Said Marc Lasr, a Wall Street billionaire who is used to contributing to Democratic Party candidates who start hitting him up 2 years before a presidential election, quoted in "Long List of Top Democrats Have 2020, and Money, on Their Minds" in the NYT. I don't know if he's right — that a 2020 candidate should craft a clear message this early — but I can understand resisting giving money to people if all they're really saying is that they will beat Trump. That's something that's dangerously easy to believe, but you saw what happened in 2016.
I'm trying to read between the lines and figure out what's going on with fundraising for 2020. There's no mention of Zuckerberg, who doesn't need to raise money to compete. And look at this:
Mrs. Clinton’s successor in the Senate, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, has paid more than $1 million this year through her political committees to a top online fund-raising firm, which has helped her reap $2.3 million this year in small donations for a 2018 re-election race in which she is the heavy favorite...."Reap" suggests a bountiful harvest, but is that a good return? You give up $1 million that you took all the trouble to raise and you hire a "top... fund-raising firm" and all you net is $1.3 million? Do you then take $1 million of that to pay for the next round of fund-raising?! Are people just fund-raising to pay for fund-raising?
Why doesn't this article have a darker or more frantic tone? The first sentence is: "Aides to Senator Kamala Harris of California say that her fund-raisers in Martha’s Vineyard and the Hamptons this summer have been all about helping Democrats in 2018." I feel as though they're trying to distract us with amusement at the coyness of someone who's not yet openly declared her candidacy, but what jumps out at me is here we go again with Martha’s Vineyard and the Hamptons.
Posts
66 comments:
You would think we'd get at least a year before Presidential politics would be on again.
Martha's Vineyard and the Hamptons = the Democratic base
It will be Howard Schultz. He might self-fund too.
The rank-and-file Dems are sick of their failed leaders.
They wouldn't let someone who could win in their house. Except by the back door.
Wall Street billionaire for Democrats?
LOL.
But of course.
Occupy wall street, Antifa fascists, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, & the hack Chuck "anyone who voted against Hillary is a white supremacist" Todd(D) are too busy focusing on the Koch Brothers to comment.
funding from "Martha’s Vineyard and the Hamptons ..."
It's as if the democrats are the party of the rich.
Martha's Vineyard and the Hamptons: Where better to Sock It to the Man ?
Why did Willie Sutton robbed banks?
"Reap" suggests a bountiful harvest, but is that a good return? You give up $1 million that you took all the trouble to raise and you hire a "top... fund-raising firm" and all you net is $1.3 million? Do you then take $1 million of that to pay for the next round of fund-raising?! Are people just fund-raising to pay for fund-raising?
Splendid racket, isn't it, that "top...fund-raising firm" stuff?
"Aides to Senator Kamala Harris..."
Dems, please run Kamala Harris. Please, please, please. If for no other reason than that it promises us a peak Clown World election experience for 2020.
It's too bad Democrats are so blinded by their hatred and contempt for Trump that they can't see the benefit of Trumpism. Jettison SJW identity politics, reverse the Democratic love for neoliberal managed trade agreements ushered in under Clintonism, express skepticism of public unions, support a higher minimum wage, oppose unnecessary militarism, support immigration restriction and strict enforcement of immigration law, strengthen and expand Social Security and Medicare, and support big expenditures for infrastructure. Could be a very winning strategy.
The Obama level-the-playing-field-rich-people-are-evil meme likely died with his presidency. It was a brief exception to the leftie-as-intellectual-and-economic-elite meme that has worked so well the last 100+ years.
Wait, I take back my remark re Harris. Zuckerberg would also offer a peak Clown World experience, possibly even more grotesque.
It's too bad Democrats are so blinded by their hatred and contempt for Trump that they can't see the benefit of Trumpism.
I think you are mistaking Democrat politicians for Democrats.
We may see a whole new alignment on politics by 2020. I keep posting links to this essay by Codevilla.
By contrast, however, the post 2016 Republican Party is perhaps even more wary than ever of embodying the socio-political identities of the people who have been voting Republican. Hence, with the Republican Party disqualifying itself from the battle that is actually taking place, there is no political vehicle that exists by which Americans may challenge the ruling class.
There is much demand for such a vehicle. How may the political marketplace supply it?
The Bernie bros may want Warren but she is a weak substitute for Bernie.
It will be an interesting next three years,
President Trump alone raised $7+ million in the first three months of 2017. RNC has more than double the DNC donations in 2017, the RNC has no debt.
Spending $1m to make 2.3m?? That is almost 50% commission!! And I get hammered because I earn a 3% commission!!
Maybe Dept of Labor should include this in their "Fiduciary" concerns??
If Harris is running then why hasn't she isn't she on MSNBC 24/7?
Saw her try to cross a witness in a Senate hearing. Sad.
Kamala - skin color and vagina. That's all.
If the Clintons are nowhere near these fundraisers, that is a good thing for the Democrats.
"Saw her try to cross a witness in a Senate hearing. Sad."
I saw that, too. She comes across as angry, arrogant, and incompetent.
Have I had insufficient coffee this AM or is the 'financial arithmetic/logic' in this article quite flaky?
"...is that a good return? You give up $1 million .....and all you net is $1.3 million?"
Well, ah, yes, I would suggest that actually DOES seem a fabulous "return".......it means you get an over 200% return on investment and an over 100% "net"on that investment.
Is there a way I can get in on this too?!?
Barrett/Burke 2020
@Michael K:
I think you are mistaking Democrat politicians for Democrats.
That is true; I meant Democrats who aspire to political positions (e.g. presidency).
The Bernie bros may want Warren but she is a weak substitute for Bernie.
It will be an interesting next three years,
People always found it odd when I would say that if I did not vote for Trump, I would vote for Bernie Sanders. His capitulation to the SJW crowd was depressing, but he was good on non-interventionism, and he at least gave voice to the obvious fact that illegal immigration was basically a cheap labor racket for the corporate class. I used to joke that what most Americans seemed to want was Bernie Sanders plus a wall.
On the flip side - Clinton Foundation dispensed its largesse through a crony entity that kept a generous cut while also selecting recipients.
Foxconn is the touchstone. Would you have helped this company come to Wisconsin bringing good jobs, bringing the attitudes and approaches needed to succeed in a global economy? Or would you have nitpicked it to death?
If you want growth in the economy meaning jobs then you try to figure out how to get more businesses like Foxconn. If you want growth in government meaning welfare then you try to figure out how to tax and tax and tax and tax and regulate and regulate and regulate any business that comes near your state or town. And no one comes. (unexpectedly)
The Trump voters have figured this out and the Democrats have not. The Dems aren't even on the trajectory toward it. The Dems run the cities and very soon the cities will not be able to pay the police pensions or else the cities won't be able to pay police salaries. Because the Dems call employers corruptocrat capitalists and then the employers leave. (unexpectedly) No employers, no tax base, no jobs, no pensions. Just loudmouths down at city hall praising Antifa for beating up citizens.
J. Farmer: It's too bad Democrats are so blinded by their hatred and contempt for Trump that they can't see the benefit of Trumpism. Jettison SJW identity politics...[etc.] Could be a very winning strategy.
I don't think it's a matter of their blind hatred for Trump. It's nationalist, anti-globalist "Trumpism" itself, which you recommend to them as a winning strategy, that terrifies them, not the man himself. If crude, crass, "authoritarian" Trump were on board with their world-view, they wouldn't have a problem with him at all. (And none of the useful-idiot prog masses would be noticing the bad qualities they're in daily hysterics about now.)
Like the GOPe-ers, at this juncture they're in way too deep to re-adjust to a "citizens and national-interest first" platform, or in fact to any platform that retreats in any way from balls-to-the-wall progressive transnationalism. Why should they? History is on their side, and they will bury us! And oh yeah, the money-men aren't interested in any retreat from end-stage neoliberalism.
I think some possible candidates, like Warren, will play to the angle you propose, and might even be successful at it, depending on Trump's performance in the next couple of years. But I don't see any adoption of "Trumpism" in the nationalist sense.
I wonder if Diane Sawyer(D) will interview this Wall Street Billionaire for Democrats?
You know, right after her breathless fawning expose' of Occupy Wall Street that continues to spread across "thousands of countries."
On the flip side - Clinton Foundation dispensed its largesse through a crony entity that kept a generous cut while also selecting recipients.
Hack (D) press not interested. They too, (see George Clintonopolis) made money in the backroom.
Democrat media operatives are never upset over Clinton Money Whoring. They benefit and are part of it.
@Angel-Dyne:
It's nationalist, anti-globalist "Trumpism" itself, which you recommend to them as a winning strategy, that terrifies them, not the man himself.
I agree "that terrifies them," but I think we may disagree over the "them." The "them" that are terrified are mostly the corporatist elite who have greatly benefited from these policies over the last several decades and who are the paymasters of both main parties and most of the elite institutions in our country, which is why we have relentlessly pursued these policies for years regardless of what party is in the White House or controls Congress. Most American voters are not so terrified, and many by large numbers do not want immigration. What I am saying is that an outsider politician could run roughshod over the DNC just as Trump did the RNC, put this package of policy ideas together, and present it to the American people. That, I think, could be a very successful strategy.
The Bernie bros may want Warren but she is a weak substitute for Bernie.
Warren is OLD. Democrats are OLD. OLD I tell ya!
The President after Trump must be younger than I. I'm a child of 1960. A Pox on all these Democrat and Republican Politicians who think at age 70+ that they have new ideas to steer the country. Ugh.
70 is NOT the new 50.
J.Farmer: What I am saying is that an outsider politician could run roughshod over the DNC just as Trump did the RNC, put this package of policy ideas together, and present it to the American people. That, I think, could be a very successful strategy.
Agree with this (and the rest of your comment), but where to find the "outsider", there's the rub. Not impossible - after all nobody thought that Trump would explode the GOPe candidate-pack. Can you think of anyone available for 2020 who might be able to pull this off?
What are these new ideas you speak of? There are no new ideas in political economy, just new marketing ideas. President Trump's Americanism is not a new idea, nor is anything that has come out of Hillary's or Bernie's or Warren's mouths.
Althouse said...
"Reap" suggests a bountiful harvest, but is that a good return? You give up $1 million that you took all the trouble to raise and you hire a "top... fund-raising firm" and all you net is $1.3 million? Do you then take $1 million of that to pay for the next round of fund-raising?! Are people just fund-raising to pay for fund-raising?
As others have pointed out, your math is weakened by ignoring the first $1M of return.
That's why we hire lawyers to manipulate words, not numbers.
PS: thanks for the Amazon info :)
If I could turn $100k into $230k in a few short months I would happily invest.
"Why doesn't this article have a darker or more frantic tone?" It's a mystery.
No mention of Hillary's book? Another chance for her to introduce herself to voters.....
Angel-Dyne:
Can you think of anyone available for 2020 who might be able to pull this off?
Bernie Sanders had some of the right instincts, but I think he is simply too feckless and beta to pull it off. A Jim Webb type could conceivably do it, but his nanosecond long candidacy during the 2016 campaign went absolutely nowhere. But then again, he was up against the coronated one. I don't follow horserace journalism enough to really have an informed opinion beyond broad brush strokes. But if the likes of Kamala Harris or Mark Zuckerberg are seriously being considered, then I think it is safe to say that the Democrats have not yet truly internalized the lessons of 2016, which is easier said than done. During the Republican primaries, none of the other candidates seemed to have internalized the lessons of 2008 or 2012, and I am willing to bet that if the Republican nominee had been anyone other than Trump, Clinton likely would have won it.
I write again- Clinton will run again, and this will force Michelle Obama to enter the race.
The Democrats are going to spend an enormous amount of money to win what they already have.
J. Farmer,
I liked all of your comments here. The Democrats, right now however, cannot run such a candidate- the identity politics are still too strong. It will likely take 8 years of failure to break that cycle- they are now about 1 year into it.
"Can you think of anyone available for 2020 who might be able to pull this off?
There is an obvious answer.
" I am willing to bet that if the Republican nominee had been anyone other than Trump, Clinton likely would have won it."
Agreed but the answer is in front of us. Trump 2020.
The main question is the strength of the GOPe suicide wish. A corporate tax cut can probably pass, even in the GOPe Congress. Then, if the economy takes off...
He may be baiting them with the DACA thing. "Give me a wall and I'll let the Dreamers stay"
@Michael K:
Agreed but the answer is in front of us. Trump 2020.
Agreed, but I interpreted the question as meaning specifically on the Democratic side. If a Democrat emerges and runs on the platform I broadly laid out, I could easily cast my vote for them. Partisanship has never been much of a turn on for me, but I can readily understand why we have it.
It's got to be more fun to fund raise in Martha's Vineyard and the Hamptons than to go around talking to regular working class people who might expect you do actually do something that benefits them if you win. (Or, at this point, at least not do anything harmful to them.)
A corporate tax cut can probably pass, even in the GOPe Congress. Then, if the economy takes off...
This is the most likely 2020 scenario. If there's real tax reform though I'd argue you can change the 'if the economy takes off' here to 'when the economy takes off.
It's got to be more productive to peddle influence among those who are most apt to need it, and most willing to pay well for it.
A clean tax bill that simplifies the process, removes inefficiencies, and stops trying to manipulate behavior would allow the economy to grow. Politicians won't pass such a law.
Too many benefits owed to the people in the Hamptons.
"Partisanship has never been much of a turn on for me, but I can readily understand why we have it."
Comcast had its daily hiccup and lost my response but my point was that Democrats may go for Trump even more in 2020 if he can get the economy moving and get the illegal immigration down.
Codevilla suggested he could start a third party.
I am sure Perot would have had the same problems in 1992 if he had been elected. And he could have been and by the same people who elected Trump.
If a democrat politician or wannabe candidate's first instinct is to go beg for money from Wall Street billionaires they will not be able to defeat Trump.
Look for a charismatic leader to rise from the technocratic class. Not zuckerburg. I said charismatic.
Will Trump-Hate, absent policy, be sufficient to elect a Democrat in 2020 ? It wasn't enough to elect Hillary in 2016. OTOH, Hillary-Hate was enough to win Trump a lot of votes he might not have gotten otherwise.
Of course, Trump-Hate is not, like, Hate-Hate.
Are people just fund-raising to pay for fund-raising?
At this point..yes. Soon however they will be spending the money on polling and media.
The key however is the thousands of establishment lackeys on both sides cashing in on all the fund raising.
The Dems have a number of problems. One is lack of a deep bench. They need someone from flyover country, which excludes Warren, Harris, and Gillibrand. McAulliffe of VA might have had a chance, except that he sided with the Antifa fascist thugs in Charlottesville. Bernie might want another chance, but he is getting really, really old. And, then there is the problem of the investigation of his wife.
And there is Crooked Hillary. Kinda like a zombie or vampire. The Dems probably need to put a stake through her heart AND cut off her head, to keep her from running again and screwing up their nomination. She just won't go away. She couldn't win when she had everything, including a big monetary advantage behind her. She would do significantly worse running against President Trump. And that is if her health holds up.
As long as Trump has his health, I see the Dems having a problem winning in 2020. This time around, he not only would have the Rose Garden, but also AF-1 and his personal theme song (Hail to the Chief). We already see how that is affecting the crowds he gets when he gives speeches in the flyover country that the Dems need to make headway in. What Dem could come close to the crowds that he is likely to be able to pull? Is pulling? Obama could, but can't run. Sanders maybe.Warren maybe. Who else?
As others have pointed out, your math is weakened by ignoring the first $1M of return.
You shouldn't be comparing the haul to an investment...you should compare it to how successful republicans have been in their fundraising...I bet the average republican made a much better return for their money.
The Democrats are exactly where they've always been: one charismatic empty suit away from power. Oprah in 2020 checks all the right boxes.
"Look for a charismatic leader to rise from the technocratic class. Not zuckerburg. I said charismatic."
I expect that is going to be hard to find. Excelling in technology is very typically a very different skill set than excelling in politics. We are talking the class nerds, as contrasted to the class presidents, and/or homecoming queens and kings. We shall see.
Something that is going to be interesting to watch is how the Trump Administration deals with the biggest tech giants: Google, Amazon, Apple, etc. they sided mostly with Crooked Hillary and the Dems in the last election, and, so far, seem to be doubling down on garnishing their progressive credentials (as evidenced by the public firing of the Google engineer for wrongthink). They chose poorly. The biggest are extraordinary vulnerable to attack on antitrust grounds. Because of their size, they often seem to act above the law, and have the money to buy politicians and media outlets by the bushel. Maybe the best thing that Trump could do for election right now would be to have his Daughter J antitrust section open up investigations into at least those three companies. Then, he could tie whatever they did against them to those investigations. Of course, that could be a double edged word, that gets turned around to bite Trump. Those companies are extraordinarily powerful, and have learned to play the political game quite well. Again, we shall see.
"Oprah in 2020 checks all the right boxes."
And, she is an outsider - important to the party that depends on its ability to play inside to stay viable. The Dems problem, for a long time, has been that they are the political machine party. Their politicians ascend to high elective office at a reasonable age, then hold on until they die in office. The Republicans have a broad, young, bench because they are far better turning over elective offices. One or two terms in the Senate, or as a governor, then out. The Dems have a lot of Senators who want to move up, but fewer governors. But Senators tend to have no executive experience, and very typically inconvenient voting records - unless they work hard at leaving no footprints, like Obama did, voting Present a lot, and not staying too long. Oprah has the advantages of having executive experience, a well liked, well honed, public persona, and would be an outsider. Plus, of course, she checks several diversity boxes.
"I liked all of your comments here. The Democrats, right now however, cannot run such a candidate- the identity politics are still too strong. It will likely take 8 years of failure to break that cycle- they are now about 1 year into it."
Exactly. Daily, the Dem's base moves further away from the ideas J. Farmer outlined. People bent on self-destruction, especially in self-righteousness, are impervious to distraction from their trajectory.
Teaching old donkeys new tricks doesn't seem to be working. Yet same old, same old will be hard to sell in all the places Dems need to make that sale. After Carter, it took them 12 years to figure that out, and it looks like we're in for a repeat.
Too bad. The country would be better off if the opposition weren't quite so brain dead.
"Oprah in 2020 checks all the right boxes." Hey, hey. Wait a minute. That one's mine. Predicted it last year. On this very blog. You're right, but late. Let's take it to Vegas.
Oprah would mean even more of the Western powers are led by the childless. Of course, European ones will change by then.
Democrat politician: "It's great to be here in Martha's Vineyard with all of you."
Liberal Democrat donors: "Baaaaaa."
Democrat politician: "I know that you all hate Donald Trump and Republicans as much as I do!"
Liberal Democrat donors: "Baaaaaa! Baaaaaa!"
Democrat politician: "And I couldn't help but notice how nicely your fleece has grown back since my last visit in 2016..."
Liberal Democrat donors: "Baaaaaa?"
Democrat politician: "And hey, you've probably got more than you need, right? It looks almost uncomfortably warm..."
Liberal Democrat donors: "Baaaaaa."
Democrat politician: "Now hold still... Ah, that's better. You look much more comfortable now. 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' I think somebody said that once."
Liberal Democrat donors: "Baaaaaa."
Gillibrand is from flyover country. Nobody got elected to her former Congressional seat unless the NRA was A OK with them. She opposed Obamacare, if I remember correctly. Her district north of Albany is farms and the Adirondack Park. Of course she sold all she had formerly professed out for that Senate seat.
Prof. V.O. Key (Harvard) argued that it isn’t useful to think of political positions as a spectrum, a horizontal line, with the far left on one end and the far right on the other. Thinking this way, the present political state is represented by a vertical line intersecting the spectrum: There are more voters on one side (say Left) of that line, so that side wins. If we are on the losing side (say Right), then we need to persuade enough people in the middle to come over to our side, move the vertical line, so that there are more voters on our side.
Key said, think of the political range as a circle, not a line. Voters have varying interests, so those on the upper far right side of the circle have interests that differ from those on the lower far left of the circle, but differ less from those on the upper mid-left. To represent the current situation, draw a line through the circle AT AN ANGLE. If there are more voters in the circle on (say) the Left side of that line, then that side wins. But if you want to change that result, what you need to do is change the angle of the line dividing the circle into two sides, so that there are more voters on your side of the line.
That is, you need to change the issues that divide the sides, not persuade people to change their positions on the old issues. That’s what FDR did, what Eisenhower did, what Reagan did, what Bill Clinton did, and what Trump did (I doubt any of them ever heard Prof. Key, who died in 1963).
That’s what the Democrats need to do if they want to win the Presidency in 2020. I don’t think that what the Democrats in Congress are doing now is changing the angle of the dividing line at all; they’re just reinforcing the same old Maginot Line. Is the Bernie/Warren approach an effective way to change the angle of the dividing line? Maybe. With Hillary out of the way (if she IS out of the way), perhaps this kind of far left populism could tilt the dividing line in a positive direction for them. On the other hand, two of the last three successful Democratic candidates for President (Carter and Clinton) found ways to appeal to discontented middle of the road voters; who out there today could do that?
In 2016, Republicans benefited from the fact that the Democrats nominated an AWFUL candidate for President. In 2020, the Democrats will have a similar opportunity (assuming that Trump runs for reelection). If they are serious, they won’t waste that opportunity.
In 2016, Republicans benefited from the fact that the Democrats nominated an AWFUL candidate for President.
Not quite. The Democratic candidate was annointed and appointed, not nominated. From that fact sprung the entire problem for the Democratic ticket.
@MadisonMan: I won't quibble over "annointed" v. "nominated" if that makes you feel better. Nonetheless, Hillary was awful, and the Democrats did it, and that helped make Trump's victory possible. Not the Russians. The Democrats. In 2020, the Republicans are likely to have Trump at the head of the ticket, whether "annointed" or "nominated", and he will probably have to be running on his record, not just against something. Will the Democrats blow their chance, the way the Republicans did in 2012?
The only Dems who might beat Trump are sane establishment pols like Mark Warner. But the base and the money will go to Kamala, who checks all the progressive boxes. She will wither on the national stage when her bio becomes known. Not to mention a string of ads with her recent statements.
As others have pointed out, your math is weakened by ignoring the first $1M of return.
I'm not sure that's true (I mean, it's true, but I'm not sure you have the right side of the issue).
A big metric in marketing is the cost of acquiring a new customer. A small startup that wants to grow a lot (like, say, an early-stage political campaign for high office) should have a very low cost per marginal customer, which indicates a large market with a lot of enthusiasm for the project.
I think that if you looked at Obama in 2005, you would find that he had a very low cost for acquiring donations -- almost free. Trump barely put any effort into fundraising until after he had the nomination, and was ridiculously efficient in turning dollars into votes for the entire campaign.
Spending $1 million to raise $2.3 million at a time when your base is fired up is not very impressive, especially if you price a full-scale presidential campaign in the $1 billion range. It probably means that Gillibrand isn't really part of the conversation.
Post a Comment