this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
165 points (97.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8031 readers
300 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't like Boebert any more than the next person with an average IQ .... she's an idiot.
But the most disturbing thing about this story is the idea that whoever has the most money gets to be elected.
I have my criticisms about conservatives and I have my disagreements but normalizing the idea that money is what gets people elected should be just as disturbing.
Because if that is so .... it isn't a democracy. It's something else.
It does strongly correlate but it's an open question whether the donations cause the win, or more viable candidates attract more donations. Big donors want to garner favor with and gain access to the winner, after all.
It would be great to get money out of politics, but that's not the way things are. The game must be played as it is if we are to improve the rules to be more fair and less corrupting. Current law is political money = free speech.
Wealth and power have always had that privilege. It's the very basis on which America was founded. Though it didn't originate in America, and predates it.
Over the centuries we've done minor things to ameliorate it. To whit those with wealth and power have rigged it back twice as hard. As long as capitalism goes unpunished however. That's not going to change.
There's also a question of the donors vs. the actual constituency. Boebert is running in a fairly strong-R district. They voted Trump in 2020 and they've been electing republicans to her seat for more than a decade. If money is an influencing factor, still Frisch is going to need more than Boebert to win.
The donors, on the other hand, could live anywhere. Every Democrat in this country wants Boebert to lose, whereas Republicans are pretty mixed on her. So of course Frisch is going to get more cash, that doesn't mean the people who can actually vote for him, those who live in CO-3, will do so.
This doesn't take into account how close he came to beating her in the last election. Or, at least there's no mention of it in your comment which suggests that it wasn't taken into account.
I'm not sure what's confusing about this: He didn't beat her. The people who voted for her that time are mostly still alive. He has an uphill battle.
I agree 100%, but at the same time you have to work within the system as it is. Losing races due to taking principled stances about dirty campaign money and purity risks giving victories to fascists. That’s the more immediate problem.
Can't fix anything without getting elected first