Spending more doesn’t guarantee a win because not everything a campaign does to increase votes is equally effective or equal in cost. Is that not reality?
But spending less means less resources for the campaign which limits what the campaign is capable of. Is that not reality?
Bernie can’t compete with only grassroots donations. You’re feelings and opinions won’t change that.
Bernie can’t compete with only grassroots donations.
Literally all of the data I shared says the fucking opposite, dude! On top of that, Trump was running a grassroots campaign in 2016 that broke GOP records for small-donor money, and he won even though Clinton out-spent him. So, what actual evidence do you have to back up your assertions here? Or is it just the vibes?
Literally none of the data you shared says the opposite.
You shared an opinion piece about Bloomberg and a chart of Super PAC spending.
Literally none of the data you shared says the opposite.
On top of that, Trump was running a grassroots campaign in 2016 that broke GOP records for small-donor money, and he won even though Clinton out-spent him.
OK, so gonna recap here; you think it didn’t matter that the DNC conspired against Bernie in 2020 because billionaires would have used their wealth to crush his grassroots campaign. I’ve shown you data that proves the Harris campaign spent a half-billion more than Trump in 2016, that more dark money went to Harris than Trump, and that Trump won with the type of small-donor grassroots campaign that Bernie had, and your conter argument is a fact sheet on Russian disinformation campaigns. Nice vibes dude.
You’re still pretending that Trump ran a grassroots campaign? Even though that requires you to pretend Russian bot farms don’t exist? Even though Trump got help from billionaires that didn’t involve campaign financing? Why do you refuse to base your decisions on reality?
Show me data then. How much of Trump’s grassroots campaign is actually astroturfed Russian propaganda? What non-financial support did billionaires give Trump, and what are the quantifiable outcomes of that support. Say something other than, “[X] event happened, and this is my unsubstantiated opinion on how that changed the outcome of the election,” or just stop talking.
How much of Trump’s grassroots campaign is actually astroturfed Russian propaganda?
You’re asking for me to get specific to an unecessary level to pretend that Russians didn’t influence the elections because I can’t quantify it. Bad faith argument.
I can’t quantify how many times I took a shit in 2023. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
What non-financial support did billionaires give Trump, and what are the quantifiable outcomes of that support.
Elon Musk holding a lottery like give away for people to vote for Trump is one example. There were other reports of business owners trying to find out who voted for democrats to intimidate them with threat of losing their jobs. Or sheriffs trying threatening people with Harris signs. Obviously it isn’t possible to know exactly how much these things influenced the outcome but that was your intention with the bad faith argument you’re making.
The fact that you can’t respond without bad faith arguments shows how bias and emotional your thought process is on the subject.
Not to mention you’re trying to change the subject after I pointed out that your links didn’t support your claims.
You’re asking for me to get specific to an unecessary level to pretend that Russians didn’t influence the elections because I can’t quantify it. Bad faith argument.
I can’t quantify how many times I took a shit in 2023. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Now that’s a bad faith argument. You’re the one that’s making all the claims. You’re claiming a Sanders campaign could never stand up to the money and influence of the billionaire class, and it’s you claiming all the evidence of Trump doing exactly that doesn’t count. And while I never said Russian interference didn’t affect the election, you’re the one claiming that it was so influential that it invalidated the grassroots nature of Trump’s campaign.
You’re the one making proclamations on why Sanders would lose and why Trump won, and you’re the one refusing to back it up with anything other than, “trust me bro.” So, again, back up any of your claims with actual evidence or just STOP TALKING.
You’re claiming a Sanders campaign could never stand up to the money and influence of the billionaire class, and it’s you claiming all the evidence of Trump doing exactly that doesn’t count.
I pointed out the fact that Sanders couldn’t win a primary without the added difficulty of funding a campaign.
That’s not a claim that’s a fact.
And while I neversaid Russian interference didn’t affect the election, you’rethe one claiming that it was so influential that it invalidated the grassroots nature of Trump’s campaign.
You’re the one claiming that Trump won because of a grassroots campaign without any evidence to support that. How can you verify a grassroots campaign is sole reason Trump won when there are Russian bots using social media accounts to tip the scales in his favor?
That’s called confirmation bias. You’ve provided no evidence of the claims you’ve made. While I have only stated facts.
What are you not getting?
Spending more doesn’t guarantee a win because not everything a campaign does to increase votes is equally effective or equal in cost. Is that not reality?
But spending less means less resources for the campaign which limits what the campaign is capable of. Is that not reality?
Bernie can’t compete with only grassroots donations. You’re feelings and opinions won’t change that.
Literally all of the data I shared says the fucking opposite, dude! On top of that, Trump was running a grassroots campaign in 2016 that broke GOP records for small-donor money, and he won even though Clinton out-spent him. So, what actual evidence do you have to back up your assertions here? Or is it just the vibes?
Literally none of the data you shared says the opposite.
You shared an opinion piece about Bloomberg and a chart of Super PAC spending.
Literally none of the data you shared says the opposite.
Fact Sheet: What We Know about Russia’s Interference Operations
You’re gonna pretend Trump is running a grassroots campaign without Russian backing?
OK, so gonna recap here; you think it didn’t matter that the DNC conspired against Bernie in 2020 because billionaires would have used their wealth to crush his grassroots campaign. I’ve shown you data that proves the Harris campaign spent a half-billion more than Trump in 2016, that more dark money went to Harris than Trump, and that Trump won with the type of small-donor grassroots campaign that Bernie had, and your conter argument is a fact sheet on Russian disinformation campaigns. Nice vibes dude.
You’re still pretending that Trump ran a grassroots campaign? Even though that requires you to pretend Russian bot farms don’t exist? Even though Trump got help from billionaires that didn’t involve campaign financing? Why do you refuse to base your decisions on reality?
Show me data then. How much of Trump’s grassroots campaign is actually astroturfed Russian propaganda? What non-financial support did billionaires give Trump, and what are the quantifiable outcomes of that support. Say something other than, “[X] event happened, and this is my unsubstantiated opinion on how that changed the outcome of the election,” or just stop talking.
You’re asking for me to get specific to an unecessary level to pretend that Russians didn’t influence the elections because I can’t quantify it. Bad faith argument.
I can’t quantify how many times I took a shit in 2023. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Elon Musk holding a lottery like give away for people to vote for Trump is one example. There were other reports of business owners trying to find out who voted for democrats to intimidate them with threat of losing their jobs. Or sheriffs trying threatening people with Harris signs. Obviously it isn’t possible to know exactly how much these things influenced the outcome but that was your intention with the bad faith argument you’re making.
The fact that you can’t respond without bad faith arguments shows how bias and emotional your thought process is on the subject.
Not to mention you’re trying to change the subject after I pointed out that your links didn’t support your claims.
Now that’s a bad faith argument. You’re the one that’s making all the claims. You’re claiming a Sanders campaign could never stand up to the money and influence of the billionaire class, and it’s you claiming all the evidence of Trump doing exactly that doesn’t count. And while I never said Russian interference didn’t affect the election, you’re the one claiming that it was so influential that it invalidated the grassroots nature of Trump’s campaign.
You’re the one making proclamations on why Sanders would lose and why Trump won, and you’re the one refusing to back it up with anything other than, “trust me bro.” So, again, back up any of your claims with actual evidence or just STOP TALKING.
I pointed out the fact that Sanders couldn’t win a primary without the added difficulty of funding a campaign.
That’s not a claim that’s a fact.
You’re the one claiming that Trump won because of a grassroots campaign without any evidence to support that. How can you verify a grassroots campaign is sole reason Trump won when there are Russian bots using social media accounts to tip the scales in his favor?
That’s called confirmation bias. You’ve provided no evidence of the claims you’ve made. While I have only stated facts.