Last edited Wed Apr 3, 2019, 07:25 AM - Edit history (2)
Your words.
I am disgusted with how candidates depend on half a dozen mega donors to keep their campaigns competitive.
That would e Perriello, which your preferred candidate lent her name and endorsement as a progressive to his PRIMARY run for governor.
Of course Warren is going to endorse any and all democrats. Is that a problem for you?
This was a
primary, not a general, so there
was another Democrat that she could have endorsed, and no,
she did not specifically endorse "any and all" Democratic primary candidates, let alone governor candidates in primaries outside her own state. Is being informed that she did endorse a specific candidate whose campaign funding "disgusts" you a problem for you?
Elizabeth Warren made a decision to
personally endorse this particular primary candidate for governor, despite the fact that he quite literally "depended on a half dozen mega donors to keep his campaign competitive."
I'm saying that your preferred candidate does not share your belief that sort of
campaign fundraising is "disgusting" enough to disqualify them as a progressive, because apparently policies have far more weight with Senator Warren than how many out of state wealthy donors they had, or what percent of their campaign was funded by them. I think that you may want to re-examine your own metrics of who is and isn't "disgusting" in light of this information.
Is that clearer?
Which then should become obvious that money is not the ONLY criteria for winning national elections.
NO ONE here is arguing that it is. To say that they are is attacking straw man. But do go on repeating that you are the one who is "right" about something that no one is actually refuting. Unless you are trying to now claim that your "disgust" campaign funding criteriar never applied to statewide candidates, since Elizabeth Warren personally endorsed such a candidate as a progressive.
Congratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
= new reply since forum marked as read