Warren knocks opponents for spending time at 'fancy fundraisers'

[DonViejo]

BY JOHN BOWDEN - 06/18/19 07:46 AM EDT

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) late Monday took aim at her fellow Democratic 2020 presidential contenders who attend "fancy fundraisers" instead of campaigning on the ground and focusing on small-dollar donations.

"I don’t spend time at fancy fundraisers," the senator wrote in a tweet.

"Instead, I spend my time meeting voters and thanking grassroots donors who chip in what they can," she added.

"Donate $3 to my campaign, and you might just get a call from me to thank you!" Warren continued.

Link to tweet

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/449016-warren-knocks-opponents-for-spending-time-at-fancy-fundraisers

[blm]

1. She didn't knock anybody. She stated how she is running.

The writer is trying to turn her request for grassroots donations into a controversy.

[KPN]

2. The Hill at its best -- making up headlines that

don’t match the story in order to stir up controversy.

[brooklynite]

4. So you're saying that she DIDN'T say what she was quoted as saying?

Or that YOU think a story about politics is deserving of publication?

[brooklynite]

3. ...from a candidate who was happy to go to "fancy fundraisers" two years ago.

[seaglass]

5. I support Warren and Harris (among others) but disagree with her attitude about

fundraising.

[Skid Rogue]

6. Quick question

How much in funds can they transfer from the primaries to the general?

[George II]

7. That's a fundraising tweet, everyone sends them out. But that "fancy fundraiser" comment....

....probably should not have been used.

However, she's getting "big money" from somewhere. In the first quarter of her roughly 3,100 itemized contributors, they gave an average of $151 each.

But, who cares anyway since each and every contribution she and her fellow candidates are within the law. Now candidates are being bashed for following the law?

[comradebillyboy]

12. Wouldn't want donors eating canapes at fancy fundraisers

would you? /s

[Indygram]

8. I'm glad that Beto always livestreams the few fundraisers he does

None of them have looked particularly fancy...mostly they have looked like houseparties or small townhalls. He had not done any of those at all until others who either can't or won't work hard for small donations started doing them. Old fashioned fund raising is just not the best way. I wish no candidates would do them but when one does I'm not going to fault others who do...especially if they always exercise transparency.

[SouthernProgressive]

9. Warren should spend a little more time at "fancy fundraisers." NT

[shanny]

29. No. She shouldn't. NT

[peggysue2]

10. The purity preach doesn't look good on anyone

This is probably in response to a clue Biden dropped about how much money his campaign had raised since last count--close to $20 million. A head spinning number. However, I read that Trump already has $80 million in his coffers. We're kidding ourselves if we claim that money won't be a crucial element in anyone's presidential aspirations. Those dropping out early will be those without sufficient donations to continue.

I can understand Elizabeth Warren's reaction but I don't think this sort of thing is very effective.

[Skya Rhen]

11. These types of statements are what annoy so many people and then the one saying them

can’t comprehend why their favorability numbers are lower than that of others...

[Politicub]

14. It's funny you feel the need to jump in and defend Biden when she didn't name anyone.

Nor did she bash anyone with what she said. Why bring him into this?

She implied that she prioritizes the common person over the wealthy who can afford to go to these ridiculous $10k per person fundraising events.

[peggysue2]

16. Not funny at all

It's on the close timing of Warren's statement after Biden's disclosure that I based the supposition.

Do you think she had someone else in mind?

Btw, I wasn't bashing Elizabeth Warren. I merely stated that this sort of statement is ineffective. Because everyone knows it takes heaps of money to run a presidential campaign. Even for those prioritizing the ordinary voter.

[Politicub]

17. I really didn't have anyone in mind until I read this thread and saw

the Biden supporters falling on a gigantic fainting couch. If anything, I thought of the generic politician who goes to big money fundraisers. That's it. And then I moved on.

It's fine that Biden has traditional democratic fundraisers. They all need wheelbarrows of money to compete. But don't expect him to do so and not have it draw scrutiny.

A sizable audience of voters are tired of hearing about people who write big checks to gain access to a candidate. I know it's par for the political course to host fundraisers and that, more times than not, they all hold them. But I don't feel the need to defend the practice.

Warren distinguishes herself by not partaking in them. It's important to her. It's important to the people who support her. And I think it's a step in the right direction to ending the practice.

[The Mouth]

18. AMEN!

"A sizable audience of voters are tired of hearing about people who write big checks to gain access to a candidate"

A *VERY* sizable audience.

Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah about needing truckloads of cash, we all know that. You take Wall Street dollars, you dance Wall Street's tune, period, anyone saying otherwise is either deluded or dishonest.

People who give a candidate the big bucks (however one defines that) do it only because they expect to get something back

NO candidate is any better in my eyes than the sleaziest donor they take a big donation from. That doesn't mean I won't vote D, of course I will, but it does mean how I will view them in the primaries and how much enthusiasm I'm going to have (or how hard I'm going to hold my nose) in the general.

[Cha]

20. Oh Please.. ".. Biden supporters falling on a

gigantic fainting couch.. " Hyperbole much?

[Politicub]

23. Sometimes I can't help myself...

Well, maybe the post had a touch of hyperbole. Fwiw, I think victorian fainting couches are awesome, and I would want to have a reason to swoon to use it for its intended purpose.

And, yes, sadly, I do hyperbole much, but infrequently.

[Cha]

24. ..

[Indygram]

22. I would like to see a primary rule where the donations MUST come from small $ donors

That way the candidates who actually work hard and prove they can get supporters and voters are the ones who last the longest. Then for the general election let the big money roll in.

[DesertRat]

25. What about corporate donations?

[Indygram]

37. I don't think corporations should be donating

Unless it goes into a public fund that is divided equally between both sides.

[brooklynite]

39. Yes! Unilaterally disarming is definitely the path to victory!

[emmaverybo]

26. Oh come on. They don't name. They don't have to. NT

[Cha]

19. I agree, Peggysue.. good way to

put it, too.. ".. purity preach.. "

Anyway, it's going to take a whole lot of money to combat the Psychotic Dipshit in the GE.

[peggysue2]

21. Thank you, Ma'm!

[demmiblue]

33. The purity preach?!

Some of y'all need to get new talking points! It is very concerning.

[Blue_true]

34. Trump is the only one running on his side. Weld is invisible there.

We have something like 24 democrats splitting up contribution money many ways. Once we all train our guns backing only one General Election candidate, then if we are behind it is time to panic.

[peggysue2]

36. Oh, I agree with that

It's the advantage the Trumpster has as the incumbent with no real challenger for the nomination. The Republicans and their donors show no signs of leaving The Donald's side. In fact, I understand Rubio and Rick Scott were in the audience at Trump's rally yukking it up. But the situation at the moment does give Trump a more than decent head start. I'll be glad when we have our own nominee firmed up and ready to roll.

[LanternWaste]

13. If she wants to fight w/ one hand tied behind her back...

then all the better for her should she in fact, win. That said, I think using all the tools at one's disposal illustrates a much broader perspective.

[marylandblue]

15. It's a bet consistent with her campaign theme, not a narrow perspective.

She's essentially running on economic populism. It's all about how the rich rig the system in their favor using many techniques the average person can't use. I can't go to a "fancy fundraiser" and get a few private minutes with the candidate. But I can put in $3 and I (or at least someone like me) can get the same access. She's betting she can raise enough money or win more votes this way. It makes her economic populist pitch much more authentic, and authentic is in this year.

[Blue_true]

35. Yeah, there are a lot of rich democrats. Kicking those people isn't smart.

I honestly would never go to a fundraiser, not how I role. I really don't have to ever meet the candidates that I support.

[awesomerwb1]

27. Well that's cute (no sarcasm)

I really like her, but that's the wrong approach with that comment.

And she better start attending some of those fund raisers or she's gonna run out of money pretty quickly

[shanny]

28. Who has a problem with that?

and more importantly, why?

A study just released shows that, since 1979, the top 1% of Americans gained 21 trillion in net worth (to a total of 30 trillion) while the bottom 50% lost 900 billion, for a net worth of less than zero.

Why on earth should any Democrat be courting, or listening to, the wealthy instead of the grassroots?

And please don't tell me we need money to beat rump: he raised less than half of what Hillary did. There is a saturation point where, however many ads you buy, they stop adding to your positives. No amount of money is going to make tRump palatable to the people that already hate him, or vice versa.

We can do this without the big money boyz, who do not have our interests at heart.

[Bradshaw3]

30. +1

Methinks you and Sen. Warren have hit on what will be guiding most voters in November of 2020.

[Peacetrain]

32. Sen. Warren, we need to have a heart to heart on this.. you may win the nomination

you have been booming and should start looking at the larger picture out there.. like how you are going to take on Trump.. where you can beat him and honestly how you are going to get the money to do this.. the general election is a money drain.. don't blow yourself up on a purer than statement.. you can do this primary with small donor monies only.. but after that .. you will need the unions.. and they are pacs.. and if you think the unions do not have a right to fight in there just like everyone else ... then I have misjudged you..and will need to look at someone else if VP Biden does not make it through the primaries.. we have to win this..

[Princetonian]

38. Interesting... Warren is taking a page from Bernie's campaign book by saying this.

Chump, meanwhile, is raising money hand over fist.