ActStriker
Member
So we at #WarrenOrBust now?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dem donors: Warren VP pick could dry up Wall St donations
- Thread starter boiled goose
- Start date
- Status
So we at #WarrenOrBust now?
boiled goose
good with gravy
Doubt it haha.
Warren in the Senate is better I think.
Hardcore bernie fans have already turned on Warren haha.
The correct answer is to continue to hand-waive any negative press. Follow it up with some fearmongering of Trump if that isn't effective.
The Albatross
Member
I don't think that Hillary is leaning towards Warren in either way. Warren is on the shortlist because she never endorsed Sanders, despite that they both seem to be from the same progressive reformist wing of the Democratic party.
Consider also that if Warren is named VP, Republican governor Charlie Baker will appoint her replacement. That said, Baker is a progressive Republican and considered a political moderate -- he's also currently the most popular politician in America -- so it's unlikely that he'd appoint a strong conservative to the post.
Oh, and let's be honest here, Clinton will obviously accept money that's given to her from Wall Street. Just like Barack Obama, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and every other Democratic or Republican candidate has done for the last 30 years. Obama set a high water mark for a presidential candidate receiving money from Wall Street in 2008 and few progressives were up in arms about it. Clinton shouldn't be held to some unfair expectations.
Consider also that if Warren is named VP, Republican governor Charlie Baker will appoint her replacement. That said, Baker is a progressive Republican and considered a political moderate -- he's also currently the most popular politician in America -- so it's unlikely that he'd appoint a strong conservative to the post.
Oh, and let's be honest here, Clinton will obviously accept money that's given to her from Wall Street. Just like Barack Obama, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and every other Democratic or Republican candidate has done for the last 30 years. Obama set a high water mark for a presidential candidate receiving money from Wall Street in 2008 and few progressives were up in arms about it. Clinton shouldn't be held to some unfair expectations.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I agree that it is a terrible strategy.
Donors are openly admitting that donations are legalized bribes and the response is simply: "Nuh uh".
Freezie KO
Banned
I don't think Warren is a particularly great pick because I'm afraid Americans might reject a dual woman ticket.
That said, it's pretty clear that these are the political calculations that Clinton is all too comfortable making. These are the kind of strings that come attached to big campaign donations from Wall Street and other interests.
It's why saying, "Well show me one instance of Clinton bribery!" is dumb. Money in politics is more insidious than that. And while its influence is one of many factors involved in making decisions, that doesn't mean Wall Street's money is less powerful.
Still voting for Clinton, but let's be honest about the way money in politics actually works.
That said, it's pretty clear that these are the political calculations that Clinton is all too comfortable making. These are the kind of strings that come attached to big campaign donations from Wall Street and other interests.
It's why saying, "Well show me one instance of Clinton bribery!" is dumb. Money in politics is more insidious than that. And while its influence is one of many factors involved in making decisions, that doesn't mean Wall Street's money is less powerful.
Still voting for Clinton, but let's be honest about the way money in politics actually works.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Yup.^
Having an honest discussion is difficult when it makes your politicians of choice look bad though
andythinkpad
Member
That's probably the easiest decision for Hillary to make.
It's also difficult when you're talking to people who would prefer subtweeting to actually engaging!
What would you consider an honest discussion? So far it looks like it would require people to agree with you that Hillary is corrupt. That seems like a pretty high barrier to entry.
StopMakingSense
Member
To be frank, the title and the article don't really match. A lot of anonymous speculation by fundraisers.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I'm not saying politicians are uninfluenced by donors. I'm saying that this doesn't seem to be a very good example of that, despite your earlier posts in this thread pretty clearly implying that Clinton won't picking Warren because of donor influence. It seems as though you even agree that Clinton shouldn't and won't pick Warren, but that didn't stop you from setting the tone of this thread as "Clinton is being bought again!" Only to retreat the most nebulous and agreeable version of your complaint when confronted.
I agree with you that there is too much money in politics. I agree that the influence donors exercise over candidates is usually demonstrated by a more "soft power" that doesn't lead to obvious quid pro quo deals. I agree that even without being able to point out these deals, we can still draw conclusions about where candidates loyalties lie. I would love nothing more than to have a President who was so committed to avoiding appearances of corruption that s/he didn't need to accept any outside donor money from Wall Street. Nonetheless, this seems like a really stupid article to use to make that point.
Wow, you're not kidding. Updated title.
hammysaurusrex
Member
Yeah, the article seems fundamentally confused. If you were really scared of Warren from a regulatory / legislative stand-point, putting on the VP political hand-cuffs is exactly what you would want in comparison to her greater power as a senator.
JesseEwiak
Member
Wouldn't be surprised if this one of two things -
1.) One or two dumbass Dem donors are uncomfortable with Warren and blabbed to Politico about it.
2.) The smart people left in the GOP leaked this as a way to inflame the BernieorBust crowd or even make people who finally are OK with Hillary upset at her when she picks a perfectly solid progressive VP like Berecca or Perez.
1.) One or two dumbass Dem donors are uncomfortable with Warren and blabbed to Politico about it.
2.) The smart people left in the GOP leaked this as a way to inflame the BernieorBust crowd or even make people who finally are OK with Hillary upset at her when she picks a perfectly solid progressive VP like Berecca or Perez.
From the article, I think it's more that they interviewed a dozen or so Wall St folks, found out that Warren wouldn't be a popular pick, wrote an article, and then plopped an inflammatory title and lede on it.
SneakersSO
Member
Oh shit. GOD DAMMIT. I LOVE Cory Booker. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. Okay, Hillary might've finally found a way to make me vote for her (i'm voting 3rd party in the general otherwise).
Link
The Autumn Wind
This reads hilariously to me.
EatinOlives
Member
JesseEwiak
Member
So, it'd take picking DLC favorite Cory "I love destorying teachers unions and telling Obama to stop being so mean about Bain Capital" Booker for you to vote for Hillary? Wha?
boiled goose
good with gravy
Sorry if I am spotty on my responses. At work.
So to start, you don't think Hillary is influenced by donor money?
If she is, you don't think this is corruption?
I'm trying to see where we disagree, because if we agree, but it's not that big of a deal to you, then there is less to discuss.
This is a good start to honest discussion. I always appreciate your posts Eskimo Joe. I agree this article is not a good example because as you point out the VP pick might not be Warren anyways. That said, the fact that this is even a point of discussion is problematic.
What I found most egregious here is the openness of it all.
"Do this or else no money"
How is this not a clear cut bribe?????
Earthstrike
Member
Who said the donors influenced her though? Warren wasn't the primary pick in the first place (At least not from a logical point of view)
I mean consider this.
"Boiled goose, I won't quote your posts if you make any threads talking about your love of spaghetti!"
If you don't make threads about spaghetti, does that mean I influenced you, or that you just weren't going to do it in the first place?
From reading the article, this isn't actually what happened. The article title is not accurate.
BlastProcessing
Member
Will you eat crow if Warren ends up being the pick?
More like, "I won't donate thousands (millions?) to your election campaign if you make any positive threads about spaghetti."
Let's not be disingenuous and somehow pretend like money doesn't influence people.
Vicetrailia
Member
I think that Wall-Street is incredibly stupid and inept for sending such a message. Now we get to hear bout it and get more vindictive.
Earthstrike
Member
So our proof that hilary is influenced by this money to not pick warren is an assumption that money influences people.
I guess I could just make the argument that wall street will eventually influence any politician, because the premise is that all people are influenced by money.
This would include bernie sanders, warren, jill stein, etc.
There was never a chance Warren would get the VP slot. Too many women on the ticket. Hilldawg wants someone who will be seen as a balance to her, and ironically while Warren IS in fact the yin to some of Hill's yang, the electorate for the most part wouldn't see past the pant suit.
She will pick a younger white or possibly minority man with no skeletons in his closet. Banal, in fact.
She will pick a younger white or possibly minority man with no skeletons in his closet. Banal, in fact.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Yup.
YES! They are all influenced by money!!! Where the money comes from and what money they accept determines what influence this is!!
Why are they influenced by money? Because they currently needs tons of money to win elections.
Earthstrike
Member
And if Hilary doesn't pick warren as VP, is that evidence that these donors influenced Hilary?
Think carefully about this.
Think carefully about why these donors wanted to be anonymous, but still have a story published.
timetokill
Banned
All the more reason to pick her. Get somebody with a conscience on the ticket.
Something about this doesn't smell right to me.
Contrary to popular belief, VP is NOT a useless position. Just look at Biden. Hell, just look at what Hillary was able to accomplish as FLOTUS. It really depends on what the President will allow you to do. So Warren could do some damage from there.
That said, if Wall Street were THAT concerned about Warren, the LAST place they should want her is in a Democrat controlled Senate.
Nah, something ain't right here.
Contrary to popular belief, VP is NOT a useless position. Just look at Biden. Hell, just look at what Hillary was able to accomplish as FLOTUS. It really depends on what the President will allow you to do. So Warren could do some damage from there.
That said, if Wall Street were THAT concerned about Warren, the LAST place they should want her is in a Democrat controlled Senate.
Nah, something ain't right here.
Exactly. This story is a pretty dirty attempt to lay the groundwork for future hit pieces.
Warren was NEVER a lock for the VP slot. The MOST we have known is that she MAY be on the short list. There's a lot of speculation surrounding her because she's a liberal favorite, but Warren has gotten no more public acknowledgment from Hillary than any of the other people we know may be under consideration.
But now, if Hillary DOESN'T pick her, there's grounds to say it's because she's been influenced. Feeding into a "beholden to Wall Street" narrative that has already somewhat damaged Hillary.
I'm willing to bet that picking Warren for VP is exactly what whoever planted this story wants Hillary to do.
EDIT: OOPS @ double post
UltimaPooh
Member
Where are the GAFers who said that individual donors don't necessarily represent Wall Street?
Not that I would want Warren as VP... I want her out there making laws to regulate Wall Street... not sit at a desk all day.
Not that I would want Warren as VP... I want her out there making laws to regulate Wall Street... not sit at a desk all day.
Coriolanus
Banned
boiled goose
good with gravy
Wait wait wait...
so now this article is part of a conspiracy to get Warren as VP? I thought it was Bernie supporters who made these types of claims..
So please explain to me who influenced politico, how, and why?
This is hilarious.
(BTW I'm not denying that there might be nefarious interests at play here, but whenever Sanders supporters have complained about media articles having a certain agenda, they get accused of being conspiracy theorists)
teruterubozu
Member
It's the new "Warren bros." Behold!
Sorry if I am spotty on my responses. At work.
So to start, you don't think Hillary is influenced by donor money?
If she is, you don't think this is corruption?
I'm trying to see where we disagree, because if we agree, but it's not that big of a deal to you, then there is less to discuss.
Sure, I think Hillary is influenced by donor money.
I think calling it corruption seems like a pretty aggressive claim. If Hillary goes to a fundraiser in order to get more donor money, is going to that fundraiser intrinsically corruption? Bernie Sanders edited his website to get money from donors. Was that edit corrupt? I think this leap is where a lot of disagreement on this issues lies.
I mean, it isn't news to me that rich people have political influence and don't like Elizabeth Warren. I remember when Wall Street blocked Warren from becoming the head of the CFPB. I also remember when she then became a senator as a result. One of the takeaways from that little interaction was that rich people don't have control, just influence.
I think that devoting your time and energy -- and money -- to causes you support is part of the American democratic system. At some level, donating money to a cause or campaign is not that different from volunteering days of your time for that cause or campaign. Why do we consider one acceptable and the other not?
If the real issue here is just that we live in a capitalist system, sure, I don't like that.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I would agree that "We'll give you money in exchange for doing/not doing this political favor" is an egregious bribe. I would disagree that that is at all what happened here. The article seems to be saying "some guys have said that other guys who give Clinton money think that a third set of guys won't want to give Clinton money if Warren is involved. But none of us think she would be involved anyway." Sure, it's gotta snappy headline, but I don't see anything approaching a "clear cut bribe" going on at all.
Earthstrike
Member
I never said it was part of a plan to get warren as VP, someone else did.
I also don't believe politico was influenced. Politico is just printing a story they have that represents statements made by wall street donors.
What is in question is the intent of the wall street donors. What's particularly interesting about this case is that people who are normally suspicious of wall street and their intentions, are all of a sudden okay with taking what they say at face value.
I tend to be more consistent, I'm always questioning what they say or what they are trying to achieve. I know wall street donates to both campaigns because they want to have influence no matter the party in power. So we know these donors are democratic donors, but they may also be republican donors as well. We also know these people wanted to be anonymous, but also wanted a story published. We know this story harms hilary. If these donors were democrats/hilary supporters, why would they go out of their way to create a story that damages hilary? Could it be similar to the "too liberal" ads that ricketts family made?
Probably. This makes way more sense than "Hey, I support hilary, so here's how I'm going to damage her, don't put warren on the ticket or we won't give you money, because that's totally something we see leaked to the press all the time during presidential campaigns."
These statements were made with the intent of capitalizing on the sanders supporters who think hilary is a wall street crony, and people like you are falling for it.
Again, you know wall street is corrupt. Why take their word now?
boiled goose
good with gravy
So you why do you think they want to damage Hillary?
So let's not get into semantics here. Corruption vs not corruption. Not corruption because it's legal? In my view political donations are a form of legalized bribery and therefore legalized corruption.
The degree of the influence depends on the distribution of donations. Are donations large? Are they from a specific interest group or industry you are supposed to be regulating? Etc. Money influences all politicians currently because they need money to run elections. If donations tend to be somewhat proportional to constituent support then it is less of a problem. But even then it is always a problem. The poor will always be able to donate less.
Votes, not donations should determine representation. Right? Or do we disagree here? The more donations are skewed from votes, the more "corrupt" the system or politician is.
I disagree on the last point. The problem is not a capitalistic society. I'm 100% pro well-regulated capitalism. I disagree that government should be so grossly influenced by money. That is not capitalism, that is crony capitalism.
The too fundamental problems that I see are these:
Money is not speech. (it is an exchange of property, which is obvious in every other case.... )
Corporations are not people. (also obvious, you can't jail them, etc.)
You can run a perfectly fine capitalistic economy and keep money interest influence in government limited.
Bruce Springsteen
Member
this is going to be a landslide victory, does she really need millions more for her campaign?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked