacate the line. Good lord. Y'all embarrassing yourselves today - especially Alexandria.

15 minutes. I thought moderates couldn't generate the type of small-dollar donations progressives can...

Looks like moderate Dems can raise that small donation money just as well as hardliners!

If everyone ran on that platform, none of them would be unique, thus none would get the funding Bernie did/Beto does. It's the unique platform that gives the celebrity which creates the money. Without that genesis, it doesn't happen the same way. Not consultant - have you worked on a race? Because working on a race gives you a much better sense of just how much man-power a good ground game takes. And it's insanely hard to cultivate that volunteer base.

Yes, truthout.org.

He became a celebrity quickly because of his unique platform. I addressed that phenomenon in my post. Also, how many campaigns have you worked on in a paid capacity?

Of course I agree, but as it currently stands not every Democrat running has the benefit of Bernie or Beto's celebrity to raise them money, so if they choose not to take corporate $ they're putting themselves at a huge disadvantage against their Republican counterparts. If everyone were to eschew corporate PAC money, it wouldn't be newsworthy, and thus they wouldn't get the social media fundraising bump you see with people like Beto. I'll address your imminent Ocasio-Cortez comeback of just "working harder" - that's easier to do in a tiny district made up of apartment buildings. It's a helluva lot harder in a district in Iowa made up of 20 counties. It behooves Dems not at all to eschew corporate money before the GOP also has to do it, except in a couple anomalous high-profile cases. Most often, the candidates who do that end up losing.

Money out of politics would've given Hillary an even easier path to the Dem nom in '16. Money out of politics makes everything a popularity contest. It's not a panacea.

And I could make an even bigger list of candidates who support those policies with actual real life electoral losses in the past year and a half. So, again, shrug. I support all of those issues, too, but they don't exist (or run) in a vacuum.

This is my entire argument in this thread. People are extrapolating Ocasio's win and saying her politics could win across the country. All I'm saying is not everywhere. That's it. But for some reason that's divisive coming from me, and not from you? Whatevs.

If they didn't do that, than damn near NO Democrats do that, and thus it's a really stupid narrative.

And it's only because he was moderate that he still won.

Bernie was lightning in a bottle - cult of personality - and those running with his endorsement haven't often fared well because they're not *him*. But I'll take your Ocasio and Lamb and raise you a Doug Jones. I expect many of the Dems who flip red districts on Nov 6 will have taken some corporate cash. I just honestly don't care *how* Dems win right now, or what kind of Dems they are, as long as they're Dems and as long as they win, because the most important thing at this unique moment in history is the Speakership and the Majority Leader's gavel. There's plenty of time for the rest of it, and moving left and eschewing corporate money. All I care about right now are wins. And if a Dem has to raise some corporate funds to keep up with the fundraising of the R, then so be it.

Nope. Or at least, not until campaign finance law changes. But that doesn't happen unless we get Democrats elected. And if it takes corporate $ to get Dems elected with the ultimate end result of getting corporate $ out of politics, then I'm all for it. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, it's also the only realistic way it gets done.

I couldn't agree more.

https://www.raygunsite.com/blogs/news/were-alive

This is the first of your posts that I have liked, and I'm truly enjoying this moment of common ground.

It's called prioritizing. See: Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell approval ratings to success ratio

I don't support those things.

But we've been winning in dramatic fashion since 16. Shrug.

I support her policies long-term, and believe they aren't a winning platform in much of the country right now. My priority in 2020 is beating Trump. The end.

Because it's flippin' accurate. Lol. Look at the data. Do you think it's not true that Dems are turning out voters at record or near-record numbers? Do you think what I'm saying is false? http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-texas-primary-20180306-story.html https://iowastartingline.com/2018/06/05/what-happened-tonight-in-iowas-democratic-primary/ I'm too busy, but there are many more like these.

I'm so down with Howard Schultz ?

And other than the fact that Democrats are winning elections and turning out voters in record numbers, which you continually argue is not the case.