I mean, the closest competing Democrat was basically the inversion of those numbers. Bernie was like 60-70 something percent donations of less than $200?
Small dollar donations are less likely to “move” than large donations are. It gives you a sustainability and independence that you don’t get when most of your donations come from big donors.
If any candidate, really at any level, fundraising dropped by 60% thats it. They’re cooked. Because those dollars are going to go some where.
Bernie was like 60-70 something percent donations of less than $200?
Bernie was in the 60s and his whole ‘thing’ was his ability to motivate small dollar donors. Most Dem politicians, even excluding Blue Dogs and the like, have numbers that resemble Biden’s, post-Citizens United.
Small dollar donations are less likely to “move” than large donations are. It gives you a sustainability and independence that you don’t get when most of your donations come from big donors.
If any candidate, really at any level, fundraising dropped by 60% thats it. They’re cooked. Because those dollars are going to go some where.
This is true and I don’t disagree. I only disagree with the assertion that small dollar donors have ‘dried up’ for Biden recently. Fact is, most of us who are politically motivated enough to not just be ready to vote, but actively donate, are still quite concerned with the prospect of fascism winning. Biden’s loss of support is largely with the sadly important contingent of low-information low-engagement voters who are the difference between victory and defeat in most elections in this fucking country.
The only silver lining there is that other events can (not necessarily will, but can) sway them back. Low-engagement voters necessarily have short political attention spans.
I think we should pin the small dollar question because since we started this, I’ve been trying to find better data on it, and its surprisingly difficult to find a granular enough breakdown to do a useful analysis. Maybe we can come back to in in a month or so and see how things have ended up post debate. It always take some time for things to trickle into effect.
Biden’s loss of support is largely with the sadly important contingent of low-information low-engagement voters who are the difference between victory and defeat in most elections in this fucking country
So I’m interested in where you are getting this, because from what I’ve seen, its the most politically engaged that have been shouting from the roof tops for months, longer even, that Biden needs to be replaced. Specifically, the Nate Silvers, Ezra Kleins of the world. I think you are projecting an opinion that is just uninformed here. Its only the “medium information” voters that have been putting out that Biden is going to be the nominee, people who only get their news from cable TV, or mainstream sources, with no real analysis.
Low engagement voters aren’t even represented in the current conversation and likely wont be until after August. At best they’ve seen a couple reels or tictocs of Biden mumbling or Trump lying. And I do agree at least that future events will bring low-engagement voters to the table. Specifically, an open convention would be so dominating of the news cycle, there is no way they’ll be able to stay un-informed.
So I’m interested in where you are getting this, because from what I’ve seen, its the most politically engaged that have been shouting from the roof tops for months, longer even, that Biden needs to be replaced. Specifically, the Nate Silvers, Ezra Kleins of the world.
Yes, and recent events haven’t affected their opinions much. They’ve been on this kick for a while now. Recent events HAVE effected low-engagement voters’ opinions, on the other hand; people who don’t generally pay close attention to politics until and unless something ‘big’ hits the news that’s hard to ignore - like clips of a presidential debate.
Specifically, an open convention would be so dominating of the news cycle, there is no way they’ll be able to stay un-informed.
… I’m not sure you’re getting where the low-information low-engagement voter is coming from. They’re not going to look at an open convention and say “Wowee, look at that, interesting new candidates!”
They’re going to say “Wow, the Democrats are really in disarray! I wonder if I should even bother voting for them.”
An open convention may be our best choice. But it’s not going to be our best choice out of some idea that low-information voters will be positively influenced by the events of the convention itself; only that a new candidate may (and the emphasis here is on ‘may’) be a better choice to influence them positively.
Ok I get what you are saying, but the point I was making is that the “highest information” people there are; the most politically engaged, don’t agree with you with regards to specific issues around things like the viability of Biden as candidate.
You suggested that its “low information” voters that had this view. This is what I’m pushing back on. The most informed, most politically astute among us have the same view that I have, and have been promoting, that Joe Biden is losing this election and is a lost cause candidate. I got there through my own analysis of his polling data and the probability that he can actually get the level of “swing” in his polling numbers that he needs (my results showed it to be, a practical statistical impossibility). I took a very different approach than Nate does, but we ended up with very similar results.
[you are editing this in real time it makes it hard to keep up]
They’re going to say “Wow, the Democrats are really in disarray! I wonder if I should even bother voting for them.”
It is an event that will be a 450 thousand pound gorilla in the room. It will UTTTERLY dominate the new cycle in a way that a boring “joe biden” coronation simply couldn’t. You would see something on the order of 10:1 coverage of the DNC convention compared to the RNC convention if there is an actual horse race. It would actually engage voters in that they want to “know” who the candidate is going to be.
It would be phenomenal marketing, and whomever came out on top would be riding a rocket.
Ditching Joe Biden and going to an open convention with say: Newsom, Witmer, Kamala, and maybe Beshear.
First, we get to ditch Joe Biden’s terrible baggage on Israel. And the new nominee gets to cherry pick what they want to own about the administration (more difficult for Kamala).
Second, for whoever wins, they get a suddenly unified Democratic party behind them. We get leave the baggage of Joe Biden behind and they get to mount a rocket ship coming out of the convention. What they do with that rocket is on them, but theyll have more earned media than any candidate other than maybe 2016 Trump.
No its a great thing; an open convention best possible outcome.
Joe Biden is losing this election and is a lost cause candidate. I got there through my own analysis of his polling data and the probability that he can actually get the level of “swing” in his polling numbers that he needs (my results showed it to be, a practical statistical impossibility).
It would be phenomenal marketing, and whomever came out on top would be riding a rocket.
Second, for whoever wins, they get a suddenly unified Democratic party behind them. We get leave the baggage of Joe Biden behind and they get to mount a rocket ship coming out of the convention. What they do with that rocket is on them, but theyll have more earned media than any candidate other than maybe 2016 Trump.
No its a great thing; an open convention best possible outcome.
Biden’s not going to win in the next few weeks, on account of the next few weeks not including the election, so the first bit is right out.
Whether the party (and, perhaps more importantly, low-information voters) unite behind a new candidate won’t be certain until the results of election day. If you think that the information environment is going to be coherent and clear in the aftermath of a contested convention, I don’t know what to tell you other than that you’re setting yourself up for disappointment. You aren’t going to get the ‘clean’ result that you want, regardless of whether an open convention is our best possible choice.
Which is a pretty normal percentage for candidates, and not at all evidence of small dollar donations ‘drying up’.
I mean, the closest competing Democrat was basically the inversion of those numbers. Bernie was like 60-70 something percent donations of less than $200?
Small dollar donations are less likely to “move” than large donations are. It gives you a sustainability and independence that you don’t get when most of your donations come from big donors.
If any candidate, really at any level, fundraising dropped by 60% thats it. They’re cooked. Because those dollars are going to go some where.
Bernie was in the 60s and his whole ‘thing’ was his ability to motivate small dollar donors. Most Dem politicians, even excluding Blue Dogs and the like, have numbers that resemble Biden’s, post-Citizens United.
This is true and I don’t disagree. I only disagree with the assertion that small dollar donors have ‘dried up’ for Biden recently. Fact is, most of us who are politically motivated enough to not just be ready to vote, but actively donate, are still quite concerned with the prospect of fascism winning. Biden’s loss of support is largely with the sadly important contingent of low-information low-engagement voters who are the difference between victory and defeat in most elections in this fucking country.
The only silver lining there is that other events can (not necessarily will, but can) sway them back. Low-engagement voters necessarily have short political attention spans.
I think we should pin the small dollar question because since we started this, I’ve been trying to find better data on it, and its surprisingly difficult to find a granular enough breakdown to do a useful analysis. Maybe we can come back to in in a month or so and see how things have ended up post debate. It always take some time for things to trickle into effect.
So I’m interested in where you are getting this, because from what I’ve seen, its the most politically engaged that have been shouting from the roof tops for months, longer even, that Biden needs to be replaced. Specifically, the Nate Silvers, Ezra Kleins of the world. I think you are projecting an opinion that is just uninformed here. Its only the “medium information” voters that have been putting out that Biden is going to be the nominee, people who only get their news from cable TV, or mainstream sources, with no real analysis.
Low engagement voters aren’t even represented in the current conversation and likely wont be until after August. At best they’ve seen a couple reels or tictocs of Biden mumbling or Trump lying. And I do agree at least that future events will bring low-engagement voters to the table. Specifically, an open convention would be so dominating of the news cycle, there is no way they’ll be able to stay un-informed.
Yes, and recent events haven’t affected their opinions much. They’ve been on this kick for a while now. Recent events HAVE effected low-engagement voters’ opinions, on the other hand; people who don’t generally pay close attention to politics until and unless something ‘big’ hits the news that’s hard to ignore - like clips of a presidential debate.
… I’m not sure you’re getting where the low-information low-engagement voter is coming from. They’re not going to look at an open convention and say “Wowee, look at that, interesting new candidates!”
They’re going to say “Wow, the Democrats are really in disarray! I wonder if I should even bother voting for them.”
An open convention may be our best choice. But it’s not going to be our best choice out of some idea that low-information voters will be positively influenced by the events of the convention itself; only that a new candidate may (and the emphasis here is on ‘may’) be a better choice to influence them positively.
Ok I get what you are saying, but the point I was making is that the “highest information” people there are; the most politically engaged, don’t agree with you with regards to specific issues around things like the viability of Biden as candidate.
You suggested that its “low information” voters that had this view. This is what I’m pushing back on. The most informed, most politically astute among us have the same view that I have, and have been promoting, that Joe Biden is losing this election and is a lost cause candidate. I got there through my own analysis of his polling data and the probability that he can actually get the level of “swing” in his polling numbers that he needs (my results showed it to be, a practical statistical impossibility). I took a very different approach than Nate does, but we ended up with very similar results.
[you are editing this in real time it makes it hard to keep up]
It is an event that will be a 450 thousand pound gorilla in the room. It will UTTTERLY dominate the new cycle in a way that a boring “joe biden” coronation simply couldn’t. You would see something on the order of 10:1 coverage of the DNC convention compared to the RNC convention if there is an actual horse race. It would actually engage voters in that they want to “know” who the candidate is going to be.
It would be phenomenal marketing, and whomever came out on top would be riding a rocket.
Ditching Joe Biden and going to an open convention with say: Newsom, Witmer, Kamala, and maybe Beshear.
First, we get to ditch Joe Biden’s terrible baggage on Israel. And the new nominee gets to cherry pick what they want to own about the administration (more difficult for Kamala).
Second, for whoever wins, they get a suddenly unified Democratic party behind them. We get leave the baggage of Joe Biden behind and they get to mount a rocket ship coming out of the convention. What they do with that rocket is on them, but theyll have more earned media than any candidate other than maybe 2016 Trump.
No its a great thing; an open convention best possible outcome.
!remindme 1 year if I’m still alive.
ahh we’re gonna know sooner. Couple weeks, max.
Biden’s not going to win in the next few weeks, on account of the next few weeks not including the election, so the first bit is right out.
Whether the party (and, perhaps more importantly, low-information voters) unite behind a new candidate won’t be certain until the results of election day. If you think that the information environment is going to be coherent and clear in the aftermath of a contested convention, I don’t know what to tell you other than that you’re setting yourself up for disappointment. You aren’t going to get the ‘clean’ result that you want, regardless of whether an open convention is our best possible choice.