Ken Martin, the chair of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party, said that as DNC chair, he would ensure the party does not accept contributions from billionaires that Biden was referencing while not swearing off wealthy donors entirely.

“Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of good billionaires out there that have been with Democrats, who share our values, and we will take their money,” Martin said. “But we’re not taking money from the bad billionaires.”

  • nthavoc@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I’m a little tipsy at the moment after watching today’s shenanigans. Excuse my comment a little bit but, they’re in on it too. Why is there even a CEO for the DNC and the RNC? Kingmakers are what those roles serve. Except the democrats are paid to lose.

  • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    18 hours ago

    As long as they stay attached to the billionaires their policy of only promising real change when they lose will continue. When dems win they deliever nothing, when they lose they make promises they can’t keep. Round and round we go as if the climate has time to spare.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      Nordic Dem here. I’m not opposed. Until you’re in a position to actually change the rules of the game it would be dreadfully fucking stupid to limit your supply for the war effort hinged on an overgeneralization when there are billionaires who seek to change the system for the better.

      Does anyone truly believe Dems can win without big money of their own in the face of players like Musk dumping $70 million into PA on a whim? Fuck no.

      If you disagree then you better have a very fucking solid, tangible plan to take make media and advertising without $, post-citizens united no less.

      • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Sanders ran on a zero corporate donations campaign and got out tons of advertising just fine. Idk why y’all like to pretend that didn’t happen so that we can justify having politicians that owe the elite favours. Like I can’t even fathom why you would try and look for reasons as to why that’s a good thing.

          • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            19 hours ago

            He didn’t lose for lack of advertising. Biden outfunded trump and he lost. What’s your point exactly here within the context of what we’re talking about? You seem to think that funding inherently wins elections and you cannot have advertising unless billionaires help you. This is patently and demonstrably not true and is disingenuous to imply here.

            • electricyarn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              17 hours ago

              You’re saying “it’s possible to not take funding from major donors and still win” snd your example is a guy who lost.

              • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                16 hours ago

                No, what im saying is it’s possible to run a campaign that rivals ones funded by billionaires without stooping to that level. You’re trying to twist what I’m saying to justify government corruption and the reign of oligarchy. You’re wrong, and that should be good news to you.

                • lennybird@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 hours ago

                  It isn’t when the vast majority of media and social media is controlled by the Right.

                  Democrats need to overperform in fundraising not only to offset dark money & SuperPACs, but to offset the free attack ads coming from Fox News in every lunch room and doctor waiting room in the country.

                  Your argument is contingent on the notion that all money taken from billionaires means the candidate themselves must become corrupted; that’s simply not true. Whether someone like Bernie takes money from billionaires or not doesn’t change Bernie’s platform. If those billionaires choose to believe in universal Healthcare then so be it. If they like Buffett and Gates believe in higher taxes for the rich then go for it.

                  But Logistically it’s war. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Can’t do purity tests if you want to fight fascists.

  • WatDabney@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 day ago

    And still fucking Democrats are sitting in their comfy enclaves with the “good” billionaires, wringing their hands over how they just can’t seem to find the right “messaging” to convince the sweaty plebes that they know what’s best for them.

    All it would take to start winning elections is for them to get up off of their soft, pampered asses and get out there and actually listen to some ordinary people for a change, find out what they want, then fucking well set about actually delivering it for them.

  • Deceptichum@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 day ago

    “Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of good billionaires out there that have been with Democrats, who share our values, and we will take their money,” Martin said. “But we’re not taking money from the bad billionaires.”

    The Dems are so out of touch, they think the problem is “bad” billionaires and not the destruction of the democratic process that billionaires buying politics is.

    The DNC needs to be thrown out and replaced with something less corrupted.

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      No. They’re aware that if the Republican spend billions and the Democrats spend millions that they’ll never win a big election again.

      It’s not a problem that can be solved by the Democrats just giving up money.

      • Deceptichum@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 day ago

        Kamala outspent Trump and lost.

        Eventually you’re going to have to learn the lesson that popular policy and inspirational leadership matters, not celebrities and advertising .

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Well yet spending more money did not win the Democrats the election. Meanwhile there is strong indication from polls, that Democrats would have won 2016 if they had nominated Bernie, and would have won more strongly in 2020 if they had nominated Bernie instead of Biden. Biden was sold for the last election with “you always have to put up the sitting president for reelection, that wins the election.” When people rightfully complained about Biden being mentally unfit to go another 4 years, slurring his speech, wandering off randomly, yelling insults at journalists…

        Also relevant xkcd:

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 day ago

    … “Press X to doubt”

    *Bad billionaire is defined as one that does not want to donate to us anyway.

  • GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 day ago

    Dickheads are more worried about fundraising than actually winning. Nothing but internal bickering and wild assumptions about demographics and taking people for granted.