President Marianne

[vhstapes]

We gotta get those numbers up! The right got to elect a meme for president, it's our turn now!!!

[rsersen]

Not only does she need to up her polling to 2%, but apparently the next debate also has a funding threshold that needs to be met:

Grassroots Fundraising Threshold. Candidates must submit a certification, executed by the Presidential candidate’s campaign Treasurer, demonstrating that the campaign has received donations from a minimum of (1) 130,000 unique donors; and (2) 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 U.S. states. For the September debate, qualifying donations must be received by 11:59 P.M. on August 28, 2019.

https://www.marianne2020.com/

She's currently ~30,000 donors short of that goal. Now is the time guys, let's be the change we want to see.

[quickdraw3457]

Grassroots Fundraising Threshold. Candidates must submit a certification, executed by the Presidential candidate’s campaign Treasurer, demonstrating that the campaign has received donations from a minimum of (1) 130,000 unique donors; and (2) 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 U.S. states. For the September debate, qualifying donations must be received by 11:59 P.M. on August 28, 2019.

I'm not one for politics much but I have to say this seems really * up to me. It's like they're throwing all pretenses out the window and now just outright saying "whoever has more money still has a chance" instead of pretending it was actually based on the issues.

[Gergall]

Thanks for that link - looks like you don't need to average 2%, you just need to be able to show a few polls where you successfully did hit 2%. Each candidate can cherry-pick their own best polls.

That will still narrow the field quite a bit but we'll probably get more than just the top 6.

[dorshe1]

Grassroots Fundraising Threshold. Candidates must submit a certification, executed by the Presidential candidate’s campaign Treasurer, demonstrating that the campaign has received donations from a minimum of (1) 130,000 unique donors; and (2) 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 U.S. states. For the September debate, qualifying donations must be received by 11:59 P.M. on August 28, 2019.

I'm not one for politics much but I have to say this seems really * up to me. It's like they're throwing all pretenses out the window and now just outright saying "whoever has more money still has a chance" instead of pretending it was actually based on the issues.

Fundraising is the #1 indicator of a campaign''s health. Period. End of story. These requirements are an incredibly low threshold for a presidential election AND it shows that the campaign has widespread geographical support, which is needed to win the nomination.

They are not telling people they can't run, they are just pointing out that after at least 6 months you have not met certain criteria that show you have a serious chance to win the election so you can't be in the debate.

Thanks!

[Cam Solusar]

It seems like a 98% chakra alignment rating should overwhelm such crude material concepts as opinion polls and wealth.

[BrenDerlin]

Grassroots Fundraising Threshold. Candidates must submit a certification, executed by the Presidential candidate’s campaign Treasurer, demonstrating that the campaign has received donations from a minimum of (1) 130,000 unique donors; and (2) 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 U.S. states. For the September debate, qualifying donations must be received by 11:59 P.M. on August 28, 2019.

I'm not one for politics much but I have to say this seems really * up to me. It's like they're throwing all pretenses out the window and now just outright saying "whoever has more money still has a chance" instead of pretending it was actually based on the issues.

It's actually quite the opposite, since the requirement isn't based on total funds raised (which I agree would be really * up), but on the number of unique donors. Many of the candidates who are taking in tons of wall street/big pharma/etc. money are having trouble hitting that threshold, since it requires having a wider base of support instead of getting a lot of money from a few billionaires. The candidates who have refused big donor money and prioritized small-dollar donations are passing it easily, and it's meant to elevate candidates who connect more with the grassroots and less with these people.

It's meant to balance out polling, which filters for "likely voters" and is often conducted only through landlines (and thus often ends up favoring voters who are older, whiter, and more well-off).

On a semi-related note, the NYTimes just came out with an interactive map of where all these individual donors are located and I found it super fascinating: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ising.html

[Meto]

Grassroots Fundraising Threshold. Candidates must submit a certification, executed by the Presidential candidate’s campaign Treasurer, demonstrating that the campaign has received donations from a minimum of (1) 130,000 unique donors; and (2) 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 U.S. states. For the September debate, qualifying donations must be received by 11:59 P.M. on August 28, 2019.

I'm not one for politics much but I have to say this seems really * up to me. It's like they're throwing all pretenses out the window and now just outright saying "whoever has more money still has a chance" instead of pretending it was actually based on the issues.

It's actually quite the opposite, since the requirement isn't based on total funds raised (which I agree would be really * up), but on the number of unique donors. Many of the candidates who are taking in tons of wall street/big pharma/etc. money are having trouble hitting that threshold, since it requires having a wider base of support instead of getting a lot of money from a few billionaires. The candidates who have refused big donor money and prioritized small-dollar donations are passing it easily, and it's meant to elevate candidates who connect more with the grassroots and less with these people.

It's meant to balance out polling, which filters for "likely voters" and is often conducted only through landlines (and thus often ends up favoring voters who are older, whiter, and more well-off).

On a semi-related note, the NYTimes just came out with an interactive map of where all these individual donors are located and I found it super fascinating: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ising.html

If I were trying to find a metric that balances against the polls skewing older, whiter, and more well-off...I don't think I'd choose political donors.

[JarJarDrinks]

Grassroots Fundraising Threshold. Candidates must submit a certification, executed by the Presidential candidate’s campaign Treasurer, demonstrating that the campaign has received donations from a minimum of (1) 130,000 unique donors; and (2) 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 U.S. states. For the September debate, qualifying donations must be received by 11:59 P.M. on August 28, 2019.

I'm not one for politics much but I have to say this seems really * up to me. It's like they're throwing all pretenses out the window and now just outright saying "whoever has more money still has a chance" instead of pretending it was actually based on the issues.

It's actually quite the opposite, since the requirement isn't based on total funds raised (which I agree would be really * up), but on the number of unique donors. Many of the candidates who are taking in tons of wall street/big pharma/etc. money are having trouble hitting that threshold, since it requires having a wider base of support instead of getting a lot of money from a few billionaires. The candidates who have refused big donor money and prioritized small-dollar donations are passing it easily, and it's meant to elevate candidates who connect more with the grassroots and less with these people.

It's meant to balance out polling, which filters for "likely voters" and is often conducted only through landlines (and thus often ends up favoring voters who are older, whiter, and more well-off).

On a semi-related note, the NYTimes just came out with an interactive map of where all these individual donors are located and I found it super fascinating: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ising.html

If I were trying to find a metric that balances against the polls skewing older, whiter, and more well-off...I don't think I'd choose political donors.

So what would u suggest? Number of Twitter followers?

[Meto]

Grassroots Fundraising Threshold. Candidates must submit a certification, executed by the Presidential candidate’s campaign Treasurer, demonstrating that the campaign has received donations from a minimum of (1) 130,000 unique donors; and (2) 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 U.S. states. For the September debate, qualifying donations must be received by 11:59 P.M. on August 28, 2019.

I'm not one for politics much but I have to say this seems really * up to me. It's like they're throwing all pretenses out the window and now just outright saying "whoever has more money still has a chance" instead of pretending it was actually based on the issues.

It's actually quite the opposite, since the requirement isn't based on total funds raised (which I agree would be really * up), but on the number of unique donors. Many of the candidates who are taking in tons of wall street/big pharma/etc. money are having trouble hitting that threshold, since it requires having a wider base of support instead of getting a lot of money from a few billionaires. The candidates who have refused big donor money and prioritized small-dollar donations are passing it easily, and it's meant to elevate candidates who connect more with the grassroots and less with these people.

It's meant to balance out polling, which filters for "likely voters" and is often conducted only through landlines (and thus often ends up favoring voters who are older, whiter, and more well-off).

On a semi-related note, the NYTimes just came out with an interactive map of where all these individual donors are located and I found it super fascinating: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ising.html

If I were trying to find a metric that balances against the polls skewing older, whiter, and more well-off...I don't think I'd choose political donors.

So what would u suggest? Number of Twitter followers?

Unfortunately, Obama already had his two terms.

[Aglets]

The guy Dems spent 2 hours attacking the other night?

[WiseMarsellus]

did we watch the same debate? the only occasion i recall democrats even lightly criticizing obama was in asking biden if he supported obama's pre-daca deportation policy. i can't remember another time that came up.

don't get me wrong, i dislike obama and if people were criticizing him i'm all for it. but what gave you the impression that happened?

[dorshe1]

did we watch the same debate? the only occasion i recall democrats even lightly criticizing obama was in asking biden if he supported obama's pre-daca deportation policy. i can't remember another time that came up.

don't get me wrong, i dislike obama and if people were criticizing him i'm all for it. but what gave you the impression that happened?

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/ ... en-1444825

Thanks!

[WiseMarsellus]

that article is heavy on accusations of attacks against barrack obama and light on the actual details of those attacks. as far as i can tell it's just the one instance i cited

[Aglets]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/opin ... obama.html

It's not that they are attacking him by name. Just his policies.

Making it a crime to cross illegally.......fix the ACA vs blowing it up......etc.

The Times piece is a bit dramatic but i think the underlying point is valid.

[WiseMarsellus]

if pursuing different policies counts as attacking obama now, then ok. that seems a bit of a stretch in my eyes. also it's a bit dishonest to frame medicare for all as being anti-obama given that obama has endorsed it

[BrenDerlin]

Oh well. Turns out all orbs and crystals get you are a lot of ironic memes.

Has anyone started a "President Bernie Sanders" thread yet? Should I make a new one or just change the title of this one?

Cause idk how aware you all are of this but he's going to be our next President.

[rsersen]

he's going to be our next President.

Well I'm sold. Not like a declarative statement made 10 months before an election has ever aged poorly.

[Aglets]

Today is the day that love has lost.

[Gergall]

Oh well. Turns out all orbs and crystals get you are a lot of ironic memes.

Has anyone started a "President Bernie Sanders" thread yet? Should I make a new one or just change the title of this one?

Cause idk how aware you all are of this but he's going to be our next President.

Biden has a good lead and is doing well in the early states.

Does anyone know if, as a resident of NY, there is a way that I can safely and legally place a $100 bet on Biden?

I would like to set up a situation where if Bernie wins I won't mind losing the $100 and if Biden wins hey, at least I got some money.