-9
top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ptz@dubvee.org 17 points 1 week ago

So, now we should do what the moneyed class wants? 🙄 Surely these billionaires have our best interests at heart.

[-] Phenomephrene@thebrainbin.org 11 points 1 week ago

Frankly, yes. But not because we should continue doing what the moneyed class wants, and not that these particular billionaires will continue to have our best interests at heart, but because right now, under this specific circumstance, they are correct. A correct position isn't negated by any number of other incorrect positions. If my best friend is telling me to lay down on some train tracks and my mortal enemy is saying that I shouldn't do it...

I hate that this is the mechanism that will probably get it done, but ultimately this is actually a good thing. This helps put us on the road that we need to start heading down. We need to do it quickly.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Its also worth considering that Biden doesn't get practically any funding from small dollar donors. He's basically completely dependent on a very specific class of "megadonor", who can write million dollar+ checks.

If this particular class of donor is saying "drop him" he's toast. He's got no other supporters other than billionaire donors and those living in a gaslit fantasy around his viability. I guess they can open up their wallets.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Its also worth considering that Biden doesn’t get practically any funding from small dollar donors. He’s basically completely dependent on a very specific class of “megadonor”, who can write million dollar+ checks.

Yes, hardly anything

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I'm not saying he hasn't been fundraising. I'm saying those funds are coming from a relatively small pool of donors. In the previous 8 months Biden's small dollar funding dried up almost completely.

Where he previously did get something like 40% of his funds from small donors (pre 2024), the last several months has been Biden courting large checks from the few donors capable of writing them.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

But Biden’s campaign said the bulk of its funds came from grassroots donors – 96% of its first-quarter donations were under $200. In March alone, 704,000 unique donors made 864,000 contributions to the Biden-Harris campaign.

Unless my sense of time is mega-fucked, March is only four months ago. Do you have any sources to the contrary substantiating your claims on Biden's small dollar donors drying up?

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Keep an eye on the fact that they didn't put a specific dollar amount like the average size of those small dollar donations. The answer is in this article, you just have to read past the words and do the math.

Lets assume say, $30 a small dollar donation? Thats a pretty typical number that gets thrown around.

864000*.96*$30 == $24,883,200

So call it 25 million?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/14/politics/biden-fundraising-reelection-campaign-president/index.html

Puts it at 72 mil for that quarter, which is like, really good, except that:

25/72 =

34.7%

So if the big money pulls out of Biden as candidate, his fundraising would be relying on solely grass roots, and he would experience a 65% hit in donations.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

34.7%

Which is a pretty normal percentage for candidates, and not at all evidence of small dollar donations 'drying up'.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I mean, the closest competing Democrat was basically the inversion of those numbers. Bernie was like 60-70 something percent donations of less than $200?

Small dollar donations are less likely to "move" than large donations are. It gives you a sustainability and independence that you don't get when most of your donations come from big donors.

If any candidate, really at any level, fundraising dropped by 60% thats it. They're cooked. Because those dollars are going to go some where.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

Bernie was like 60-70 something percent donations of less than $200?

Bernie was in the 60s and his whole 'thing' was his ability to motivate small dollar donors. Most Dem politicians, even excluding Blue Dogs and the like, have numbers that resemble Biden's, post-Citizens United.

Small dollar donations are less likely to “move” than large donations are. It gives you a sustainability and independence that you don’t get when most of your donations come from big donors.

If any candidate, really at any level, fundraising dropped by 60% thats it. They’re cooked. Because those dollars are going to go some where.

This is true and I don't disagree. I only disagree with the assertion that small dollar donors have 'dried up' for Biden recently. Fact is, most of us who are politically motivated enough to not just be ready to vote, but actively donate, are still quite concerned with the prospect of fascism winning. Biden's loss of support is largely with the sadly important contingent of low-information low-engagement voters who are the difference between victory and defeat in most elections in this fucking country.

The only silver lining there is that other events can (not necessarily will, but can) sway them back. Low-engagement voters necessarily have short political attention spans.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I think we should pin the small dollar question because since we started this, I've been trying to find better data on it, and its surprisingly difficult to find a granular enough breakdown to do a useful analysis. Maybe we can come back to in in a month or so and see how things have ended up post debate. It always take some time for things to trickle into effect.

Biden’s loss of support is largely with the sadly important contingent of low-information low-engagement voters who are the difference between victory and defeat in most elections in this fucking country

So I'm interested in where you are getting this, because from what I've seen, its the most politically engaged that have been shouting from the roof tops for months, longer even, that Biden needs to be replaced. Specifically, the Nate Silvers, Ezra Kleins of the world. I think you are projecting an opinion that is just uninformed here. Its only the "medium information" voters that have been putting out that Biden is going to be the nominee, people who only get their news from cable TV, or mainstream sources, with no real analysis.

Low engagement voters aren't even represented in the current conversation and likely wont be until after August. At best they've seen a couple reels or tictocs of Biden mumbling or Trump lying. And I do agree at least that future events will bring low-engagement voters to the table. Specifically, an open convention would be so dominating of the news cycle, there is no way they'll be able to stay un-informed.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

So I’m interested in where you are getting this, because from what I’ve seen, its the most politically engaged that have been shouting from the roof tops for months, longer even, that Biden needs to be replaced. Specifically, the Nate Silvers, Ezra Kleins of the world.

Yes, and recent events haven't affected their opinions much. They've been on this kick for a while now. Recent events HAVE effected low-engagement voters' opinions, on the other hand; people who don't generally pay close attention to politics until and unless something 'big' hits the news that's hard to ignore - like clips of a presidential debate.

Specifically, an open convention would be so dominating of the news cycle, there is no way they’ll be able to stay un-informed.

... I'm not sure you're getting where the low-information low-engagement voter is coming from. They're not going to look at an open convention and say "Wowee, look at that, interesting new candidates!"

They're going to say "Wow, the Democrats are really in disarray! I wonder if I should even bother voting for them."

An open convention may be our best choice. But it's not going to be our best choice out of some idea that low-information voters will be positively influenced by the events of the convention itself; only that a new candidate may (and the emphasis here is on 'may') be a better choice to influence them positively.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

Ok I get what you are saying, but the point I was making is that the "highest information" people there are; the most politically engaged, don't agree with you with regards to specific issues around things like the viability of Biden as candidate.

You suggested that its "low information" voters that had this view. This is what I'm pushing back on. The most informed, most politically astute among us have the same view that I have, and have been promoting, that Joe Biden is losing this election and is a lost cause candidate. I got there through my own analysis of his polling data and the probability that he can actually get the level of "swing" in his polling numbers that he needs (my results showed it to be, a practical statistical impossibility). I took a very different approach than Nate does, but we ended up with very similar results.

[you are editing this in real time it makes it hard to keep up]

They’re going to say “Wow, the Democrats are really in disarray! I wonder if I should even bother voting for them.”

It is an event that will be a 450 thousand pound gorilla in the room. It will UTTTERLY dominate the new cycle in a way that a boring "joe biden" coronation simply couldn't. You would see something on the order of 10:1 coverage of the DNC convention compared to the RNC convention if there is an actual horse race. It would actually engage voters in that they want to "know" who the candidate is going to be.

It would be phenomenal marketing, and whomever came out on top would be riding a rocket.

Ditching Joe Biden and going to an open convention with say: Newsom, Witmer, Kamala, and maybe Beshear.

First, we get to ditch Joe Biden's terrible baggage on Israel. And the new nominee gets to cherry pick what they want to own about the administration (more difficult for Kamala).

Second, for whoever wins, they get a suddenly unified Democratic party behind them. We get leave the baggage of Joe Biden behind and they get to mount a rocket ship coming out of the convention. What they do with that rocket is on them, but theyll have more earned media than any candidate other than maybe 2016 Trump.

No its a great thing; an open convention best possible outcome.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Joe Biden is losing this election and is a lost cause candidate. I got there through my own analysis of his polling data and the probability that he can actually get the level of “swing” in his polling numbers that he needs (my results showed it to be, a practical statistical impossibility).

It would be phenomenal marketing, and whomever came out on top would be riding a rocket.

Second, for whoever wins, they get a suddenly unified Democratic party behind them. We get leave the baggage of Joe Biden behind and they get to mount a rocket ship coming out of the convention. What they do with that rocket is on them, but theyll have more earned media than any candidate other than maybe 2016 Trump.

No its a great thing; an open convention best possible outcome.

!remindme 1 year if I'm still alive.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

ahh we're gonna know sooner. Couple weeks, max.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

ahh we’re gonna know sooner. Couple weeks, max.

Biden's not going to win in the next few weeks, on account of the next few weeks not including the election, so the first bit is right out.

Whether the party (and, perhaps more importantly, low-information voters) unite behind a new candidate won't be certain until the results of election day. If you think that the information environment is going to be coherent and clear in the aftermath of a contested convention, I don't know what to tell you other than that you're setting yourself up for disappointment. You aren't going to get the 'clean' result that you want, regardless of whether an open convention is our best possible choice.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

If you think that the information environment is going to be coherent and clear in the aftermath of a contested convention, I don’t know what to tell you other than that you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.

Its simply that I think I have a far, far better read of politics than you do. I called this moment, literally months ago, here.

And on the previous point, I meant that we'll know concretely if the party is going to force Biden out over the course of the next very few weeks. It wont (and can't) take more than a few weeks. Biden's going to be in the race 100% until the second he isn't.

[-] Fah_Q@lemmynsfw.com -3 points 1 week ago

Who you gonna have run lol the Dems are all losers if you don't rally around Biden it's 2016 all over again.

[-] cogman@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Basically anybody. However, at this point I'm guessing it'll be Kamala.

[-] Fah_Q@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 1 week ago

Mr. Basically anyone, a 100 percent guaranteed loser.

[-] cogman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago
[-] Fah_Q@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 1 week ago

How did your polls work out for you in 2016?

[-] cogman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

You are saying I shouldn't be terrified of biden's prospects because, unlike Hillary, he's trailing in pretty much all polls? Heck, unlike 2020 he's trailing?

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 week ago

I don't think they should be a major influencer on decisions, but can you really argue that they aren't? This isn't a story to convince people of the rightness of the cause, it's a story about major influencing factors turning against Biden staying in, because people don't think that their voices actually make the decisions as much as theirs do.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -5 points 1 week ago

Is there a word to describe someone whose cynicism has metastasized?

[-] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

when the ~~real voters~~ mean megadonors speak things usually get done

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I mean, for Biden that is certainly the case.

He relies entirely on this "class" of megadonor. The calculus would obviously be different with a candidate that is reliant on small dollar donations.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Good quote from the article:

Abigail Disney, daughter of Roy O. Disney, the co-founder of the entertainment giant, told CNBC that she would cut off donations to Democrats entirely until Biden steps aside.

"Biden is a good man and has served his country admirably, but the stakes are far too high," Disney said. "If Biden does not step down, the Democrats will lose. Of that, I am absolutely certain. The consequences for the loss will be genuinely dire."

I wonder if uhh.. Abigail is on lemmy.

this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
-9 points (42.6% liked)

politics

18129 readers
3591 users here now

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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS