Tone… unreadable…
I kind of am defending the practice…in a this-is-just-how-the-system-works kind of way. Would I prefer that it not cost $20m (at least) to run for Senate? Sure, but that’s not the system we live in.
Timex is positing this zero-sum game, where every dollar for Harris is siphoning a dollar from Abrams, and that’s just contrary to the reality of intra-party fundraising as far as my limited understanding of it goes. Frankly, getting access to the Harris’s email addresses that you can soak for funds again and again is worth more than whatever money raised from this particular appeal.
Jesus Christ, this is the dumbest argument.
Does Abrams have more money now than she did before?
Is Harris obligated to use her donor lists to fund raise for Abrams? It’s not an infinite well from which to draw.
If only Dems were more moderate, this wouldn’t be such an issue!
Hey guess what, even if you give 100% to a candidate, they don’t get all of it. There is mandatory “sharing” with the party apparatus, so both Harris and Abrams may have to give away half and the DSCC spends it on other races as they wish.
To our credit, the outrage at the bad optics of this system seems to be coming from the left.
I feel this was poorly done by Harris but also small potatoes. I just want to point out, that for those who believe this is no big deal, the correct response is to treat it as no big deal. By fighting tooth and nail, you are making it into a big deal. Since I think it’s not a big deal, I’m not going to argue further.
I mean I generally see campaign finance reform as capital letters BIG DEAL issues. Just not this particular incarnation as anything more than a symptom of the deeper rot.
So I’m all for getting mad, just getting mad at the right thing ;)
Meh. It’s just a message board. The stakes couldn’t possibly be any lower.
I don’t even particularly like Harris and would very likely vote against her in a primary, were I registered as a Democrat. I still don’t agree that this rises above the level of crass. It’s certainly not unethical. Were the information hidden from donors or undisclosed, then I’d be calling it unethical. As it is, she’s raising a call to arms for Abrams and hitching along for some sweet cash. I think that’s crass and a little gross. She should have either handed everything over to Abrams or just raised some funds directly for herself, IMO.
It’s a whole lot more “mobilizing her donor base for Abrams” than “hitching along.” Y’all make me feel like I’m taking crazy pills over here.
Kamala Harris has sent more than one email to those of us on her mailing list this year, asking us to help out Abrams, among others. As far as I can tell by clicking through, Harris gets zero dollars from any of these donations through ActBlue. Can we just drop this ridiculous “ethics” quandary now?
Hey there, Kelly —
In a moment, I am going to ask you to make a contribution to support the campaigns of Andrew Gillum in Florida, Stacey Abrams in Georgia, Fred Hubbell in Iowa, and Molly Kelly in New Hampshire — four amazing progressives who are running for governor in their respective states.
Let me explain why this is so important:
First, governors can have a tremendous influence on our lives: from our health care to education and protecting our democracy. Even if you don’t live in these states, these races matter — not only to millions of Americans, but also because they put us one step closer to building a firewall against Trump’s agenda.
Second, each of these candidates would shift control of the governor’s office in their state from Republican to Democrat if they won — and the public polls show these elections are razor close. They could go either way. Your donation here could make the difference between victory or defeat. That’s why I’m asking:
Will you rush a contribution of $10 or more to elect Democratic governors in Florida, Georgia, Iowa, and New Hampshire?
No shit.
I’m savoring this victory.
Barack Obama says “Oh?”
It is apparent that at least right now in mid-November that Nancy Pelosi does NOT have the votes (yet) to be Speaker. That doesn’t mean she won’t get them, but it also means that this won’t be an easy walkover for her, either.
I think I’d like to see another Speaker on the Dem side.
I also think that there’s a very real “Be careful what you wish for” side of that coin, too. The unnamed 2nd string QB is always the most popular guy on the team…
On one hand, all the People That Know These Things tend to say that Pelosi is very good at her job. On the other hand, I feel like maybe it is time for some new leadership in the Democratic party. Maybe it’s time to move on from the Clintons, Pelosi, etc.
That’s not an indictment of them, just… they’ve had their time. There’s a lot of new energy in the Democratic party and I think a leadership change to reflect that should at least be looked at.
The Speaker of the House is not the leader of the Democratic Party. Everyone admits that she can be very effective but suggests that she should be overlooked just so some newby can get the job? Put the younger generation in roles where they can shine. The Speaker needs to be an expert at whipping votes and keeping the conference in line enough to pass bills.
PS - Speaker of the House isn’t even a particularly good job. It’s often filled with humiliations and capitulations. John Boehner wasn’t angling for a run at President by being Speaker.
I mean… yeah, she’s not “leader of the Democratic Party”. But she’s absolutely part of the Democratic party leadership, which is what I said (or at least what I meant to say :)).