29 points
*

How Democrats used their vast resources has come under particular scrutiny after Harris’ presidential campaign raised — and spent — a stunning $1.4 billion in 107 days. The pace rattled supporters, donors and even some on the campaign, who complained of lavish spending on celebrities and ongoing appeals for money even after Harris lost the election.

The only reason why we found out about 2015 shenanigans was neoliberals tucking tail after trump won so Donna Brazile had a chance to see the books.

This is a huge chance to pry the party out of neoliberal hands, because Jamie Harrison is acting like most of Biden’s picks and resigning before things get difficult.

But there is zero fucking chance $1,700,000,000 was raised and spent in 107 days and there wasn’t any grifting going on. The purpose of Kamala’s campaign wasn’t to win an election, it was to churn a bunch of money so people could take their slices.

We can’t afford to do it a fourth time in a row.

Winning the election needs to be the priority of the party.

permalink
report
reply
14 points

I said this in another thread - 1.7 billion in 107 days means spending $15,887,850 a day. Let’s be generous and assume a crazy 12 hour work day, 7 days a week.

That’s $1,323,987 an hour, every hour. 12 hours a day, for 107 days… with NOTHING to show for it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

It’s been Brewster’s Millions since 2016, and at this point the only thing crazier than the party trying it a fourth time is us letting the same people keep calling the shots.

They pick their candidate long before the primary, and before 10 states vote they declare a winner and say it’s over. If a Republican wins, it’s just not a big deal to them.

Because in four years they’ll get even more money to make sure a progressive can’t make it to the general

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Brewster had a way more compelling platform, though (“vote none of the above”).

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

2020 was the worst, picking Biden after the 3rd primary, and that one being South Carolina…

Because we really want red states determining who the Democratic candidate is… 🙄

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I agree with you on the money. It doesn’t make any sense to me. And everyone was a volunteer too? Like you said, how do you spend that much money in such a short amount of time, and then immediately roll over and say “oh well, we lost” like they have?

It’s not a freaking game of touch football. It’s the future of the country and everyone that lives in it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Goodhart’s law strikes again.

They can’t tune their process for ‘win election’, because that’s only one sample every four years, and it’s a binary value.

So instead they tune it for ‘raise campaign funds’ as a proxy measure for ‘win election’, and that’s vastly more responsive; they can optimise the crap out of that.

This also means that a bunch of influential people are able to skim significant amounts off the top, so they’re not minded to change it. They’re stinking rich so they don’t have to care about the actual political outcome - and the more people are suffering, the more they’ll donate.

The trump win was a massive windfall for the next cycle of fundraising.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Was it after that election constituents sued the DNC for not even trying to keep promises made on the campaign trail and the DNC successfully argued they had no obligation to even try to implement campaign promises?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

I remember they said the same thing about Clinton and how she burned through a billion dollars in her attempt to buy a nomination. In the end, Harris brought in a bunch of Clinton leeches to destroy her own campaign. The consultant class ate well this election cycle and they didn’t even have to run a campaign nearly as long.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

In the end, Harris brought in a bunch of Clinton leeches to destroy her own campaign.

What?

“Clinton leeches” have been running the DNC for decades…

It’s not that they latched onto Kamala. It’s that they had already fixed the primary and attaching themselves to Kamala was a condition of them give Kamala the nomination.

Hillary’s people are Biden’s people, would have been Kamala’s people.

For 8 years a group of unelected now liberals have been deciding our candidate and running our campaigns.

And those people are fucking idiots

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

Anti-Status Quo candidates win in this era. That means Obama, Sanders (hypothetically), and Trump. Clinton Biden and Harris were status quo.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Seems like a good plan after not doing it the first time Trump won.

Useless welts.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

What you need is more support for progressive candidates and fewer centrists.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 17K

    Posts

  • 479K

    Comments