Political Discussion

[jaycee]

Got it. So establishment is rich people, not the party itself.
But don't all politicians, directly or indirectly benefit from big money? Doesn't Sanders have an "Our Revolution" PAC supporting him that doesn't have to disclose donors?

It isn't just rich people and it is what the party (the DNC that is) has chosen to represent. It isn't necessarily the beliefs of people who identify as democrats.

Sanders has stood on a platform of no corporate dollars which is part of his appeal to many. I don't know the details but the vast majority, all?, of the Sanders campaign dollars are smaller donations.

The establishment has also been used to describe people who have benefited from the system in a much more modest way, like simple home ownership, pensions, etc.... often this is dumped into the term Boomer because older people are interested in protecting their modest gains. Modest in particular when compared to the entities at the root of the issue.

 

[Dtknuckles]

Got it. So establishment is rich people, not the party itself.
But don't all politicians, directly or indirectly benefit from big money? Doesn't Sanders have an "Our Revolution" PAC supporting him that doesn't have to disclose donors?

Yes, but there is a difference when the money comes from a lot of small donors, everyday people.

as far as the Our Revolution PAC

https://go.ourrevolution.com/page/-/PDF/Our%20Revolution%20-%20Donor%20List.pdf

 

[KenKaniff]

Yes, but there is a difference when the money comes from a lot of small donors, everyday people.

as far as the Our Revolution PAC

https://go.ourrevolution.com/page/-/PDF/Our%20Revolution%20-%20Donor%20List.pdf

Thanks but thats just a list of first and last names. How do I know if they gave 10 dollars or 100,000. If they are a school teacher or fossil fuel exec?

 

[Dtknuckles]

Thanks but thats just a list of first and last names. How do I know if they gave 10 dollars or 100,000. If they are a school teacher or fossil fuel exec?

that is probably a lot more info that you would get out of other PACs. TO find out their profession you could google the names.

or

Our Revolution PAC PAC Profile

Our Revolution PAC raised $32,473 in the 2019-2020 election cycle. See the details.

www.opensecrets.org

If these numbers are correct its not that impressive. About 90K.

 

[Ed Selley]

Fundamentally it's about the white landowning male power structure that the country was founded upon

I don't disagree with this summary. It does omit one wrinkle evident globally if not specifically in the US. You cannot get rid of 'The Establishment' and anyone selling that as an option needs to be watched like a hawk. At the most extreme, all you will ever do is substitute one establishment for another.

 

[KenKaniff]

that is probably a lot more info that you would get out of other PACs. TO find out their profession you could google the names.

or

Our Revolution PAC PAC Profile

Our Revolution PAC raised $32,473 in the 2019-2020 election cycle. See the details.

www.opensecrets.org

If these numbers are correct its not that impressive. About 90K.

I appreciate the dialogue here. Googling a million names isn't the same thing as transparency. Also impossible to verify if it's John Smith in Caribou, Maine or John Smith in Topeka, Kansas.

As I've mentioned previously, I was a big Pete guy, who now is now reluctantly for Biden.

Just not getting the narratives of Bernie getting screwed, the establishment is working against him, etc.

People voted, and will continue to vote. That is fair.

 

[Dtknuckles]

There there is this

Top Contributors, federal election data for Joe Biden, 2020 cycle

This page highlights the top contributors to Joe Biden for the 2020 presidential election cycle. For more information, click through to the page.

www.opensecrets.org

Sen. Mitch McConnell - Kentucky

Fundraising profile for Sen. Mitch McConnell - Kentucky

www.opensecrets.org

Top Contributors, federal election data for Bernie Sanders, 2020 cycle

This page highlights the top contributors to Bernie Sanders for the 2020 presidential election cycle. For more information, click through to the page.

www.opensecrets.org

 

[jaycee]

I don't disagree with this summary. It does omit one wrinkle evident globally if not specifically in the US. You cannot get rid of 'The Establishment' and anyone selling that as an option needs to be watched like a hawk. At the most extreme, all you will ever do is substitute one establishment for another.

Absolutely. I was being very U.S. centric.

Edit: I do think that there is a thing that hasn't ever been done that will still be imperfect that is better. It will be run by people who will take advantage of it for their own self gain too, but there isn't any avoiding that.

 

[KenKaniff]

There there is this

Top Contributors, federal election data for Joe Biden, 2020 cycle

This page highlights the top contributors to Joe Biden for the 2020 presidential election cycle. For more information, click through to the page.

www.opensecrets.org

Sen. Mitch McConnell - Kentucky

Fundraising profile for Sen. Mitch McConnell - Kentucky

www.opensecrets.org

Top Contributors, federal election data for Bernie Sanders, 2020 cycle

This page highlights the top contributors to Bernie Sanders for the 2020 presidential election cycle. For more information, click through to the page.

www.opensecrets.org

So everyone is in the establishment then because they are getting big donors in the hundreds of thousands of dollars from big companies?
Bernie is in the establishment as well.

 

[Dtknuckles]

Just not getting the narratives of Bernie getting screwed, the establishment is working against him, etc.

I did not state this. I said the establishment organized quickly for Pete and Amy to drop out. Boosting Biden's chances. I don't call that getting screwed. Well those are the rules. Are the rules fair? maybe. Bernie was challenging the system of cooperate interest in our politics. He though he found an end around, but going to small donors from lots of normal everyday people. They come close to winning big. That's not nothin'

 

[Dtknuckles]

So everyone is in the establishment then because they are getting big donors in the hundreds of thousands of dollars from big companies?
Bernie is in the establishment as well.

In portion to the money he received in small donations its a pittance. You also have to take into account where the money is coming from. Those donors aren't Goldman Sachs.

 

[KenKaniff]

I did not state this. I said the establishment organized quickly for Pete and Amy to drop out. Boosting Biden's chances. I don't call that getting screwed. Well those are the rules. Are the rules fair? maybe. Bernie was challenging the system of cooperate interest in our politics. He though he found an end around, but going to small donors from lots of normal everyday people. They come close to winning big. That's not nothin'

I didnt say you stated. I'm saying those are common narratives I've been seeing, especially today, and that I'm not grasping these narratives.

Who is the establishment that organized to get Pete and Amy out? How do you know there was also a coordination with the establishment, and not Pete and Amy just realistically seeing they didn't have a path and getting out to get behind a candidate they believed was best?

 

[Dtknuckles]

I didnt say you stated. I'm saying those are common narratives I've been seeing, especially today, and that I'm not grasping these narratives.

Who is the establishment that organized to get Pete and Amy out? How do you know there was also a coordination with the establishment, and not Pete and Amy just realistically seeing they didn't have a path and getting out to get behind a candidate they believed was best?

I think there were reports of a phone call. But, It doesn't matter if there was a phone call or if it was explicit said to them. They receive their support from the DNC. If they wanted to continue to receive that support they knew what they had to do.

 

[DownIsTheNewUp]

[

I didnt say you stated. I'm saying those are common narratives I've been seeing, especially today, and that I'm not grasping these narratives.

Who is the establishment that organized to get Pete and Amy out? How do you know there was also a coordination with the establishment, and not Pete and Amy just realistically seeing they didn't have a path and getting out to get behind a candidate they believed was best?

Everything you type strikes me as either incredibly naive or intentionally disingenuous.

I’m gonna go with the later.

 

[jaycee]

Who is the establishment that organized to get Pete and Amy out? How do you know there was also a coordination with the establishment, and not Pete and Amy just realistically seeing they didn't have a path and getting out to get behind a candidate they believed was best?

Pete and Amy dropped out because they knew they couldn't win aaaaaand they knew that their desire to have centrist (aka establishment) candidate (Biden) win was best if they bailed out before Super Tuesday. Nobody knows if there was a conspiracy to do so organized by the DNC but that is probably something a lot of Bernie followers believe.

People are connecting the dots. Those dots are easy to connect particularly if you a priori believe in a DNC conspiracy

 

[Indymisanthrope]

His anger stems from the fact that the DNC put all of its weight behind Biden in the way that they did.

Can you expand on this? What did the DNC do specifically? Not disputing, just curious what the perception is. Until Monday, it looked to me like the DNC didn't really do much at all for Biden. He wasn't fundraising, he had no ground game in a lot of Super Tuesday states, Steyer and Bloomberg were both dropping serious money in ways that were seen as potentially eating into Biden's voting bloc, and Buttigieg and (to a somewhat lesser extent) Klobuchar seemed like plausible alternatives for the centrist lane. Biden didn't really seem all that viable, and his SC firewall strategy appeared pretty risky right up until Clyburn's endorsement and the surprise payoff.

So, what did the DNC do that gave him an advantage? Is it the timing of the Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Beto endorsements that are somehow seen as unfair coordination by the Bernie set? (For my part, that just seems like normal political party functioning.) Is there something else?

Edit: It took me too long to type this out and I see it's being covered already. I'm not trying to bait you, just wondering if I'm not seeing the reasoning behind the position.

 

[KenKaniff]

I think there were reports of a phone call. But, It doesn't matter if there was a phone call or if it was explicit said to them. They receive their support from the DNC. If they wanted to continue to receive that support they knew what they had to do.

I'm unsure of a phone call. Amy and Klobuchar receive support from DNC and Bernie hasn't?

I think assuming someone's motives is kind of unfair. I think Pete is very smart, saw he wasn't going to get support with minorities, and would rather go out in a good standing rather than sticking around. Then decided to use his voice to get behind who he thought was best.

 

[Dtknuckles]

I'm unsure of a phone call. Amy and Klobuchar receive support from DNC and Bernie hasn't?

I think assuming someone's motives is kind of unfair. I think Pete is very smart, saw he wasn't going to get support with minorities, and would rather go out in a good standing rather than sticking around. Then decided to use his voice to get behind who he thought was best.

Like most things in politics it an be both. He can agree with Biden and understand there will be political pressure on him to do it as well.
The DNC provides infrastructure and funding to politicians seeking to run under their banner. The RNC does also, ask Mitt Romney. Politician also have to play nice with their donors because they won;t get that cushy lobbying or consulting job when they retire.

 

[KenKaniff]

[


Everything you type strikes me as either incredibly naive or intentionally disingenuous.

I’m gonna go with the later.

This is my thing, I'm coming here in good faith and I know discussing politics on the internet is hard. I've been apart of this community on N&G, and before on VMP, and I enjoy and value this platform. I didn't come here to stink the place up. If I was acting in bad faith or looking to stink a place up, I would go elsewhere on the internet and not a place I call home.

I came here for a discussion. I didn't come here to dump on Bernie. I came here to discuss something that I struggled to understand and was seeing if I could gain clarity. I see narratives from all over (not talking about N&G) about Bernie getting screwed by the establishment, the DNC, him getting "robbed" and all sorts of words and situations where Bernie has been treated this election cycle unfairly. I'm questioning it because I don't understand what the unfairness is towards Bernie.

Is this thread for super high information voters only or also people looking to learn and ask questions about things they don't understand?

 

[KenKaniff]

Like most things in politics it an be both. He can agree with Biden and understand there will be political pressure on him to do it as well.
The DNC provides infrastructure and funding to politicians seeking to run under their banner. The RNC does also, ask Mitt Romney. Politician also have to play nice with their donors because they won;t get that cushy lobbying or consulting job when they retire.

Right, so Biden and Sanders (and Pete and Amy in a past tense) run under the DNC and receive that support. In that sense, equal playing field.