Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 03:21 PM Apr 2016

In the Democratic Primary elections, how much impact does the 1% have?

1%, actually. That's why they're called the 1%. In NY City, like everywhere, most people are not the 1%. They're just everyday folks trying to get by. They outnumber the 1% by...well...about 99%.

When the votes are counted, it's not the 1% who matter. It's the 99%. In many case, the 1%ers don't even bother to vote. They don't need to. They've got theirs, so they probably don't make up even 1% of the vote.

Yes, they can donate to politicians, but they only get one vote each. Elections are not decided by the 1%. They're decided by the 99%. Those are the voters. All you have to do is go stand outside of a random polling place and see who shows up there. Watch for a couple of hours and count the 1%ers you see. In most places you won't see any at all, but you'll see tons of average folks walking in to cast their ballots.

Do you want to help increase the vote of the 99%? You can. Just get involved in GOTV activism. You can make a difference.

The 1% can't swing any election by voting. There just aren't enough of them. That's why they're called the 1%.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In the Democratic Primary elections, how much impact does the 1% have? (Original Post) MineralMan Apr 2016 OP
They do own the media. OwlinAZ Apr 2016 #1
All of it? What about this "new media" I keep hearing about? MineralMan Apr 2016 #4
Wrong. HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #2
A better way to count is to volunteer to work the polls. Agnosticsherbet Apr 2016 #3
Yes, that's true. I used to do that every election. MineralMan Apr 2016 #5
I did it for one election, before we had kids. Agnosticsherbet Apr 2016 #8
This is the most oblivious an naive post I've read in a long time. bobbobbins01 Apr 2016 #6
Right now about 50%. If Hillary wins the primary, they will have 99%. nt silvershadow Apr 2016 #7
Wrong. The 1% holds the purse strings, which results in JonLeibowitz Apr 2016 #9
Man have you got it bad. mmonk Apr 2016 #10

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
4. All of it? What about this "new media" I keep hearing about?
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 03:31 PM
Apr 2016

Think about this: Everyone can make up his or her own mind, and they do that quite regularly.

Heck, there are even a bunch of people who think Donald Trump should be President, for goodness' sake.

I'm talking about voters. We just had a primary in NY. The 1% didn't vote in overwhelming numbers. Most didn't vote at all. It was all of those ordinary people who went to the polls. They voted as they chose. Truly they did. You might not agree with how they voted, but each and every one of them marked his or her own ballot.

Are they stupid? Do you think they don't have the sense to vote the way they think is best? They voted. Not so many voted as will in the general election, but they took the time to make their choice known.

It is the people who vote. It is the people who care enough to bother who vote. Maybe we're looking in the wrong place to influence people. How many people in NY who voted have ever been to DU, do you suppose?

If you want your candidate to win, you have to convince all those people that they should vote for that candidate. They're not here on DU, so you have to find another way.

It's not the 1% who decide elections. Not at all. It's the 99%, or whatever percentage of that 99% who cares enough to go to the polls and vote. Talk to them about your candidate. They will decide.

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
2. Wrong.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 03:25 PM
Apr 2016

They can donate the maximum to candidates, make unlimited donations to PACs, own the media, and dictate the rules. I guess you don't know what 'Oligarchy' means.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
5. Yes, that's true. I used to do that every election.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 03:32 PM
Apr 2016

It's a real education about who is doing the actual deciding, isn't it?

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
8. I did it for one election, before we had kids.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 03:35 PM
Apr 2016

It was a great education.

My sister has done it every year since 1992, as did my mother before she passed away.

bobbobbins01

(1,681 posts)
6. This is the most oblivious an naive post I've read in a long time.
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 03:32 PM
Apr 2016

I can only assume you're being purposefully obtuse.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
9. Wrong. The 1% holds the purse strings, which results in
Wed Apr 20, 2016, 03:36 PM
Apr 2016

Let me explain. You have a universe of possible candidates. Only those who are able to fundraise significant sums of money, in the current system, are viable. In this campaign, that meant Hillary and Bernie since Hillary sucked all the air out of the room for the big-money donors.

So the question is, does the lack of choice presented to the voters due to this reliance on big dollar donations and the 1% mean voters often have to choose from ethically compromised candidates who are able to fundraise from these questionable interests.

It isn't so much that HRC and the oil lobbyists have an explicit agreement, or similarly for the 1%, that she'll be representative of their interests, it is that they choose to support her over other possible candidates because they know she is friendly. If she doesn't represent their interests, they don't donate.

The 1% has far more power than their voting power.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»In the Democratic Primary...