Buttigieg attacks small donor campaigns

[Ziggy 14,143]

26 minutes ago, derpmonster said:

Ma'am is salty she needs big money to make a dent and can't rely on small donations because enough people don't support ha

I don’t agree with his comments but it’s less a lack of support and more that he was a virtual unknown coming into this. The complicated double side of grassroots donations is that it favors celebrity like Warren and Sanders which is painfully capitalistic. It worked for Sanders in 2015-16 because dang near no one was running against HRC so the fact that someone was made headlines and then people heard what he had to say and reddit did the rest. In a crowded primary like this, though, it’s a misrepresentation to imply that no one likes xyz candidate just because they don’t have the privilege of being able to reject big funding and do not have exorbitant outside wealth.

Side note, regardless of how you feel about him I encourage you to read his indigenous persons policy he released today. It’s incredibly comprehensive and is a nice reminder of how far the dems have come that such a policy is being brought up from a top 5 candidate in the primary.

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

Says the candidate being out financed by so called “pocket change” 

Have several seats Petey 

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

Yikes. His entitlement and elitism really jumped out huh. 

I really don't care if he's gay, that's the furtherest thing that should qualify someone is their sexuality. And those comments further prove how out of touch he is with everyday Americans. 

Can't wait for him to drop out already and fade back into irrelevance. 

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

What a stupid thing to say. He needs to poll much higher before he can try throwing some shade 

[derpmonster 22,412]

1 hour ago, Ziggy said:

The complicated double side of grassroots donations is that it favors celebrity like Warren and Sanders which is painfully capitalistic. It worked for Sanders in 2015-16 because dang near no one was running against HRC so the fact that someone was made headlines and then people heard what he had to say and reddit did the rest. In a crowded primary like this, though, it’s a misrepresentation to imply that no one likes xyz candidate just because they don’t have the privilege of being able to reject big funding and do not have exorbitant outside wealth.

How did they become celebrities? There were 5 DNC candidates including Hillary and Bernie. How did Bernie become the primary challenger out of nowhere, why didn't the other 3 make headlines?

It's because their ideas attracted people. Same with Warren. She has consistently made noise these past few years through her ideas even when she wasn't running.

[StarstruckIllusion 53,580]

Pop it off I guess... 🤡

[HorusRa2 5,005]

The smug elitist comments from Pete should not shock anyone. I told y’all this months ago. But he was just so “inspiring” 🙄

[Jed 7,716]

2 hours ago, M Monstre said:

I like Buttigieg, but that's a pretty stupid comment. That "pocket change" literally encompasses millions of dollars funded by people who legitimately support her and want her to win...

I mean how out of touch could you be? You’re running as “mayor buttigieg” but you’re crapping on small touch donations? I’ve never minded this guy but wtf was he thinking with this comment

[Ziggy 14,143]

1 hour ago, derpmonster said:

How did they become celebrities? There were 5 DNC candidates including Hillary and Bernie. How did Bernie become the primary challenger out of nowhere, why didn't the other 3 make headlines?

It's because their ideas attracted people. Same with Warren. She has consistently made noise these past few years through her ideas even when she wasn't running.

Warren has been in the senate for years, that’s how. That’s what I’m saying. Her leap to candidacy was basically all but assured 4 years ago and hoards of people were waiting for it. Did we even know a buttigieg or yang? Not at all. It’s a bit much to say it was ideas alone. Certainly that’s what earned them notoriety but that was notoriety that fed into this election cycle not the other way around.

I’m saying that name recognition is not something that can be discounted for even a second. Biden, Sanders, and Warren all have that so it’s not surprising whatsoever that they’re in the lead. Even if they don’t all do it (Biden), these are people with the name recognition to be able to not accept large funding and still pull off a successful campaign. It’s like a track race, you start in staggered spots. The top three are all starting ahead of the rest because the biggest challenge for any candidate, name recognition, is already overcome. So as such they are people who have the privilege to not accept large corporate funding if they so choose. I’m not lambasting them for that, I’m just stating that as a basic fact and I’m sure they’d agree with me that they have that enormous privilege that has been earned from years in the national spotlight.

In 2015, the others didn’t make headlines because they weren’t as starkly different from Hillary as Bernie was *and* the right jumped on the bernie promo to hurt Hillary *and* people liked his ideas. It was a combination of many things. Success can never just be attributed to one factor, especially in politics.

I think big money should be out of politics. I applaud these folk for doing their part to ensure that (I like Warren most atm), but the reality is that it is still very entrenched in the system so while they are able to make that stand and be competitive, someone like Pete Buttigieg is not in that same place. This is not an independently wealthy man, he can’t fund himself like Delaney was able to (though idk if he took big money or not, as well). So do I wish he didn’t take big corporate money? Yeah. But I get that that’s dealing in idealism and that currently the situation is what it is.

[Stephen 30,433]

3 hours ago, SKANK said:

Normally Pete's greatest skill is deconstructing large ideas into easily understood soundbites. That backfired this time.

That being said...I know people are joking about his campaign having "zero percent" chance of winning, but let's think about the extraordinary historic significance of his camping before belittling his odds of winning. In the lifetime of some of his other running mates, our government lobotomized homosexuals. Now an openly gay man is running a successful campaign to be President. It's nothing to turn your nose up at. Just a thought.

Agreed, I can’t believe he’s even as popular as he is. I didn’t think it was possible yet 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

4 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

That “pocket change” is more than he will ever receive before losing the nomination  

Trump made $125 million during the same time Bernie only made 23. Small donor donations are cool, and I think they are important in context, but we want to win don't we? 

 

[Shaney 5,515]

His attitude toward's Yang's UBI policy was uncalled for and Pete laughed at it on stage, as did Kamala Harris. He seems to have a bad attitude behind the facade of rationalism. Pete is the one trying to stir up drama for his own benefit. It's hypocritical if you ask me. 

[Morphine Prince 109,729]

2 minutes ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Trump made $125 million during the same time Bernie only made 23. Small donor donations are cool, and I think they are important in context, but we want to win don't we? 

 

More money does not guarantee success. Ask the Clinton campaign. 

[AdmistTheLight 2,269]

Boys, there  is no shame in having small D when you know how to use it.

#SmallDEnergy

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

3 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

More money does not guarantee success. Ask the Clinton campaign. 

You know very well that there was more to it than just donors during the last race. There was Cambridge Analytica and Russian interference.

And Clinton still won the popular vote. So yeah it's important to match 45 $ for $.