Thursday, December 26, 2019

Can Democrats raise money from wealthy people?


How money is raised is body language. 


Democrats are at a crossroad.


Democrats are deciding whether they are the party of the poor, the working poor, and the struggling middle class, people angry with a rigged system and demanding a new, fairer deal. FDR's Party. Bernie's Party.

Or are they the party of educated people comfortable enough with their situation that they are open to outsiders and victims of discrimination, and willing to share their country and its benefits with them. Clinton's Party. Obama's Party. Biden's Party.

Buttigieg event in Portland, Oregon.
Bernie Sanders points one path, arguing that justice and morality require America do a much better job taking care of the poor and working people of our nation and that requires a major change in the allocation of wealth and power. The middle class is struggling, which made them open to the false and dangerous path of a "pathological liar" Donald Trump.

Sanders sees a political path toward justice by motivating the vast majority of the people--the 90%--with new, redistributionist policies that address their concerns. 


A new Democratic Party would reduce power not just of billionaires, but also prosperous managers and professionals and comfortable bourgeois who do the work of the billionaires. They got ahead and don't see big problems. They attend fancy fundraisers.


Sanders and Warren raise money from the internet, not from fundraisers.

Elizabeth Warren called Pete Buttigieg to account: "We made the decision many years ago that rich people in smoke-filled rooms would not pick the next president of the United States. Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States."

Internet donations work for Warren and Sanders, but not well enough for the others, so Buttigieg and Biden are doing it the old way, with larger checks from wealthy people from fundraising events. Biden and Buttigieg have appeal, both personally and for their policies of incremental improvement. They are following a path set by Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama, who had made peace with the wealthy. 
The new clean money. Click a button.

Wealthy, educated people found Clinton's Third Way partnership talk to be acceptable if not ideal, and they considered the GOP's alliance with social conservatives uncomfortable, especially on Wall Street, in Hollywood, and in the universities. Both parties were globalist, foreigner and immigration friendly, and supported free trade. Democrats were  more tolerant, and nice people. They had all gone to school together.

Besides, the world they see is getting richer.

Not everyone. Not nearly. This failure of trickle down culminated in a populist revolt in 2016, led by Sanders and Trump. Sanders had the challenge of attempting to displace Hillary, who had paid her dues to the Party. Trump said the problem was rich professionals like Hillary, in cahoots with Wall Street, and dangerous, uncontrolled immigration.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are saying that Democrats by raising money from wealthy people, are ratifying an unjust status quo that let  prosperous people get rich when others struggle. They are signaling the direction of the Party by choosing to represent people succeeding in the system--the opposite of populism.

It is a dilemma. If pressure from Sanders, Warren, and the progressive activist base forces Biden and Buttigieg to stop raising money from the wealthy, then their campaigns collapse. But continuing to raise money from the wealthy sends the message they are missing the populist wave. 

If Biden and Buttigieg don't communicate they align with the frustrated working person on economics--left populism--they can be sure Trump will connect with them by appealing to their fears, ethnocentrism, and nationalism--right populism.

It worked in 2016.



9 comments:

Ayla said...

Why can Biden and Mayor Pete NOT raise their funds from working people, with their web pages?

If Biden and Pete's campaign will collapse without funds from the wealthy, collapse is what needs to happen, ASAP. Democrats who don't get the enthusiastic support of the working class lose in the general election. Best to take them down NOW.

Peter, you need to listen to Bernie's stump speech. He gets the huge crowd screaming that they are willing to work for people they don't know -- willing to work against discrimination, willing to work for homes for people who need them, willing to work for health care for people they haven't met, willing to welcome immigrants. You've presented a false dichotomy between the campaigns of Bernie vs Biden/Pete. The struggling people cheering for
Bernie ARE willing to share, and it's slander to imply they are not.

Up Close: Road to the White House said...


The wealthy are voters, too. The trouble with counting on the Bernie demographic is the following:
1. It skews young. It is a big deal to get 35% of them to vote. People my age--70--vote at 75% turnout.
2. It skews less educated and poor. They have problems but they don't think voting matters so they don't vote, so, in fact, politicians who are smart and good worry about those people, but don't worry about getting their votes. Most of the social services for my community, Medford, go to west Medford, the poorer area. People there vote heavily Republican, against their economic interest.
3. Those working class people Ayla is concerned about are more interested in social issues: anti abortion, keeping poeople poorer than themselves from getting benefits, saying "Merry Christmas", being afraid of illegal immigrants than they are economic issues. See how many votes Sanders will get in west Medford. He will be wiped out there.
4. The sad reality is that if we want policies that help the working poor we need them to stay home and let prosperous people in Ashland and Medford do the voting. That is where the Democratic precincts are. But don't believe me: Hover the map over a working class area and see how red it is. This is a fascinating website, showing by precinct what the Trump/Hillary vote was: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-2016-voting-precinct-maps.html?action=click&module=Trending&pgtype=Article&region=Footer&contentCollection=Trending#6.80/43.72/-124.14/80525

Up Close: Road to the White House said...



In response to a question sent me by a reader. I was born in Medford, graduated from Medford High School, graduated from Harvard in 1971, with Honors in History, entered a Ph.D program at Yale, received a Master Degree there before leaving to be more active in politics. At Harvard and Yale I studied 20th Century political, economic, and intellectual history. Leaving Yale, I worked for the Mayor of Boston, then a US Congressman, then was elected Jackson County Commissioner in 1980 and served one term. As County Commissioner I participated in re-zoning the county and put into place the current allocations to farm, forest, industrial, etc. land zones. When my term ended I left to be a Financial Advisor at a firm which ended up as Morgan Stanley. I did that for 30 years. I am now retired.

I put myself through college fighting forest fires and growing melons on a family farm at the base of Table Rock. I have grown melons more or less constantly since 1962, when I was in junior high. I grow, sell, and give away superb vine ripe melons.

Peter Sage

Ayla said...

People who were being crushed economically under Obama would not necessarily see voting for Hillary as being in their economic interest. Why would they want to continue a status quo under which they were hurting? The only choice they were given in November 2016 was keep the status quo or vote for a clown. The Democrats need to offer a better choice this time.

Bernie beat Hillary in the 2016 Oregon primary, including in Medford. He's shown he can win votes everywhere.

Rick Millward said...

Corporations have an incentive to buy politicians who will refrain from taxing them. These same politicians have no incentive to change the system, and a compliant Supreme Court gives them cover by ruling that money equals speech. That seems undemocratic to me, and it's not working very well.

Democrats missed an opportunity to implement many reforms after the election of President Obama, and undermined his efforts for fear of the success of Sen. Sanders in 2016. This "left populist" struggle unfortunately is still underway and threatens the 2020 election, which will come down to a Biden/Sanders split. Biden Democrats will not accept Bernie and Bernie's kids turn their noses up at "moderates". This is why we need both of them to stand down and back Sen. Warren's campaign, also ASAP.

On another note, I heard a commentator say something interesting recently: "Maybe Trump's election just revealed a mean streak in the American electorate". That's putting it mildly, but more to the point is an example of the Regressive world view.

Ayla said...

Bernie's kids have created a ground game that no other candidate can match. In addition to the millions of donations, they've made millions of phone calls and knocked on hundreds of thousands of doors.

When I got a phone call from a young college student asking me to vote Yes on a property tax measure to fund her classes at the junior college, I listened and did as requested -- I voted Yes and the measure passed. Barack Obama won in part because grandparents listened to their beloved grandchildren and went to the polls and helped them make history. Bernie's kids can lead us to victory if we let the, I'm willing to bet.

Warren does not have the big movement that Bernie has mustered. First rule of politics is see a parade and join the movement -- there is an energetic, enthusiastic parade waving Bernie signs.

Bernie has authenticity that no other candidate can match. That's important when going up against a con man.

The Democratic Establishment would be making a very big mistake if they shut down the Bernie kids again in 2020. Party leadership must decide if they want to win with their stated ideals or lose with their corporate donors.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that Dems no longer represent the working class. Dems represent “prosperous managers and professionals and comfortable bourgeois who do the work of the billionaires. They got ahead and don't see big problems.”

Yes, West Medford, Central Point and rural areas all vote Republican: truck drivers, construction workers, laborers, loggers. With all due respect, Peter, the answer is not that we need these people to stay home and let the East Medford professional managerial elite make choices in their best interests because they’re too stupid to know any better. How did that work out in 2016?

I don’t think social issues matter as much as you think they do. Heck, I don’t care if Pete sleeps with a man if I can afford health care, my kids can afford college and there is some prospect of a brighter future as opposed to my further slide down the food chain. On reflection, I hope you would concede that your point #3 is somewhat condescending?

Instead, Dems need to return to their FDR roots, throw out the neoliberal bourgeois, and offer concrete material benefits to the working class. Liz and Bernie point the way with grassroots non-corporate funding. Clinton, Obama and Biden all wear the same stripes.

Up Close: Road to the White House said...


Dear Anonymous: I would love to be proven wrong about the voting behavior of Medford neighborhoods. It is not condescending if it is objectively true, but I do hope I am mistaken. The NY Times calculator does a very good job of predicting voting behavior.

Predictors:
First race.
Then religion
Then homosexual or straight
Then college or not
Then Protestant or Catholic

Notice it is not about income or joblessness. It is about identity. Identity is built around the culture war, not economics.

Take the quiz

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/08/opinion/sunday/party-polarization-quiz.html

Sally said...

Maybe Trump's election just revealed a mean streak in the American electorate."

Maybe it just revealed resentment & a rebellious streak. That's my read. You might not like how it's playing out, but I think you're missing the locus of the resentments.

In other contexts, advocating block voter suppression would not play well.