She will stop rejecting PAC money or avoiding private high-dollar fundraisers.
By
Cheyenne Haslett
,
Kendall Karson
and
Soo Rin Kim
October 10, 2019, 4:06 AM
9 min read

It is a good thing that Warren will not handicap the party or hurt down ballot candidates during the general election. To compete with the RNC and trump, the nominee will have to rely on private fundraisers and PAC or the party would have one hand tie behind its back.

That's stated clearly in your OP article you posted.

Did you miss that part?

Here, let me highlight it, again,:

I want to understand Warren's position, It is evil to have private fundraisers during the Democratic primary but okay if these fundraiser are done during the general election or when she is running for Senate?

This interview with Chris Hayes if from a couple of weeks ago and I am still not clear on why the same fundraiser is okay for the general but not for the primary

Link to tweet

Warren has been consistent in saying that she believes the Democratic Primaries, a contest amongst ONLY fellow Democratic candidates, should be as free of big money influence as possible.

You might disagree with this position, you might feel she should not have transferred in funds from previous campaigns against Republicans, but Warren's aspirational position seems reasonable to me.

I have attended private fundraisers for both Clinton last cycle and for Biden this cycle. I also attended events for Clinton during the general election cycle. How are these events different from the primary? I am limited to $2800 during the primary and another $2800 during the general election. Why is my $2800 during the primary treated differently compared to the $2800 contributed during the general election?

I want to win in 2020 and will be supporting the nominee of the party. I simply do not understand why Warren is making this distinction at this point.

The FEC rules and requirements are essentially the same.

say it is?

can't handle it. trying to distract with.. but but "October"! lol

Thank you for posting, Goth.. all pertinent information. why, indeed?

that the donors will not be granted any special favors

Link to tweet

One wonders the point of posting an article from October.

Why are the same fundraisers okay in one instance but evil during the primary?

The OP article you posted is from back in OCTOBER, it is not a recent shift in Warren's position as the headline might mislead casual readers to conclude.

Perhaps Warren feels the Democratic primary, a contest amongst fellow Democrats, should be free of "big money" influence as possible?

Didn't you just post a December interview with Chris Hayes where she explains her position?

You’re welcome.

I sure hope not.

This is not late breaking news and this issue was raised in the last debate where Warren did not explain how her purity test worked.

like this one that actually posted in the thread:

Link to tweet

People do realize that this isn't news, right?

Link to tweet

Ok....

Still curious why the op article was posted since it was from OCTOBER.

But thanks for confirming for us that Warren has been steady in advocating the same position as your OCTOBER article and this DECEMBER article shows..

Why are private fundraiser evil during the primary but okay during a senate campaign or the general election?

Just curious.

Why are private fundraisers evil during the primary but the exact same fund raisers are okay during one's senate campaign or during the general election.

Ok...



And didn't you just post an interview with Chris Hayes where Warren explained her position? That she feels the Democratic Primary, a contest amongst ONLY fellow Democrats, should be free of big money influence as possible?

You might disagree with her position, but it seems a consistent and reasonable view to me.

mistakenly posted old articles, too. It happens.

A recent post by the op author seemed to imply that the article was pertinent to the last debate.

That's fine.

My issue is with the three month old headline being misleading to casual readers.

At least one poster in this thread thought it was a recent shift that they, in their words, predicted "just yesterday".

Warren implied that Mayor Pete's fundraisers were wrong at the last debate but never explained why it was okay for Warren to conduct the exact same type of fundraiser during her Senate run and why it is okay to do the same fundraisers during the general election.

Your attempt at an explanation above makes no sense to me.

This story underscores the hypocrisy of that attack.

When she’s president she’ll target Citizens United.

SMH

I find it odd that some here are targeting her as evil just because she wanted to try campaigning without big ticket fundraisers. Gee. Someone had to start trying this and you all hate her for it.

She tried to tear Buttigieg down for doing something she had done herself, many times.

That's not setting an example; that's a hypocritical attack.

all attacks on Warren, by Biden campaign PR - and far more personal than criticism of conduct - closed door fundraisers.

Attacking someone for doing what you are well known for is hypocrisy.

Nobody has clean hands.

Buttigieg was talking about it three months before Joe entered the race.

No one has clean hands.

lying on her college application?

If not, stick to the topic.

in the campaign, 'He stole it' . he presented it three months before I did.?

his candidate's decency and compassion should serve him well in the General Election.

Sniping at her. Biden and Buttigieg camps were attacking her relentlessly for over 3months.

How long did she take it before she swung back?

I admit.

Who wants to applaud her effort to run a primary campaign without big dollar fundraisers if you can use her past campaigns against her where she ran the accepted DNC way?

about chandeliers.

There's setting an example, and there's punching down. This was punching down.

Ya all just don’t like that she punched back after 3months of trying to stay above the fray.

Yeah, what's with Warren being so unladylike and returning criticism from a man?

Mayor Pete for an 'infraction' she has every intention of doing herself if the opportunity presents itself.

It is silly season though.

when he attacked her on Med4All when she could have said, “Why Pete, you were for Med4All not so long ago, yourself, and here you are taking potshots at me for it.”

But, she didn’t. I found that odd, but hitting back at other Dems wasn’t her thing. IMO, she doesn’t do it very well. She’s not practiced at it.

Neither are we..... heh.

all fundraisers be bake sales and cake raffles.

bus stations and.. sorry I forget the 2nd place. lol

Skidmore!

apparently...

for the GE?

Admitting you need the $$ to win, it appears.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet