Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said policy differences toward Israel between her and President Biden won’t stop her from supporting him in the November general election.
“Of course,” Omar said Tuesday, when asked by CNN’s Abby Phillip on “NewsNight” whether she would vote for Biden if the election were held that day, in a clip highlighted by Mediaite. “Democracy is on the line, we are facing down fascism.”
“And I personally know what my life felt like having Trump as the president of this country, and I know what it felt like for my constituents, and for people around this country and around the world,” Omar continued. “We have to do everything that we can to make sure that does not happen to our country again.”
Yeah actually. We’ve made money political speech and routinely refused to use public campaign financing. That pretty effectively bars 99.9% of people from ever running for president. And 98% from running for any office above local school board.
I wholeheartedly agree with money equating to speech being disastrous as to the healthy function of a democracy, but the complaint here doesn’t strike me as that. While we all know the game is skewed toward money, we should also know the better choice between these candidate couldn’t be more obvious.
That’s not what you asked. Restricting the pool of candidates to elites (money or connections) absolutely has an effect too. If it seems like our politicians are out of touch, that’s why.
Ok. If you’re going to play that game, then the obvious answer to what I asked:
… Is No, nobody stopped them from running. Money may help, but is not prerequisite to running. People also get money if they garner support. Hence the success of grassroot organization.
Bullshit. If you stick with word of mouth as a middle class person you might get enough name recognition by the time you’re 80.
It’s probably a good thing that the vast majority of candidates have to get word of mouth recognition by rising through the ranks of government starting small at the local level and going from there. But you’re right: that’s part of the reason why most candidates end up being on the older side.
Yes, name recognition matters in a democracy, no surprise there. But the personal wealth of the majority of presidential candidates is a paltry sum to the total funds needed to be raised simply by running on a platform and getting support from within and outside the party. When we talk about “money in politics,” it’s usually not the candidate themselves but the outsider influence who prop that candidate up.
Still you try to corner me by taking what I said verbatim and so I respond in the same literal way: Nobody stopped them from running. Nobody is stopping them from not voting or writing-in someone else. Sure circumstance can improve one person’s chances over another, but we have more choice than most countries of the world, and again the better choice between these two candidates couldn’t be more obvious.
The pathway of more choice is through the Democratic party and no other viable way. Do you agree?
An effective ban is still a ban. If you’re not in the club you will not win.
Obama was not rich before he ran for public office. Doesn’t seem like a ban to me.
That’s why it’s called a club and not a socioeconomic demographic. He was networked, blessed by the wealthy.