This message was self-deleted by its author

[JonLP24]

This message was self-deleted by its author (JonLP24) on Thu May 23, 2019, 07:08 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[jalan48]

1. What a surprise.

[snowy owl]

2. You have to hand it to Sanders and Warren. My two picks.

They've got fresh ideas that will alter the future of this country. I'm a believer. Medicare for all and shared wealth.

[brooklynite]

4. I don't have to hand it to them if they end up without the money for a Presidential campaign...

Last edited Tue May 21, 2019, 03:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Sanders probably will; I'm not sure Warren will pull it off.

[snowy owl]

12. Warren inching up - maybe a crawl but you've heard of the tortoise and hare?

Why Hickenlooper?

[brooklynite]

3. "Wall Street" is perhaps too generic...

There are plenty of high dollar donors of different backgrounds that I know who've been approached by different candidates (nb - many are holding off on major contributions until the field settles out a bit). They're looking for a $2,800 max donation, but are usually happy to take $250-$500 at this point.

[George II]

9. When the 1st quarter reports were filed, I did a quick review of contributors....

...to the major candidates (Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, O'Rourke, Harris Gillibrand - Biden hasn't had to file yet). Each of them have accepted money from "big money contributors".

One, in fact, has already received money from a couple way over the maximum for the year!

The point is, "big money contributors" are a fact of political life.

What concerns me are the candidates who have huge totals of "unitemized contributions", from whom we have no idea. We don't even know if the aggregate of some of those "unitemized" contributions meets or exceeds the maximum.

[guillaumeb]

5. From the excerpt:

There is one notable difference. “In the past, there was no candidate who didn’t come to New York, Chicago, L.A. for money,” says Lasry. “Today, there are two candidates who aren’t doing that—Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.” Few bankers would want to promote those senators anyhow.

And do the bankers expect anything for their contributions?

[brooklynite]

11. Broadly speaking, no...

A single $2,800 contribution won't buy you that much influence.

FWIW: One of those two candidates (Warren) was happy to come to NYC for high dollar contributions for her Senate races (including from my wife, a lawyer for.....Wall Street!). Nobody seems to think that she sold her principles for those checks.

[George II]

6. "Cozy up"?

A bit extreme, don't you think?

[NJCher]

7. the pickin's are slim

for voters who want to break with Wall Street/Goldman Sachs/banker control of the U.S.

I applaud these candidates for their stance. I hope they can pull it off.

[LibFarmer]

8. "Wall Street" cannot donate to candidates -- only individual donors can

This is a non-story ... trying to appeal to self-righteousness which can be suicidal.

Campaigns take cash. Cash is cash -- whether it comes in $27 chunks or $100 or $2800.

This implies (with nefarious innuendo) that somehow Bernie or Warren do not get any $2800 contributions and all their money comes in coins emptied from piggybanks.

Nice try.

[George II]

10. And NO one can contribute more than $2800 or $5600 for a couple. Further....

....every single major candidate (haven't checked all of them) has accepted $2800 and $5600 contributions.