No you asshat I’m pro Palestine because I don’t like seeing innocent people getting murdered or starved to death by a cruel and evil government for no good fucking reason.
A) That may be true for some Democrats. It’s definitely not true for a lot of them, though, since a lot people really do think genocide is bad. Shocking as that may be.
B) So what? If that is what the voters really want, is that so bad? For instance, most voters don’t want abortion bans. Assholes like Cruz keep pushing for stuff most people don’t want.
Man that company is terrible. All they do is make products the customers actually want.
My kids new teacher is something else. She creates a learning environment that kids enjoy and all the kids are doing so well on standardized tests. All she cares about is doing her job right!
Sincerity is what I look for in a romantic partner, not in a politician. I want a representative who represents me, not tries to lead me.
Cruz out here acting like Democratic leadership hasn’t been allowing AIPAC to dump millions into primaries to unseat pro-palestinian Democrats, lol. I dunno how he’s survived so long while being so bad at spin.
Same thing they did when the NRA tried to play bothsides; create party rules to ban party members from taking money from them.
AIPAC is the single biggest donor of GOP money into Democratic races, they are spending millions right now to unseat people like Jamaal Bowman and replace them with right-wingers like George Latimer. It’s in the party leadership’s interest to put a stop to that. Allowing this right-wing influence into the Democratic party is how we end up with conservative obstructionsts like Manchin.
Banning Democratic candidates from taking campaign contributions from outside actors like the AIPAC, but those are a pretty small drop in the bucket of the total spending.
This article summarizes the spending on the Bowman election.
About $22 million has been spent on the Bowman/Latimer race. About $6 million of that comes from campaign spending which you suggestion might address. It would be pretty easy to bypass the restriction because most of the AIPAC funding comes from bundling individual donations; the AIPAC could send links to contributors and have them directly donate to Latimer's campaign as individuals completely bypassing the process. So not really much the DNC can do there.
The majority of the money being spent on the campaign (about $16 million) is from independent PACs. Even if the DNC did ban contributions from these groups going directly to campaigns, that portion of their spending is really a very small piece of the funding that's being addressed (less than $3.2 million). The vast majority is really outside the candidates control, if a PAC wants to send out mailers and run advertisements they can pretty much do it with impunity.
How is the DNC leadership expected to control the spending of PACs and the contributions of individuals? (Your original claim was the DNC is allowing these things to happen, I'm simply rephrasing the claim not trying to move the goal posts).
We 100% need campaign finance reform, and less outside influence on elections in general, but blaming this situation on the DNC doesn't seem appropriate.
Imagine if we replaced the powers that be with marketing execs.
What stance should we have on an issue? We did a survey and determined it. Turns out 51% of people want X so we did X. Oh and tons of tourists and immigrants are flowing in now because we figured out what people wanted and gave it to them.
It would be an interesting experiment. Put the people running marketing for say McDonald’s in power for a year. See what simply giving people what they have made clear that they want would result in.
There’s an X factor though. Which is, what will actually gain/lose votes. Also known as priority/secondary issues. They may decide 80% want A, but those 80% won’t make decisions based on A.
To look at it from a marketing exec perspective, they made Blade Runner 2049. It was made due to strong nostalgia, it was extremely well received, and it bombed.
Bud Light dropped from being the top selling beer because a minority of people stopped buying it without as many new customers.
McDonald’s has such a strong brand that they keep increasing their prices without losing too many customers.
Right they won’t be perfect but I still think it would be worth a try. Approach government policy like a business would. What will attract people to the area that would make them pay taxes.
What would be so bad about government trying to give people what they want when they want it? People want clean water, so give them clean water. People don’t want to spend a lot on housing so build more housing. Just treat government services as a value added.
I would much rather that compared to what we have now where some failure lawyer just decides what people need. And if you look at social issues I am completely right. If someone say at the marketing department at Walmart started bashing trans people they would be fired within minutes.