Fundraising by Democratic Presidential Candidates Looks Like A Bad Omen For Trump

  
By:  john-russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  71 comments

Fundraising by Democratic Presidential Candidates Looks Like A Bad Omen For Trump






Dave Weigel


@daveweigel









Trump raised $46 million for the quarter. For all the "impeachment is SURGING Trump's fundraising" stuff (I'm sure it did!), the Dem field is easily going to double him. That is really, really unusual. The 2012 GOP field and 2004 Dem field did not outpace incumbent presidents.





Dave Weigel covers Washington D.C. politics for The Washington Post.








Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Democratic enthusiasm is very high. There is potential there to bury Trump.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago
Democratic enthusiasm is very high.

so what's new?

hillary spent twice what trump spent for the 2016 election.

dollars spent do not equal votes :)

 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.1    3 weeks ago
illary spent twice what trump spent for the 2016 election. dollars spent do not equal votes

Ironically, Democrats are always accusing Republicans of trying to buy elections, but they routinely spend more. Also, though they love to rip Trump for spending his own money on his campaign, there seems to be very little outrage over the substantial personal fortunes being spent by the likes of Delaney, Steyer and Bloomberg.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago
There is potential there to bury Trump.

There is no potential at all, because the Democrats don't have the numbers to beat Trump, and none of the Dem candidates is really very electable. All of them are too extreme for the majority of American voters

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.2.1  Snuffy  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    3 weeks ago

well, there's always the potential to bury one candidate.  But then again,  on Aug 30th there's always 32 NFL teams who are champing at the bit to get to the Super Bowl. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    3 weeks ago
All of them are too extreme for the majority of American voters

Total bullshit. The vast majority of Americans disapprove of dishonest Donald and he will lose the popular vote by at least 5 million. The only chance he has is another electoral college win by eking out narrow victories in four key battleground States as he did last time. In the last election, 110,000 votes in two swing States are what overturned the will of the vast majority (over 3,000,000 more) of American people. 110,000 people overturned the will of 66 million Americans, so it's rather funny to hear the Republicans cry about how the very constitutional (just like the electoral college) impeachment might "overturn the will of 63 million Americans". Funny how they never seem to offer up the fact that 72 million Americans didn't vote for Trump or that the majority still disapprove of his job as President.

Now I'm sure there are many of the conservatives here who want to jump in and point out that he won the electoral college and is the President. I'm not in any way saying he didn't. I just think it's beyond dishonest to make stupid claims like Trump will win because the "majority of American voters" think Democrats are too extreme. Are there some dumb shit right wing pundits who are trying to frame every Democrat candidate as "too extreme"? Of course, that's what they get their dirty dollars for, lying or twisting and contorting facts to fit a tired, outdated and monumentally flawed conservative ideology.

"While the president remains divisive, the report finds majorities of Democrats, independents and Republicans agree on many things. Seventy percent or more of those surveyed, including majorities of Republicans, agreed with each of the following statements:

  • College education is too expensive, and states should do more to “help people afford a college education without getting buried in debt.”
  • “Rich families and corporations should pay a lot more in taxes than they do today, and middle-class families should pay less.”
  • People who don’t receive health insurance from an employer should be allowed to buy into a public plan, and pharmaceutical companies should be “penalized” if drug prices increase faster than the rate of inflation.
  • Increase “good jobs” with a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure, including both roads and “expanded production of green energy.”
  • Reduce inequality with a 2 percent “wealth tax” on net worth in excess of $50 million.

That’s not all. People of every political persuasion give President Trump negative marks on his handling of health care and poverty. When asked what they believed is the most important issue that Trump and Congress should address in the coming year, “making health care more affordable” was cited by a majority of voters. Only a third of the entire electorate supported cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in an effort to address the national debt. And 8 in 10 Democrats and three-fourths of independents believe corporations have too much power and should be “strongly regulated” — something even 49 percent of Republicans also signed off on."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/05/new-poll-suggests-winning-message-democrats/

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.2    3 weeks ago

He's going to be reelected. I guess there is no possibility of educating you about reality

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.2.4  pat wilson  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.3    3 weeks ago

We'll have to wait and see. The very fact he was elected proves that anything can happen.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.3    3 weeks ago
He's going to be reelected.

He's going to lose the popular vote by 5 to 8 million. Whether he can pull off another electoral win is still to be seen and we'll likely not know until the day after the election this year. I for one hope the majority of Americans in those swing States will vote their conscience instead of voting party lines, but we shall see.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.5    3 weeks ago
I for one hope the majority of Americans in those swing States will vote their conscience instead of voting party lines,

You see, that may be one of the biggest elitist attitudes that helped him win before. What makes you think they didn't vote their conscience? Because they didn't vote the way you did? 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.7  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.2    3 weeks ago

I'm wondering can I take a collection your rants today and make a Unabomber type manifesto I think it would be humorous with our permission of coarse.   

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.8  MUVA  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.6    3 weeks ago

As if voting for Hillary means you have a conscience.

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.9  katrix  replied to  MUVA @1.2.8    3 weeks ago
As if voting for Hillary means you have a conscience.

If you dislike Hillary - as I do - then you should dislike Trump even more, because he's 100 times more dishonest and unethical.

If you give a crap about our Constitution and our system of government, the dignity of the office of President, ethics, patriotism, morals, and our standing in the world - voting for Trump would be against your conscience. And since I don't think all those voters in swing states have no morals or ethics, that tells me they voted against their conscience. And of course, some of them just love Trump's validation of their hatred, bigotry, and conspiracy theories and have no conscience to vote against.

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.10  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    3 weeks ago
none of the Dem candidates is really very electable

Neither was Trump. You just can't tell with voters.

I understand why we get such crappy candidates these days - who in their right mind would WANT to be president, much go through all the crap to get elected - but it's still irritating.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.11  MUVA  replied to  katrix @1.2.9    3 weeks ago

I would say being self righteous isn't a argument vote for who you want I'll do the same.I love when the so called morally superior try to force feed their version of right and wrong to other people I tell the them the same thing I would tell a religious  zealot stick it where the sun don't shine.    

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.12  katrix  replied to  MUVA @1.2.11    3 weeks ago

Coming from the one who just said people who voted for Hillary don't have a conscience - that's hilarious.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  katrix @1.2.12    3 weeks ago
Coming from the one who just said people who voted for Hillary don't have a conscience - that's hilarious.

And that too is hilarious coming from someone who claims to know the conscience of people who voted for Mr. Trump.........or at least thinks they need to be indoctrinated because they are just so wrong..................

And MUVA didn't say that people that voted for Hilary didn't have a conscience. The statement was "As if".

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.14  katrix  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2.13    3 weeks ago
The statement was "As if".

The meaning was clear.

As far as the "indoctrinated" bit - I'd be happy if they'd just give up the Infowars and Breitbart and debunked conspiracy theories and willful ignorance, but unfortunately that will never happen. You can't force someone to give a shit about facts when their idol is telling them that what they see isn't real.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.15  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @1.2.11    3 weeks ago
I love when the so called morally superior try to force feed their version of right and wrong to other people

You mean like Republicans who forced us through an impeachment for a President lying about a blow job and then spending the next 20 years acting morally superior using the lying adulterer as an example of the worst of humanity, and then turning around and electing an even worse lying adulterer to represent themselves? That is truly hilarious.

your rants today and make a Unabomber type manifesto 

My posts look nothing like any extremists manifesto, though you can certainly try all you want to twist my words into some straw man you can ignorantly attack. Your comments, on the other hand,  often could be mistaken for the right wing manifesto of the El Paso Walmart shooter as can many of the right wing extremist comments I regularly run into on these boards.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.16  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.15    3 weeks ago

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury to a grand jury   and obstruction of justice was also disbarred and had to pay 800,000 dollars in restitution to Pula Jones for sexual harassment after he exposed himself to her.Not one of my post have anything to do with the right wing at all what a joke.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.17  MUVA  replied to  katrix @1.2.12    3 weeks ago

No I said you didn't have to vote for Hillary to have a conscience.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.18  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.2    3 weeks ago

The Dems are not offering anything for me but misery.  I'm not the only one.

 
 
 
katrix
1.2.19  katrix  replied to  MUVA @1.2.17    3 weeks ago
No I said you didn't have to vote for Hillary to have a conscience.

"As if voting for Hillary means you have a conscience." - I'm not buying your excuse.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.20  Split Personality  replied to  MUVA @1.2.16    3 weeks ago
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury to a grand jury   and obstruction of justice was also disbarred

He was never disbarred, he paid $25,000 to his state' Supreme Court and had his license suspended for 5 years.

He has never attempted to be reinstated although he has been eligible since 2006.

He resigned from practicing at the U.S. Supreme Court to avoid any penalties.

Like Mr Trump has done so many times, Clinton settled out of court with an accuser while admitting no wrong.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.22  Split Personality  replied to  MUVA @1.2.21    3 weeks ago

One more time...

Claim

Bill Clinton was disbarred from practicing law in Arkansas and was also disbarred from practicing law in front of the Supreme Court over the Lewinsky incident.

Answer

While Clinton can no longer practice law in front of the highest court, it’s not accurate to say that he was disbarred from either the Supreme Court or from practicing law in Arkansas. Clinton’s license was suspended in Arkansas, but he was not disbarred, and  while Clinton did face the possibility of being barred from arguing in front the U.S. Supreme Court, he resigned before the ruling was handed down.  

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bill-clinton-fined-and-disbarred-over-the-monica-lewinsky-scandal/

Breitbart insists that he was disbarred from the Supreme Court because there is no paperwork after the NYT story.

Doubtful that he ever argued a case in the Supreme Court or that he ever would practice law again after fulfilling his last term.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.23  MUVA  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.22    2 weeks ago

Snopes vs Ny times to pillars of the democrat propaganda machine.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.24  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @1.2.16    2 weeks ago
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury to a grand jury   

Yes, for lying about a blow job as I said. I can see that you agree that Republicans set the "moral superiority" bar with their impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying about a blow job as you didn't even try to defend them. Donald Trump has five times more accusations of sexual assault as Bill Clinton had and admitted on tape that he doesn't "even wait" for consent and just starts kissing women he finds attractive and "grabs them by the pussy" which is textbook sexual assault. And let me remind you, I'm not defending Bill Clinton in the least, I believed his accusers just like I believe Trumps accusers, there are just a lot more of them with dirty Donald and his own words of admission to back up their accusations.

If two dozen women accused Donald Trump of picking his nose and eating his boogers, and we had tape of Donald saying "I don't even wait, I just start picking, grab it by the crusty bit and pull. Mmmmm, salty, so good, I just can't help myself" would all of his sycophant followers really be saying "Nah, I can't believe those two dozen women saying Trump picked his nose and ate it, and his admissions were just locker room talk. I mean, everyone talks about picking and eating their boogers but they never do it, right?"...

So you can accept that Trump is a sexual predator and just be okay with that, but this nonsense that it's all fake news is just silly. He's a sick pervert and you all know it. He cheated on all three of his wives. He cheated on the current first lady right after she'd given birth to his latest child and then paid hundreds of thousands to keep those porn star mistresses quiet during the 2016 campaign in violation of campaign finance law. Dirty dishonest Donald is a sick man, a disgusting bigot and would be nothing but a small time real estate criminal and small business con-man had a minority of the American people not been bamboozled into voting for him. Much like Al Capone, he's a two bit criminal with a 95 or lower IQ who was empowered by bitter Americans simply angry with the system, mostly because they don't understand it anymore because society has moved on while they're still stuck in the past. Regardless of what you think of Trump, he will inevitably go down in history as one of the worst Presidents in US history because Presidential historians don't accept the "alternate facts" of his Presidency, they're not as stupid as those who do and can easily parse between fact and fiction. Trump will be the next Nixon in the text books and our kids and grandkids will learn about all his affairs and his Access Hollywood bus tape, and Stormy Daniels, the fact he spent the last two years of his only term as an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal campaign finance case where his coconspirator was already serving time, was accused by more than two dozen credible women of sexual assault who were far more credible than dishonest Donald and his mountain of lies.

I really don't see this as a partisan issue anymore, it's about right and wrong, and if you're having to convince yourself and others that what Trump has done and is doing is "right", then you already know what side of history you'll be on. Our grandkids will one day laugh about the scum bag Trump and the sad morons who elected him and ask "How did that happen? You didn't support him did you granddad?" to which some will be able to truthfully say "Not in a million years" while others will likely have to lie like many Nixon supporters did years later pretending like they were the one Republican who knew and didn't trust tricky Dick.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.2.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.20    2 weeks ago

Like Mr Trump has done so many times, Clinton settled out of court with an accuser while admitting no wrong.

Still confusing civil settlements with criminal penalties. Please stop conflating the two.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.5    2 weeks ago
e's going to lose the popular vote by 5 to 8 million. 

What if he does? Is THAT what Democratic candidates are striving for--a popular vote win? Did they learn nothing from the Great Hillary campaign?

I for one hope the majority of Americans in those swing States will vote their conscience instead of voting party lines, but we shall see.

Now, that sounds exactly like you don't think people who vote for Trump are voting their conscience. Based on WHAT facts?

Or is it simply  that you feel only NON-Trump voters have a conscience?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.27  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.26    2 weeks ago
sounds exactly like you don't think people who vote for Trump are voting their conscience.

They aren't. I believe they are voting intentionally, willfully, against their conscience. They know everything about Trump is wrong. They know he's a sick lying pervert and very few would allow their daughters within arms reach of the man. However, they have made a calculated decision to vote against their conscience in exchange for three specific things. First, they believe they can use him to get what they want (conservative judges/supreme court justices who might eventually overturn Roe v Wade, anti-immigrant policies/pro-white culture protectionist policies, intentionally anti-minority voter ID laws, etc.). Second, they believed Trump would royally upset the establishment which they feel is too out of touch with the rust belt and the bible belt, so throwing a monkey wrench into what they perceive as non-functioning government wasn't a real problem, and hoped that somehow destroying the establishment would be financially beneficial to them. And third, they wanted desperately to punch liberals, progressives, Hollywood and those they see as the 'coastal elites', right in the face after feeling left behind and ridiculed as "ignorant" for sticking to their traditional rural bible based educations and eschewing higher education.

It isn't that "non-Trump voters" have something the Trump voters don't, they just choose to use it and listen to it. They just didn't believe the short term gain was worth abandoning their morals, conscience and self respect.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.28  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.27    2 weeks ago

Man, you sure claim to have a lot of insight as to why some 60+million of people voted for him.

How'd you come to that conclusion? What did you do to determine that? 

Someone who votes differently than you may very well have reasons you simply can't fathom as to why they vote as they do.

I never claim that Democrats don't have a conscience simply because they vote differently. That is a weak accusation I don't engage in.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.29  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.27    2 weeks ago

The main impetus for the Trump presidential campaign was/is white grievance.  It was when Trump wanted to run in 2012 (he led the birther conspiracy theory at that time) and it was in 2016 when he ran and it is in 2020 when he runs for re-election. The people who are upset about "their" country being taken away from them are largely white evangelicals and to a lesser extent white conservative Catholics who together make up most of Trump's base. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.30  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.29    2 weeks ago
The main impetus for the Trump presidential campaign was/is white grievance.

Unlike the "Beer Summit", that was ALL about "Black Grievance" !

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago
There is potential there to bury Trump. 

Only in  your wettest of wet dreams JR.

How much more did Clinton spend and she still got her ass kicked out of her depends?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

The amount Trump has raised, just since the faux impeachment is what democrats should be concerned about!  It takes a rare individual to somehow try and turn it around. Nice try, but the dems are dead in the water.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  author  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago
Although President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign reported a hefty haul of $46 million for the fourth quarter of 2019, that total will very likely be dwarfed by the cumulative donations made to Democratic presidential candidates.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) announced that his campaign raised $34.5 million last quarter, while South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg raised $24.7 million, and entrepreneur Andrew Yang raised $16.5 million.

This means that those three candidates alone raised a total of more than $75 million last quarter, which blows past Trump’s Q4 2019 total.

Washington Post   reporter Dave Weigel estimates   that the Democratic field “is easily going to double” Trump’s fundraising, which he says is not normal for an incumbent president.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/democrats-are-collectively-going-to-crush-trump-in-last-quarters-fundraising-here-are-the-details/
 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago

Cumulative totals for Democrats are akin to cumulative vote totals for all of Congress----virtually meaningless. 

You also seem to think that the levels of donations will remain steady as candidates on the Democratic side drop out one by one, that people who have donated to the ones who drop out will simply donate to whoever is left.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3  Just Jim NC TttH    3 weeks ago

The fact, pure and simple, that Mr. Sanders was the biggest receiver of campaign contributions on the left side should be telling. How many think he could actually defeat Mr. Trump when the dust settles?

Better think about it........................

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    3 weeks ago

If the Democrats nominate Sanders it would be a huge risk.  IF young people came out and voted in large numbers for sanders he could beat Trump. But since Sanders support is very much based on young people, the Democrats would be putting all their faith in a factor that is unproven (that a "youth vote" could overpower GOP support from older whites). 

Sanders has generally held his own or better in polling against Trump though, so the choice, both whether or not to nominate Sanders, and the potential general election outcome of Sanders vs. Trump, is on a razors edge.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 weeks ago

You are assuming that all  the "youth vote" will be there for the Democrats. Time and history has proven this theory to be wrong. Not all young people are that stupid and short sighted.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2  Nerm_L  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    3 weeks ago
The fact, pure and simple, that Mr. Sanders was the biggest receiver of campaign contributions on the left side should be telling. How many think he could actually defeat Mr. Trump when the dust settles? Better think about it........................

Bernie Sanders' edge is authenticity.  That's somewhat similar to Ron Paul's appeal.  However, Ron Paul wasn't a proven fundraiser, so he did not receive attention or support from the party establishment.

Sanders is competitive with Trump on authenticity.  Both deliver an unvarnished stump speech.  Neither are eloquent speakers and do not carefully choose their words to conform to party talking points.  A campaign between Sanders and Trump would, of necessity, become a competition between ideas for the future of the United States. 

Remember Walter Mondale's campaign ads; "where's the beef?"  In my view, Sanders and Trump are beef; they aren't mayonnaise. 

 
 
 
katrix
3.3  katrix  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    3 weeks ago
How many think he could actually defeat Mr. Trump when the dust settles?

He's way too far left. I don't see how he could possibly beat Trump. Oh, and he's also too old - but then so are Trump and Sanders.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

Hillary Clinton's fundraising (@ $1.2 billion) was almost double that of Donald Trump (@ $0.65 billion).  And Clinton outspent Trump by almost a 2 to 1 margin, too.

Campaign fundraising was not a reliable indicator for the 2016 election and won't be for the 2020 election either.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @4    3 weeks ago

I dont think fundraising proves much, just like the weekend box office totals dont prove whether or not a movie is any good. 

But Trump likes to brag about it,  and he appears to be losing the fundraising race badly, so maybe he should stop bragging about it.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    3 weeks ago

Just about everything Trump says and does seems to ultimately work out for him.

You can't keep a proven winner and leader down!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.1.2  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    3 weeks ago
I dont think fundraising proves much, just like the weekend box office totals dont prove whether or not a movie is any good.  But Trump likes to brag about it,  and he appears to be losing the fundraising race badly, so maybe he should stop bragging about it.  

I agree.  But Trump's braggadocio isn't any different than what other politicians do.  To me, bragging about spending public money is worse than bragging about fundraising. 

The key thing to keep in mind is that both parties tend to provide more support for their best fundraisers.  Fundraising is an indicator of who the party establishment are going to support.

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.3  katrix  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    3 weeks ago
But Trump likes to brag about it,  and he appears to be losing the fundraising race badly, so maybe he should stop bragging about it.  

He likes to brag about his crowd sizes too - and he really doesn't give a shit that it's clearly obviously nothing but lies. I think his mental illness makes it possible for him to actually convince himself, and convincing himself is just as important as bamboozling his worshippers, and necessary for his psychopathy.

 
 
 
CometRider
4.1.4  CometRider  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    3 weeks ago
I dont think fundraising proves much

Damn John, you seeded an article saying Democratic fundraising looks like a bad omen for Trump, are you now taking that back?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  CometRider @4.1.4    3 weeks ago
Democrats have been obsessed with the year 2020 — for its promise of redemption, revenge and a return of power — ever since Donald Trump won the presidency in November 2016.
 
Now the election year has arrived. But after a midterm rebuke of Trump at the polls, the House's impeachment of him last month and a year of campaigning by the contenders for the party's nod to take him on, his opponents find themselves no closer to their goal of ousting him than they were when he was inaugurated a little less than three years ago.
And they're spotting him a big messaging advantage, because to the extent he can stay on topic, he can make the case for himself and against them while they are still trying to figure out what they're going to sell to voters.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/analysis-democrats-2020-split-risks-handing-trump-a-big-advantage/ar-BBYxvha?li=BBnb7Kz

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.1.6  Nerm_L  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.5    2 weeks ago
Democrats have been obsessed with the year 2020 — for its promise of redemption, revenge and a return of power — ever since Donald Trump won the presidency in November 2016.

Yeah but that obsession hasn't been about the White House.  The Democrat's blue wall is slated to lose seven, possibly eight, Congressional districts (and electoral votes) in 2022.  And Democrats are not in a good position to control redistricting in the states that will gain Congressional districts (and electoral votes).

More people are moving out of Democratic enclaves than are moving in.  The old Democratic playbook of coastal politics isn't going to work as well.  The Democratic Party is being forced to deal with an existential crisis that will require changing the party's focus away from the coasts.  Democrats have forgotten how to do politics in the heartland; that's why there is a note of desperation in what Democrats are doing.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
5  jungkonservativ111    3 weeks ago

Democrats have always liked wasting money.....

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.1  Greg Jones  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @5    3 weeks ago

Yeah...like the current impeachment scandal and impasse.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6  Freedom Warrior    3 weeks ago

It’s way too early for the GOP to be raising major cash. There’s no primary competition. Meanwhile the Democrats have to pull out all stops just to get nomination. The money will be there for Trump when it’s needed.

 
 
 
loki12
7  loki12    3 weeks ago

I love this article, it proves all the posters who said that the trump tax cuts and the trump economy only benefits the rich 100% wrong.

This article demonstrates perfectly that the average blue collar worker feels comfortable enough and has enough extra money left in his paycheck to piss it away on the group of idiots running to head up the DNC ticket. They would have better odds buying lottery tickets, but it’s their money to flush down the DNC toilet if they want.

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1  MUVA  replied to  loki12 @7    3 weeks ago

It has helped the small business owner I hope he gets reelected.

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.1  katrix  replied to  MUVA @7.1    3 weeks ago

None of the small business owners I know have been helped by him, and his tariffs are hurting a lot of people.

When it comes to small business, Trump's known for stiffing them and not paying them, and suing them - helping them is the last thing he wants to do.

Unfortunately, his base isn't known for its embrace of facts, or its willingness to research things and learn the truth.

 
 
 
loki12
7.1.2  loki12  replied to  katrix @7.1.1    3 weeks ago
None of the small business owners I know have been helped by him, and his tariffs are hurting a lot of people.

That settles it, the 3 people you know represent everyone.....Sigh........

When it comes to small business, Trump's known for stiffing them and not paying them, and suing them - helping them is the last thing he wants to do.

Opinion, without bases in fact, Should he accept subpar work? 

Unfortunately, his base isn't known for its embrace of facts, or its willingness to research things and learn the truth.

Sweeping generalization, Dismissed.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

Hillary Clinton spent about twice as much as Trump, and that doesn't even count the billions worth of free air time she received from the MSM acting as her proxy and the even bigger advantage she got from google filtering search results to favor her.  

Sadly for Democrats, money can't buy the Presidency

 
 
 
katrix
8.1  katrix  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    3 weeks ago

Trump got a lot more free media coverage than anyone.

And many voters are dumb enough to vote for the person whose name they've heard the most often.

I like to joke that in my state, if Harry Byrd were on the ballot, he'd receive a lot of votes. But I'm not sure it's actually a joke!

 
 
 
Ronin2
8.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  katrix @8.1    3 weeks ago
Trump got a lot more negative free media coverage than anyone.

Fixed it for you.

Which is the reason the MSM isn't trusted anymore.

 
 
 
loki12
8.2  loki12  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    3 weeks ago
Sadly for Democrats, money can't buy the Presidency

Bloomberg thinks so, I'm seeing the same stupid insipid ad every hour at night.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  loki12 @8.2    3 weeks ago

384

" I'm seeing the same stupid insipid ad every hour at night."

We are being bombarded with Tom Steyer probably 15 times a day on the radio. He seems to be latching on to Trump's success.

I am an outsider

I spent years building up a business

I was home every night for dinner while building my business (this is an ad featuring his son saying this)

And on and on. Big corporations.......blah blah blah

I think he is trying to interfere with the American election /s

 
 
 
loki12
8.2.2  loki12  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.2.1    3 weeks ago
We are being bombarded with Tom Steyer probably 15 times a day on the radio.

The poster child for I got mine so fuck you. Made his money on coal, fossil fuels and private prisons, but that's too good for you peons. 

 
 
 
charger 383
9  charger 383    3 weeks ago

Most people's minds are already made up, raising and spending money and bombarding us with annoying advertising is mostly a waste

 
 
 
loki12
9.1  loki12  replied to  charger 383 @9    3 weeks ago
bombarding us with annoying advertising is mostly a waste

Holy shit dude, you are going to get blasted, Hillary spent 1.2 billion on her campaign, but every one knows the .01% of that, that Russia spent on facebook swayed the election, All you have to do is ask the MENSA's that keep claiming that.

 
 
 
PJ
10  PJ    3 weeks ago

This is another example of what is wrong with our election process.  It makes me ill seeing this much money being raised for an election.  There is much more we could be accomplishing with this money.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
10.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  PJ @10    3 weeks ago

Vote for the Libertarian candidate he will only raise a small fraction of the total amount wasted in the election. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
11  It Is ME    2 weeks ago

In case you forgot, the Dems are fund raising to go against each other. Not Trump ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

Trumps raising tons of money....just Because ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
11.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  It Is ME @11    2 weeks ago
the Dems are fund raising to go against each other. Not Trump !

Yup, a lot of money being burned in the DNC primary. Trump's huge war chest is reserved for the General Election.

 
 
 
It Is ME
11.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1    2 weeks ago
Trump's huge war chest is reserved for the General Election.

Yippers !

He's not running against ANY OF THEM right now, But them Dems want you to think he is. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


31 visitors