Jump to content
270soft Forum
admin_270

Steyer makes donor threshold for September debates

Recommended Posts

Might end up with more than 10 altogether. Gabbard and Castro are close to making both requirements as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hickenlooper is expected to drop out and run for the Senate. He'll likely take a Senate seat from the GOP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vcczar said:

Hickenlooper is expected to drop out and run for the Senate. He'll likely take a Senate seat from the GOP

I am not surprised and it's good to have a high-profile clash in Colorado with two politicians, who both hold a high name recognition. I hope Gardner wins the race, but we will see - it doesn't look good at all for him.

 

Steyer: I can't believe he got the donor threshold without paying people to donate at least 1$ to his campaign. Considering some high-profile Democrats are still struggling and a billionaire who's single goal seems to be starting an impeachment process makes the donor threshold easily despite getting into the race so late. C'mon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steyer buying his way into the debates as expected. I wouldn't be surprised if he rises in the polls a bit either. I see ads for him all over the place. His campaign has already spent millions of dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SilentLiberty said:

Might end up with more than 10 altogether. Gabbard and Castro are close to making both requirements as well.

Gabbard not at all close.  She needs 3 qualifying polls in the next two weeks, when she's only managed to get ONE in the past two months.  

Castro and Steyer, I would bet money that they'll qualify now.  But Gabbard I would bet against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

 

Steyer: I can't believe he got the donor threshold without paying people to donate at least 1$ to his campaign. 

I'm shocked, too.  Of course he probably spent so much in advertising to those $1 donors that he ended up losing money on the exchange (I assume).  That said - he has a much wider donor base than most of the other lesser candidates, between his "Impeach Now" signature database and other movements he's led.  It's nothing at all for most people to toss a buck his way...especially if they believe he'll use his time on the stage to call for impeachment, a cause they presumably back if they're already in his address book.

But I agree, it's ridiculous that he beat MOST other more-qualified candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I'm shocked, too.  Of course he probably spent so much in advertising to those $1 donors that he ended up losing money on the exchange (I assume).

Sure he lost some money that way, but he can afford it and has a higher goal. I guess it's worth it from his point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MysteryKnight said:

Steyer buying his way into the debates as expected.

Ya, the DNC has created a new 'currency', which is individual donors. Intended to be a measure of grassroots support, with Steyer it seems it has become more a measure of money. Money -> ads designed to get small donations -> individual donors.

So the debate threshold for individual donors has become a way to privilege campaigns with more money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Ya, the DNC has created a new 'currency', which is individual donors. Intended to be a measure of grassroots support, with Steyer it seems it has become more a measure of money. Money -> ads designed to get small donations -> individual donors.

So the debate threshold for individual donors has become a way to privilege campaigns with more money.

Agreed.  I will say, however, that I think this could be an effective way for the DNC to expand it's voter & donor databases.

Prior to this election, I had never donated to a campaign before -- and now I've donated to TWO (Buttigieg because he's my top pick & Castro because I think his voice is an important one in the immigration discussions).   I'm sure there's tens of thousands of first time donors kicking in a buck to help this candidate or that candidate qualify -- and now they'll be hounded in future elections by the party to donate more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Prior to this election, I had never donated to a campaign before -- and now I've donated to TWO

If I lived in the US, I would have donated probably 1$ to Yang, Delaney and Biden - despite identifying as a Republican. Maybe I had supported Gravel's chances for the debate as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, the DNC has created a new 'currency', which is individual donors. Intended to be a measure of grassroots support, with Steyer it seems it has become more a measure of money. Money -> ads designed to get small donations -> individual donors.

So the debate threshold for individual donors has become a way to privilege campaigns with more money.

Yes, but I still stand that the DNC and RNC and the big media outlets who are in cooperation with their "gatekeeping" and "deciding who gets air by their own standards" should not be allowed to carry on with this abuse of power. In fact, they should all face criminal charges for the very serious crimes of electoral interference and electoral abuses - crimes they have commit, and have been doing so for quite a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

the DNC and RNC and the big media outlets who are in cooperation with their "gatekeeping" and "deciding who gets air by their own standards"

It's difficult enough to have a debate with 10 candidates. There are officially almost 300 candidates running for the Democratic nomination. How can you have debates in this sort of situation without applying criteria for who makes the debates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

It's difficult enough to have a debate with 10 candidates. There are officially almost 300 candidates running for the Democratic nomination. How can you have debates in this sort of situation without applying criteria for who makes the debates?

They should put all 300 in a an arena. Give them all baseball bats covered in protective foam (hard enough to knock someone out, but not hard enough to do any real damage). Let them have it out until only 10 remain. Split them up into two debates with 5 candidates each. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

It's difficult enough to have a debate with 10 candidates. There are officially almost 300 candidates running for the Democratic nomination. How can you have debates in this sort of situation without applying criteria for who makes the debates?

Perhaps, as I've said, the whole structure of the Two-Party vs. Third Party and Independent and the way the Primaries work (an electoral process given FAR more weight, coverage, institutional precedent, and public and taxpayers' support for the two main parties than the fringe events - by institutional design - of other parties, especially given political parties and primaries are not mentioned ONCE or have their existence acknowledged in the U.S. Constitution), might be part of the problem. The Duopoly's corrupt, rigged, and very arguable ILLEGAL benefits of incumbency are preventing a true honest and open electoral process from existing - almost as bad as those "emerging democracies" the U.S. Department of State likes to scold in fact - and usually means, by the GE, it's often between two horrid candidates (2004 and 2016 were classic examples lately, I only see this phenomenon as getting worse over time), and thus elections are cheated and stolen, and the voters lack REAL choice in their leaders. Case and point - Slovenia, Latvia, Luxembourg, and the Czech Republic, small European countries, each have between 4-7 "viable" political parties, where as the United States, a large nation of 300 million and a lot of political regionalism, only has two. Something's wrong there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were Hickenlooper, I'd drop out, endorse Bennet and run for Senate. The strategy wasn't bad. Make a presidential bid, raise your profile and ultimately run for Senate. However, Hickenlooper's campaign was really bad and may have hurt him more for another run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

If I were Hickenlooper, I'd drop out, endorse Bennet and run for Senate. The strategy wasn't bad. Make a presidential bid, raise your profile and ultimately run for Senate. However, Hickenlooper's campaign was really bad and may have hurt him more for another run.

Well he is expected to drop out as early as later today. 
 

I hope it didn't hurt him to much. He's a Democrat sure, but I think he'd be a good person to have in the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Well he is expected to drop out as early as later today. 

 

I hope it didn't hurt him to much. He's a Democrat sure, but I think he'd be a good person to have in the Senate.

Yeah I read that as well. I am curious if he is going to endorse Bennet or anyone else. Considering the Colorado Dem Senate Primary is already very crowded, it would make sense to make an endorsement deal with Bennet I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Yeah I read that as well. I am curious if he is going to endorse Bennet or anyone else. Considering the Colorado Dem Senate Primary is already very crowded, it would make sense to make an endorsement deal with Bennet I guess.

It would make sense you're right. I had read they had met with each other in Iowa recently too so I could see them coming out and endorsing each other in that way. Hickenlooper being the nominee in the senate race is far from a sure thing, but he would have a 51 point lead when/if he gets into that race and he was a pretty popular governor. 

 

This week seems to be the week to switch campaigns up though, Hickenlooper maybe dropping out, Stacey Abrams saying she'd accept a VP nod. Things are getting interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Gabbard not at all close.  She needs 3 qualifying polls in the next two weeks, when she's only managed to get ONE in the past two months.  

Castro and Steyer, I would bet money that they'll qualify now.  But Gabbard I would bet against.

Yeah true. Gabbard does have the donor requirement though which is what I meant. 

She did get 5% in a new New Hampshire poll but it wasn't one of the DNC recognized ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Relevant

#MommyGabbard

pollstersmeme.jpg

She has a bright future regardless of how this election cycle pans out, so that's a bright spot I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2019 at 11:02 PM, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Relevant

#MommyGabbard

pollstersmeme.jpg

Expect a huge batch to come out right at the deadline.  That’s how these things tend to go.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...