dora_da_destroyer
Master Baker
i disagree with this, if people want to spend their money to run, it is what it is. steyer wouldn't have had an audience had he not. he's not going to get the nomination, but if he's serious about politics, he may have created a bigger grassroots lane for him in a state election or senate/house race and he has a pretty damn good platform worth hearing
there's also the discrepancy in how black politicians don't garner the same individual donor participation levels for a multitude of reasons, but it's not democracy to keep us out because we don't grassroots fundraise as successfully.
at the end of the day, someone like bloomberg is polling all on name recognition, not true intent. the best ideas don't always win, but i will say candidates who put in work often do, and he's put in zero work. also, his ties to local politicians may be what deliver more than his ads
there's also the discrepancy in how black politicians don't garner the same individual donor participation levels for a multitude of reasons, but it's not democracy to keep us out because we don't grassroots fundraise as successfully.
at the end of the day, someone like bloomberg is polling all on name recognition, not true intent. the best ideas don't always win, but i will say candidates who put in work often do, and he's put in zero work. also, his ties to local politicians may be what deliver more than his ads
![]()
It would be best for democracy if only individuals could contribute to campaigns directly or indirectly, up to a certain $ limit. No rich people having outsized influence by spending tens of millions of personal funds on ads. No corporations contributing unlimited cash via Super PACs. They gotta raise that ad money from the people. Let the best ideas win, not the deepest pockets.
But America is completely controlled by corporations and the rich, so that'll probably never happen.
Last edited:
i mean i HEAR what you're saying, but it doesnt pan out in reality
)
