Ms. Warren’s most immediate challenge, though, may be money. She raised only $299,000 in the first day of her candidacy, far below the $5.9 million and $6.1 million Mr. Sanders and Mr. O’Rourke brought in for the same period and also less than Ms. Harris. In emails to supporters, asking for as little as $3, her campaign flatly says her rivals will post “fund-raising figures we won’t be able to match.”
And after demonstrating little capacity to raise cash online, Ms. Warren effectively doubled down on small-dollar contributions, announcing last month that she would no longer hold big-money fund-raisers or seek wealthy donors to bundle hundreds of thousands of dollars in checks.
She cast it as a decision long in the making that will offer her more time with voters. In truth, she made the choice only after a robust debate inside her campaign that led to the resignation of her finance director, Michael Pratt, who strenuously objected to the idea.
At a Valentine’s Day meeting at Ms. Warren’s Washington condominium that began with a heart-shaped cake but soon grew heated, Mr. Pratt noted that campaigns often collapse when they run out of money and pleaded with her not to cut off a significant cash stream, according to Democrats briefed on the conversation. He pointed out that winning over wealthy fund-raisers across the country helped build networks that could translate into political support, not just checks.
But Mr. Pratt lost the argument to two of Ms. Warren’s closest advisers, Dan Geldon and Joe Rospars, who made the case about standing apart from the field and freeing up her schedule.I admit to being intrigued by Warren's candidacy. She has led in terms of progressive policy ideas. Unfortunately, after reading her article in Foreign Affairs, "A Foreign Policy for All," I can only conclude that she is a fraud. She says she wants something different and then she embraces confrontation of Russia and China.
We'll have to wait and see what she reports for the first quarter, but early indications are that once she burns though the $10 million she transferred from her senate campaign, she'll basically be kaput.
What people don't seem to realize is how dangerous it is to run for President when you oppose the Deep State. The best you can probably get is talk about what could be. But you can never cross the Deep State.
ReplyDeleteSo the question is do you want to have someone who at least promises a better future (Sanders et al), someone who says you can't have it (Clinton) or someone who blames everyone but the people who are responsible (Trump). Democracy is the cover story, as someone said. We are rapidly approaching our limitations. Of course, various hats in the ring generally follow the three choices and maybe mix and match.
We are fucked. I don't think that there's a way to get around it. And given how greedy the bastards at the top are, if they are ever declawed by a foreign power, through war or otherwise, there won't be anyone out there to rescue the American hoi polloi.
Without a paddle, my friend.
I couldn't agree more, Bob. But then there's Tariq Ali's point, which is something to the effect that "Neoliberalism has another couple of decades to go before the whole thing cracks open or goes nova."
ReplyDeleteUkraine is a good example. You can have an actual civil war (with outside help from the U.S.) where the country is split apart and nothing changes in the capital.