AOC goes after Buttigieg's "pocket change" comment.

[RLG]

Link to tweet

[TidalWave46]

1. I like AOC but it's clear she is often clueless about subjects...

She decides to opine on.

[jezebel321]

2. yep, again only reads the headline and doesnt read or listen to what he said. She of all people

should know better.

[tymorial]

6. its a product of twitter culture

Don't you realize that all facts and truth are delivered in 140 characters?

[DrFunkenstein]

12. That's Not Too Condescending

You might think of a better way to build bridges with progressives looking at Mayor Pete.

[tymorial]

41. It was meant to be condescending

Twitter is great for opinion that doesnt require nuance... the exact opposite of politics and current events.

[ChubbyStar]

24. You like AOC but you then speak disparagingly about her

Hmmm, that doesn't sound like you like her.

[TidalWave46]

27. Your comment makes little to no sense.

Maybe you have politicians you put on a pedestal like a deity. I’ve never understood that. Absolutism sucks in political fan clubs.

[Blue_Adept]

30. I like Obama but have some fierce criticisms of several of his actions

These things are not in conflict with each other.

[Indykatie]

3. Any Dem Who Says They Will Only Accept Small Donations Does Not Deserve the Nomination

POTUS runs require massive amounts of money. It's political malpractice to lose the election because you didn't have the money to match GOP spending. Until the rules are changed Dems need to raise money using all legal methods. You can bet Trump's run will be well funded with legal and probably some illegal donations.

[George II]

8. She's received quite a few contributions from "big donors" herself and....

83% of her contributions are "unitemized", meaning no one knows anything about who gave or how much.

[George II]

4. Shouldn't she be tending to the needs of the constituents in her District?

[tymorial]

10. It will be interesting how she does

She may fair great on the national stage but the nation does not vote for her. Her constituents vote for her and her polling numbers have been inconsistent.

[George II]

13. It's only anecdotal, but I grew up in Queens (Grace Meng's district next to the 14th)....

....but those relatives and friends I know in the 14th are VERY upset with the lack of concern for her own constituents in favor of her "national" goals.

She now has two credible primary challengers, she may not be a Member of Congress come November 2020.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

43. Maybe she'll back a few more primary challengers.

If she can split the "no-AOC" vote, she's in.

[melman]

45. Anecdotal is one word for it

I can think of others.

[George II]

50. What might those words be?

[Cha]

14. I believe that's what she

tweeted that she was going to do.. not too long ago, either.

[TidalWave46]

18. The trend of making house races national...

Is proving to be damaging and completely throws the thought of equal representation out the window. It’s never about the individual. It’s about specific groups who see a race that promotes a narrative important to them and they fund it. In the media’s case the elevate it on air.

Really really bad trend.

AOC is the beneficiary of what was truly a dishonest narrative being pushed at the time.

I like AOC a lot. I would be using the clout as well. I don’t fault her.

[RLG]

5. So, she shouldn't say anything?

OK, I guess.

[jezebel321]

7. As someone's whose words are repeatedly taken out of context to attack, she should have either

watched or read the actual clip (neither of which is shown in what she retweeted). Instead she went with the Peter Hamby clickbait spin.

My sympathy when it happens to her yet again will be greatly diminished.

[qazplm135]

26. He attacked Warren and Beto

There is no added context that makes that not so.
The full video doesn't change the snippet at all.

[George II]

9. No one said she shouldn't say anything, but she should base what she says......

.....on fact and reality.

[LanternWaste]

28. You're the only one making that argument. Ok, I guess...

[YOHABLO]

11. Have any of the candidates mentioned ''campaign finance reform"? Hmm didn't think so.

[DrFunkenstein]

16. Warren Is Rocking That

Warren has adopted perhaps the most aggressive anti-big money stance of all candidates, even saying she won’t host any “fancy receptions or big money fundraisers” as a way of treating every donor equally, regardless of the size of their donations. She also shut down her joint fundraising committee, saying that candidates shouldn’t be fundraising from PACs at all.

No PAC donations of any kind (link)
No federal lobbyist donations (link)
No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge (link)
Rejects super PAC support (link)
Opposes self-funding (link)
Overturn Citizens United (link)
Will swear off “big-money fundraisers” (link)
Supports extending public campaign financing to congressional candidates (link)
Supports expansion of presidential public campaign finance program (link)

https://readsludge.com/2019/04/01/where-the-2020-candidates-stand-on-campaign-finance/

[YOHABLO]

17. Thanks for that. I'm glad she is taking this stand.

[betsuni]

20. Seven have signed a Reform Pledge to End Citizens United.

Pledging that the first piece of legislation they want done as president is getting money out of politics and other reforms.
Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Bennet, O'Rourke, Bullock.

[George II]

22. There's one name glaringly missing!

[BlueMississippi]

36. BS?

[Me.]

15. What Is Wrong With Her

Doesn't she have better things to do, like setting up a district office, than knocking DEms around? She's been doing this a lot lately, to what end, I ask?

[myohmy2]

19. she's right...

"...what Buttegieg insults here as “pocket change,” out-fundraise him by millions."

...Mayor Pete...

...

[George II]

21. No she isn't.

[BlueMississippi]

37. ...

[Celerity]

46. actually, Pete outraised Bernie and tied Warren in Q2 and Q3 combined

do the maths, Bernie had 18m in Q2, 25m Q3 (43m), Pete had 25m and 19m (44m)

Warren had 19m and 25m (44m). BUT 10m USD of that was for a transfer of pre-existing funds and counting all that, only 48% of her total monies before Q3 was from small donors. 10m of Sanders totals has come from transfers of preexisting funds, and when the transfers are added in, even he has only 60% of his total monies from small donors.

Pete was not running in Q1, he officially launched April 14, 2019.

In Q2, when he raised around 25m USD, his average donation was 84 USD per person, from almost 300,000 individuals, and that was in just his first full quarter of running. His average donation was down to only 33 USD in Q3, Sanders was 27 USD per person.



Big Donors, Small Donors: Pete Buttigieg Has Courted Them All — Successfully

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-fundraising.html

[George II]

51. More than half of Buttigieg's contributions are itemized, meaning we know where they came from...

...and how much they gave.

Through the second quarter, 71% of Sanders' individual contributions are UN-itemized, meaning we have no idea where that 71% came from and how much each person gave.

[ecstatic]

23. Wow! Peter Hamby's tweet is causing a lot of

drama and division. SMH.

[BeyondGeography]

25. Great day for the Pete brand

AOC’s 5.5 million followers get to see him being tone deaf. Hooray, Pete. Brilliant.

That said, he knew “pocket change” was a blunder, course-corrected immediately and gave a shout-out to his own small donors because he is brilliant, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be called out.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

32. AOC has been hypocritical on the big money subject regarding the Kennedy vs Markey primary

Link to tweet

If you attack one you've got to go after both but of course she wants Markey to remain so turns a blind eye?

[BlueMississippi]

34. It is the Kim Kardashian phenomenon

It is more important to make headlines rather than have any substance.

[BeyondGeography]

35. You're reaching...AOC didn't make any gaffes yesterday

Pete did.

[Celerity]

48. he did not 'course-correct' it was all part of the same statement, people are just pull-quoting

out of context.

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

29. Majority of comments telling her she's taking his comment out of context.

Should delete.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

31. Considering how she is always having her comments ripped out of context by the right wing

It's very disappointing that she is twisting Mayor Pete's like this and encouraging a pile-on.

[BlueMississippi]

33. No surprising when one's entire worldview is 140 characters or less. nt

[PhoenixDem]

38. Makes perfect sense

When one sees the goal as adding to the fame and celebrity.

[dsc]

39. didn't even bother to spell his name correctly

if he did that to a Latinix politician she would go nuclear.

[cwydro]

40. Yeah, that's bad.

Can she not at least copy it from the news or something?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

44. I think it's spelled "Latinx".

Hopefully, nobody will go nukular about it.

[Politicub]

42. The microphone is always on, and social media can amplify what people say.

In this case, Buttigieg made a mistake in criticizing small donations.

Small donations have become a symbol that indicates someone is not a political insider or establishment candidate. There are many voters who would rather not vote for someone considered an insider, so why insult them? He should have known that.

For the record, I don't mind it if the candidates do the traditional fund-raising circuit. It seems to be working for Mayor Pete, and advertising is expensive.

But his comment wasn't well thought out. It isn't doing him any favors and it's hard to defend.

[Tarc]

47. As well she should. Mayor Pete's looking a little desperate this late in primary season

[Celerity]

49. desperate is probably not an accurate term, lol

he outraised Bernie in Q2 and Q3 combined (Bernie transferred 10m fromm other accounts)

tied Warren in the same time-span (and Warren also transferred 10 million)

all with a LOT of small donations as well (over half a million small donors)

and is doing fairly well in the polls

[Tarc]

52. "and is doing fairly well in the polls"

5.2%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

[Celerity]

53. RCP includes two really problematic polls in their rolling averages,

(HarrisX and Morning Consult) and also at times (when it slides into the time frame) Harvard-Harris. The main person this effects is Warren (in a negative way, as she is massively under counted and Biden over counted), and they are both large (especially HarrisX) outliers and run by 2 RW'ers (HarrisX by Scott Rasmussen and Harvard-Harris by Mark Penn, who owns them both). RCP also leaves out other polls that 538 does list.

I take RCP's national averages with a large grain of salt.

Lets look at state polls, as that is how primaries are settled.

Iowa










New Hampshire










Nevada (much less data)





South Carolina (a weak state for Pete, he was doing well, moving up, even had 6 or 7% of the A-A vote, and then the police killing in South Bend blew him out badly)





Massachusetts (little data)






California








Maine (brand new poll first)




Indiana (old poll, hard to find data)




Minnesota (old poll, little data)




New Jersey (little data)





Wisconsin (little data)





Pennsylvania (little recent data)

[Tarc]

54. I didn't know cherries were still in season

Good pickins?

[Celerity]

55. I just posted the RCP state polls and then states they did not have, so sorry, no cherries for you

go look at the RCP pages and the 538 pages

state polls yield different results than national polls, and I posted states where Pete is doing shit too, did not pull punches