Progressive twitter reacts to Buttigieg's "pocket change" remark

[BeyondGeography]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[jezebel321]

1. progressive twitter should listen to his full quote and not run with the clickbait headline....

but progressive twitter gonna do what they do best.
[link:

Link to tweet

|

[BeyondGeography]

3. As one of those small donors I know how it struck me

Arrogant and dismissive.

[bluewater]

4. You are a braver man than me.

[qazplm135]

5. Ok what's the full quote

Then?

[jezebel321]

6. full quote

[link:

Link to tweet

|

[Celerity]

9. thanks, that shows how out of context it was, so typical

[BeyondGeography]

11. Lol, he knows he screwed up

Immediate pivot. Oops, I just called my small donors pocket change. Nice that he patted them on the head there.

[DrFunkenstein]

12. He Seems to Be Saying He Could Only Get Pocket Change From Small Donors

That's the most generous reading I can make out. I am trying to be open-minded and not look for a "gotcha" quote, but can you unpack his statement so that I can understand it better? Or did I get it right?

[qazplm135]

19. so how does that change it?

Still says the same thing "we aren't going to beat him with pocket change."

The fact that he says others can do what they want is...what exactly?

[Celerity]

13. +10000

the twitter accounts from the OP are Young Turks journos or Sirota retweeters

the full exchange:

[qazplm135]

20. how does the full quote make it any different?

it's clearly a criticism of not going after big donors and only relying on "pocket change" small donors.

[Celerity]

23. because millions of Warrens $'s DID come from large donors, and millions of Pete's came from

small donors, and Rump is on track to raise around 1.5 to 2 BILLION by the 3rd quarter of 2020 and to fight that we are bloody fools to not take help from all levels of donations.

It is unilateral disarmament. As usual, when one ponders the totality of the staments and the situations to which they refer to, Buttigieg is shown to be correct.

But the quasi left like those tweeters (TYT, roflmaoooo) just want chop-quotes and catfights to try and divide and not unite.

[qazplm135]

26. lol

it's a criticism.

Just admit it.

If you want to say "Pete's right" feel free. But to pretend it's a uniting statement is borderline gaslighting.

[Celerity]

30. I never said Buttigieg's statement was 'uniting', I said the Sanders's/TYT/Sirota crew was trying to

divide, and also that Pete is right about having to arm ourselves with funding wherever we can get it, in order to fight the monster Rump.

[qazplm135]

32. So Pete made a divisive statement

designed to prefer his approach over Warren and Sanders, and you are mad because other folks took it the way it was intended??

And if he's right, why is he losing in fundraising to the two people who are apparently aren't arming themselves like he is?

Third, we lose to Republicans in fund raising almost every single election...we win our fair share nevertheless, so pretending like we can't win unless we have more money is not based on actual past evidence.

[Celerity]

36. it wasn't divisive, and it was the truth, I do not play chop-quote games

Link to tweet

HE SAID WE NEED ALL TYPES OF DONORS

And if he's right, why is he losing in fundraising to the two people who are apparently aren't arming themselves like he is?

lol, 7 months ago Pete was Midwest mayor of a medium size town who no one had ever heard of, literally, Sanders and Warren are completely known Senators, and Bernie has damn near Obama/Biden level name recognition

Bernie has a MASSIVE list of true blue believers to continuously draw from as well

Given all that, Pete still has raised around 50 million USD since then, from a wide variety of sources and levels, from big to small

he out-raised Sanders in the 2nd quarter by around 7 million dollars (Bernie's numbers were artificially inflated by account shuffling) and has out-raised him overall for the campaign since he launched by 1 million USD or so

He out-raised Biden this quarter by around 5 million USD



Rump not only will have a 2 billion USD kitty, he gets BILLIONS worth of free pub from the MSM as well, so good luck if you think we can just sit back and rely on the good will of the American people to come through


Millions of Warren's dollars came from big donors

How Elizabeth Warren Raised Big Money Before She Denounced Big Money

Ms. Warren wooed wealthy donors for years, stockpiling money from fund-raisers, and has used $10.4 million from her 2018 Senate race to underwrite her 2020 bid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-2020.html

[qazplm135]

38. and total, each of the two non corporate donation candidates

have raised MORE than him. So you won't chop up quotes, but apparently you will chop up fundraising quarters to present a picture that differs from reality.

And what's all that money gotten him?

When's the last time he saw double digits?

He's mired with everyone else who isn't Biden, Sanders or Warren...in the low to mid single digits.

So apparently, he's wrong. Not only can you win with just small money donors, but you can raise more money too. He's certainly not proof of concept otherwise, and even if he were, he has certainly shown no ability to TRANSLATE that large sum of money into, ya know, support and votes.

but what he has shown is an ability to be snarky about other candidates. He's very good at that.

He isn't going to be the nominee and I don't see him being a VP selection either. He should go back home, run for Gov or Senator, and come back when he has a little more experience and heft, and when he has the time put in to build something larger. And before you say it, yep Harris probably need to do the exact same thing.

[Celerity]

39. do the maths, Bernie had 18m in Q2, 25m Q3 (43m), Pete had 25m and 19m (44m)

Last edited Tue Oct 15, 2019, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Warren had 19m and 25m (44m)

BUT 10m USD of that was for a transfer of pre-existing funds and counting all that, only 48% of her total monies before Q3 was from small donors. 10m of Sanders totals has come from transfers of preexisting funds, and when the transfers are added in, even he has only 60% of his total monies from small donors.

Pete was not running in Q1, he officially launched April 14, 2019.

In Q2, when he raised around 25m USD, his average donation was only 84 USD per person, from almost 300,000 individuals, and that was in just his first full quarter of running.



Big Donors, Small Donors: Pete Buttigieg Has Courted Them All — Successfully

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-fundraising.html

[qazplm135]

40. nope

https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/candidate?id=N00000528

Bernie's at 46m actually.
And when you COMBINE both Sanders and Warren, it's WELL over what Pete's done, so again, the two candidates using small donors are raising plenty of money.

But again, EVEN if he's raised more (and at best he's raised around as much), he's done jack squat with it.


Harris has raised a little more than half of Buttigieg, and at worst she's tied with him.
Booker hasn't even reached half, and he's at worst a couple of percentage points behind him.

so ya know, until Pete figures out how to be an effective candidate, I think I'm not going to look to him to tell us how to run the 2020 campaign.

[Celerity]

57. you are counting the 10m that Bernie transferred from other accounts, so sorry, nope back at you

Warren also transferred 10m AND large %'s of both Sanders and Warren were not from small donors, as I documented already.

[qazplm135]

59. I'm counting their combined total

so you can subtract whatever you think you want to subtract it's still more money raised in small change than Buttigieg has.

And the question you keep ignoring, because you have no answer for it, is why Buttigieg is languishing in single digits next to folks who have raised far less than him, if he's somehow cracked the code on the right way to fundraise?

He's going to get and spend a ton of money for a handful of delegates when this was all over. For nothing.

Buttigieg should focus on convincing folks to vote for him, instead of criticizing folks who are 5 times higher in the polls than he is for raising, at worst, as much money as he has.

He should also probably stop criticizing Beto for "trying to be relevant" and maybe find a path to relevancy himself.
Because so far, he hasn't.

[Celerity]

60. Beto had a go, Pete merely responded, Beto basically called him a coward, lolol

and this whole 'pocket change' argy bargy is from a pull quote, here is the full exchange, on video

as for the fundraising totals, I already backed up my statements with links

Pete has obviously cracked some code, as he is pulling in a lot of money, and it is is hardy all from large donors, his average contribution was 33 USD in Q3, 84 USD in Q2

Only 60% of Sanders's and 48% of Warren's total fundraising before Q3 were from small donors, when you factor in the transfers

Big Donors, Small Donors: Pete Buttigieg Has Courted Them All — Successfully

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-fundraising.html


Sanders is hardly '5 times higher' than Pete , nor is Warren in a lot of polls

certainly not in these polls

[qazplm135]

61. the only code he's cracked

is getting rich people to give him money.

The only code that matters, is getting regular people to give him their vote.

And so far, all that rich people's money hasn't gotten him very close to cracking that code.

And you are wrong again...instead of cherry picking polls, just go to the RCP polling average:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

Biden 29.4 (you are right, not five times...almost six times)
Warren 23.4 (not quite but almost five times)
Sanders 15.6 (three times)
Buttigieg 5.2
Harris 5.2 (equal on about half the fundraising)

So nice try, but...well, no it wasn't even really a nice try.

[Celerity]

63. 'the only code he's cracked is getting rich people to give him money.'

that is pure rubbish, and you know it, he has over half a million individual contributors and his average donation in Q3 was 33 USD


he already had over 400,000 individual donors just from Q2 and before:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pete-buttigieg-raises-over-24-million-in-second-quarter-of-fundraising/

According to the campaign, the haul came from 294,000 donors — including more than 230,000 new donors — in the second quarter of the year. That means that more than 400,000 Americans have donated to Buttigieg since he began his campaign.

he uses a well balanced fundraising approach, it is ludicrous to say he only courts or receives money from rich donors

not my problem you seem so unhappy

you should spend more time boosting your own candidate and less slagging off others

[qazplm135]

64. I didn't say "he only gets money from the rich"

I said something quite different.

I don't need your advice on how to spend my time. It's not a competition.

And I'm quite happy thanks, sorry that my opinions about your candidate make you unhappy though.

[Celerity]

65. i only quoted your own words, you said

that is flat out inferring he only is good at going for rich donors

which is simply not true

the rest I stand by as well, you seem far too invested atm in trying to tear down, rather than to build IMHO

you don't see me going on a Harris thread any time lately and repeatedly trying to drag her

in fact I stuck up for her a lot over the Biden segregationist shitstorm

[qazplm135]

66. no, it didn't flat out infer anything

it said he's good at getting money from rich people. Period.

If you have a criticism about Harris then guess what, you should air it...particularly, when like my comment in this thread, it's directly on point.

I don't care if you stuck up for her or not. This isn't a sports game, and it isn't Risk with alliances.

It's a discussion board. If Pete does something I like, I will say so. If he does something I don't like, I will say so. Same for the other candidates, including Harris.

You know like when I said her response to Gabbard about her AG time was poor and her decision to initially ignore Iowa was misguided.

See, I don't get all butthurt when my candidate is criticized about something, because she isn't perfect, and the primaries are about addressing strengths and weaknesses. So get over it.

[Celerity]

67. your comments throughout this have been 'on point' only in terms of incorrect posturing

and you most definitely did infer exactly what I said you inferred, with your chippy little

'the only code he's cracked is getting rich people to give him money.'

slag off

it is right out in the open for anyone to see

[qazplm135]

68. it's right there for you to see

because you see with the eyes of the butthurt my candidate is the best and does nothing wrong supporter.

[Celerity]

69. lol, you obviously have seen little of my posting over the past year if you think that nt

[renate]

70. that's very different from the impression I originally got

My daughter told me the abbreviated version of what Pete said and I was surprised and disappointed, because he's my second favorite and that sounded pretty snooty and dismissive.

Thanks for finding a transcript of what he said, for those of us who can't, or don't like to, play videos. That changed my impression considerably.

[Celerity]

71. it was a typical TYT, JD, etc etc and all their twittersphere types (see my examples in this thread)

hit job with a chop-quote taken out of context. I am very disappointed to see AOC, who I am a big fan of, buy into the hot-take and pile on.

The ultimate irony is counting Warren's 10m in account transfers, only 48% of her total monies before Q3 were from small donors. 49% of Buttigieg's monies have come from small donors. 10m of Sanders totals has come from transfers of preexisting funds, and when the transfers are added in, even he had only 60% of his total monies from small donors prior to Q3. Prior to Q3, Buttigieg had over 400,000 individual donors, and had well over half a million (580,000) individual donors by Q3. His average Q3 donation was 33 USD (per MSNBC today). For comparison, Sanders had an average donor contribution of 27 USD in Q3 (again per MSNBC today.) But hey!, lets say, more than likely via a far left shit-stir tweet, that Pete is basically only fundraising from the rich, and shits on small donors, lolol.

If there is anyway for you to do so, I urge you to listen to the full 40 second clip below. It really shows how much the far left ran with it all and spun it up.

Link to tweet

[ChubbyStar]

14. Welcome Back

So nice to see people come back!

[cwydro]

8. I like Pete, but that's bothersome.

But, at least Beto found a way to get in the news lol.

[Celerity]

10. lol, The Young Turks and some Sirota re-tweeters, yawn

[RLG]

15. Tomorrow night's debate should be a doozy.

You know this may be the highlight.

It'll be interesting to hear Mayor Pete talk his way out of this.

[Celerity]

18. nothing to talk his way out of, it was a cut-quote, taken out of context

[RLG]

41. It seems as though many of his quotes are "taken out of context".

You can only BS so much before someone calls him out on it.

[Celerity]

43. he doesn't speak in soundbites and it is not all that common, the main one I recall was the failed

twitter troll Tom Watson, who got smacked down hard 7 months ago when he tried that same shite. Wonkette tore him apart.

That's Not What He Said! Mayor Pete / Hillary Clinton Edition

https://www.wonkette.com/thats-not-what-he-said-mayor-pete-hillary-clinton-edition

As we mentioned in our piece about Pete Buttigieg's interview on the Morning Joe Coffee Achievers Show of Shows, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, also did an interview with Esquire magazine, published yesterday. And wouldn't you know it, the magazine's choice of a pull quote has led a whole bunch of people on Twitter to decide that Pete Buttigieg shat all over Hillary Clinton and everyone who supported her, so fuck him, that fucking entitled millennial piece of shit.

Twitter being Twitter, there is not a hell of a lot of nuance in the discussion. And that's why Yr Wonkette, just last week, inaugurated what we're afraid will have to be a regular feature during Campaign 2020: "That's Not What She/He Said," in which we take various chunks of the Dems In Disarray Narrative and give 'em a good hosing-down. So let's take a look at the idea that Pete Buttigieg is a snotty terrible man who trashed Hillary Clinton, shall we? We shall!

First up, one of several tweets accusing Buttigieg of just LOVING the glass ceiling and wanting to keep women in their place. (For those keeping score at home, this is actually the position we hope to debunk):

Link to tweet

Gosh, that DOES look terrible! And if it had been all he'd said, then it would be terrible. Except it's a pull quote that pulls the quote right out of any context. Here's the full question, and Buttigieg's answer, and we think the context matters more than a little:

snip



also here is the Esquire article in full


The Esquire Interview: Mayor Peter Buttigieg

The South Bend, Indiana mayor and Democratic presidential candidate talks socialism, the Green New Deal, "I'm With Her," what Democrats can learn from James Joyce(!), and more.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a26861236/peter-buttigieg-interview/



The more I see and learn about Mayor Pete the more I really really like

[RLG]

45. But is supporters always make excuses for him.

He can't do this against someone like Trump, who will make mincemeat of him.

[Celerity]

46. we are not making excuses, we are correcting the record, you always say the same thing

[RLG]

52. How many times can you "correct the record" before he says something that you can't "correct"?

This is not the first time this has happened with him.

[rzemanfl]

50. I bought new socks today.

You give Drumpf a lot of credit, like Deutsche Bank. Why?

[RLG]

51. Let me change Trump to the GOP.

Regardless, he can't get away with it because the GOP won't let him.

[Celerity]

17. @EmmaVigeland That "pocket change" added up to $49.9 million for both Sanders and Warren

Sanders and Warren raised $6.2 million and $5.5 million more than Buttigieg in Q3, respectively, with "pocket change,"


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


How Elizabeth Warren Raised Big Money Before She Denounced Big Money

Ms. Warren wooed wealthy donors for years, stockpiling money from fund-raisers, and has used $10.4 million from her 2018 Senate race to underwrite her 2020 bid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-2020.html

[ecstatic]

21. Let everyone raise funds the way they deem best.

Pete's comments did seem a little petty, but who cares? Why was he asked about another candidate's fundraising strategy in the first place? Let the voters decide which approach we prefer.

[BeyondGeography]

22. Because his fundraising model is different

The interviewer was giving him a chance to score a point and the question itself was a lay-up. He just had to say "I want all of the above," instead of framing his answer in a way that will piss people off.

[ecstatic]

25. I wish I could view the clip.

I think Pete was probably tired and that brought out a less patient/borderline jerk side. He should avoid interviews when in that state; however, I get the point he was trying to make. trump is rolling in cash and we're going to have to compete with that.

[femmedem]

27. I wish I could view it, too, but here is the full quote in context:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287308517#post18

It sounded so unlike Pete; I knew this had to be twisted to misrepresent his full point.

[ecstatic]

29. Thanks. And now I see there

was nothing wrong with what he said. The Beto "trying to stay relevant" comment was a little rude though. lol.

[RLG]

42. It was rude.

Yet his supporters will say it was "taken out of context".

[rzemanfl]

49. Bookmarking. n/t

[femmedem]

55. I agree with you on his Beto comment.

To me, that's a bit more problematic because a big part of Pete's appeal is his character--that he remains calm and focused on policy and values. That's the first time I've seen him dip his toe in the mud.

[Celerity]

31. here is the full video of that exchange

Link to tweet

[femmedem]

28. He actually did say all of the above, but the partial quote doesn't reflect that.

Celerity posted his full response here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287308517#post18

[BeyondGeography]

44. It was a gaffe, no matter how you spin it

This woman sums it up as well as anyone:

Link to tweet

[ancianita]

24. Maybe those candidates who drop out can donate their campaign pocket change to the nominee.

[Loki Liesmith]

33. Lol I would live to launch progressive twitter into the sun

I mean I’d like to launch all of Twitter into the sun but these guys too.

[Devil Child]

34. I'll stick with Buttigieg over the never satisfied twitterverse n/t

[betsuni]

35. The idea that donated money is more moral depending on where it comes from is stupid.

It's money. It pays for the campaign. Pete is correct.

[Celerity]

37. +10000

Plus I refuse to lend credence to poutrage chop-quote tweets from The Young Turks journos, Justice Democrats, and Sirota re-tweeters.

I didn't see them getting the vapours over Russia plumping up Bernie and Stein in 2016.

[peggysue2]

53. You're right, it is stupid

Another faux outrage. Campaigns are hideously expensive. That's the point. Let's look at how much Trump has raised for his reelection bid. You think the moral message will play out as an advantage if the sum is crushed by the opposition, run over 10x, 100x?

Dumb and dumber. You want to be pure? Or do you want to win?

Buttigieg is simply being realistic.

[Music Man]

48. It's just a metaphor.

Anyone who has followed Buttigieg understands that he has no interest in belittling ordinary people participating in the process.

He was presented with a question about why he is pursuing wealthy donors, and frankly, his rationale is not a bad one. He's not saying that small donations are meaningless, just that they alone won't do the job against a Trump-led GOP in the era of Citizens United.

Perhaps the phrase "pocket change" is tone deaf, but it's not like he said, "We're not going to beat Trump with sad little donations from ignorant yokels."

Take things for how people intend them.

[myohmy2]

54. Hamby...

"...you have raised a lot of money from wealthy people..."

Mayor Pete,

"...we are going up against the President of the United States..."

...in the Democratic primary?

...

[LanternWaste]

56. Another instance of "those who want to be offended will be offended..."

The melodramatic overreactions are typical and unsurprising, as we allow context and nuance only for "our guy."

But sure... pretend offense. It's what's for dinner.

[Tarc]

58. This is the time of year when the middle-of-the pack single-digit-percenters try to make up ground

It ain't working.