Big Money Donors on the Left - climate change etc.

[wawa]

So the right loves to bleat that line about how all people showing up to town halls are funded by George Soros. 

This was posted in another thread -
www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/superpac-donors-2016/

apparently the highest PAC donor is a hedge fund manager on the left side who's pet project is climate change.  He's donated 66.3 MILLION DOLLARS. 

Soros by comparison is shown at 17.5 at the link.  The first Koch brother on the list is down in the single digits.

OK SERIOUSLY.  what the fuck are people spending that guy's money on?  because it sure as shit isn't effective whatever it is!!  You'd think with that kind of money they'd be able to swing some of the moderate GOP away from this anti-science thing??  I mean, they're moving public opinion it seems, but it hasn't translated to votes.

What about the rest of these people?  Soros might be funding the indivisible website (is he actually?), but he sure as shit ain't paying us to show up at protests.  So what IS he funding?  What are they doing?  because it feels like they are failing - and the Mercer's are...not. 
I'm googling and reading now - some of links I've got open in my assorted tabs...

www.wired.com/2017/03/tom-steyer-interview/
www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2017/02/22/billionaire-tom-steyer-talks-about-his-plan-to-fight-president-trump/#1a3fd2019606
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/4/tom-steyer-liberal-billionaire-loses-big-gamble-on/

but if anybody knows anything or has read anything interesting, I'm very curious to learn more.

[pixy0stix]

IIRC its to counter the O&G donations. He's pretty much the only one doing that.

[wawa]

Mar 24, 2017 12:40:44 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

IIRC its to counter the O&G donations. He's pretty much the only one doing that.

so he's basically standing alone against an entire $$$$$$$$ industry and that's why his numbers look so high and fail so miserably?

The WaPo piece I linked above (I'm only halfway through) is so far infuriating.  It seems like this is a person/PAC who is falling miserably prey to the ideological purity issue.  If a candidate isn't willing to be a 100% across the board climate change warrior, they get no support.  But what that gets you, as we've learned, is a GOP majority across both houses and the white house bent on totally gutting the EPA, rolling back emissions standards for vehicles, failing to fund mass transit, poo-pooing alternative energy sources, etc etc.  It's an entire government run by wambam 's coworker who thinks recycling is stupid.

So...I mean, maybe we should consider using money to back candidates who are verbally wishy washy on climate change as long as they're ok with actually funding the EPA, and stand a chance to take out a vulnerable R?  Maybe consider softening the rhetoric in coal country?  SOMETHING.  Because he flat out says that this failing strategy is the right one and he'd not change a thing.  THE FUCK. 

[wambam]

Mar 24, 2017 12:52:58 GMT -5 wawa said:

Mar 24, 2017 12:40:44 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

IIRC its to counter the O&G donations. He's pretty much the only one doing that.

so he's basically standing alone against an entire $$$$$$$$ industry and that's why his numbers look so high and fail so miserably?

The WaPo piece I linked above (I'm only halfway through) is so far infuriating.  It seems like this is a person/PAC who is falling miserably prey to the ideological purity issue.  If a candidate isn't willing to be a 100% across the board climate change warrior, they get no support.  But what that gets you, as we've learned, is a GOP majority across both houses and the white house bent on totally gutting the EPA, rolling back emissions standards for vehicles, failing to fund mass transit, poo-pooing alternative energy sources, etc etc.  It's an entire government run by wambam 's coworker that thinks recycling is stupid.

So...I mean, maybe we should consider using money to back candidates who are verbally wishy washy on climate change as long as they're ok with actually funding the EPA, and stand a chance to take out a vulnerable R?  Maybe consider softening the rhetoric in coal country?  SOMETHING.  Because he flat out says that this failing strategy is the right one and he'd not change a thing.  THE FUCK. 

I have NEVER seen stupid coworker so happy as he has been the last two months. And I've worked with him for almost 8 years.

[wawa]

@littlemoxie  andwhat

tagging you since we were talking about it in the healthcare thread.

[wawa]

Mar 24, 2017 12:55:12 GMT -5 wambam said:

Mar 24, 2017 12:52:58 GMT -5 wawa said:

so he's basically standing alone against an entire $$$$$$$$ industry and that's why his numbers look so high and fail so miserably?

The WaPo piece I linked above (I'm only halfway through) is so far infuriating.  It seems like this is a person/PAC who is falling miserably prey to the ideological purity issue.  If a candidate isn't willing to be a 100% across the board climate change warrior, they get no support.  But what that gets you, as we've learned, is a GOP majority across both houses and the white house bent on totally gutting the EPA, rolling back emissions standards for vehicles, failing to fund mass transit, poo-pooing alternative energy sources, etc etc.  It's an entire government run by wambam 's coworker who thinks recycling is stupid.

So...I mean, maybe we should consider using money to back candidates who are verbally wishy washy on climate change as long as they're ok with actually funding the EPA, and stand a chance to take out a vulnerable R?  Maybe consider softening the rhetoric in coal country?  SOMETHING.  Because he flat out says that this failing strategy is the right one and he'd not change a thing.  THE FUCK. 

I have NEVER seen stupid coworker so happy as he has been the last two months. And I've worked with him for almost 8 years.

[pizzapizza]

Some Soros articles:

George Soros Rises Again

Soros has donated or committed more than $25 million to boost Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates and causes, according to Federal Election Commission records and interviews with his associates and Democratic fundraising operatives. And some of his associates say they expect Soros, who amassed a fortune estimated at $24.9 billion through risky currency trades, to give even more as Election Day nears.

George Soros Criminal Justice Reform

While America’s political kingmakers inject their millions into high-profile presidential and congressional contests, Democratic mega-donor George Soros has directed his wealth into an under-the-radar 2016 campaign to advance one of the progressive movement’s core goals — reshaping the American justice system.



The billionaire financier has channeled more than $3 million into seven local district-attorney campaigns in six states over the past year — a sum that exceeds the total spent on the 2016 presidential campaign by all but a handful of rival super-donors.





His money has supported African-American and Hispanic candidates for these powerful local roles, all of whom ran on platforms sharing major goals of Soros’, like reducing racial disparities in sentencing and directing some drug offenders to diversion programs instead of to trial. It is by far the most tangible action in a progressive push to find, prepare and finance criminal justice reform-oriented candidates for jobs that have been held by longtime incumbents and serve as pipelines to the federal courts — and it has inspired fury among opponents angry about the outside influence in local elections.

[aurora]

$66.3 million dollars is a lot of money to spend given the results we have now.

[ESF]

Mar 24, 2017 13:04:12 GMT -5 aurora said:

$66.3 million dollars is a lot of money to spend given the results we have now.

Tom Steyer gives a lot to California causes. He's been very effective here.  

[wawa]

Mar 24, 2017 13:31:56 GMT -5 ESF said:

Mar 24, 2017 13:04:12 GMT -5 aurora said:

$66.3 million dollars is a lot of money to spend given the results we have now.

Tom Steyer gives a lot to California causes. He's been very effective here.  

I believe that. 
I'm just mad that this INCREDIBLY RICH AND POWERFUL DUDE who is on MY SIDE is just...ineffective on the national level.  I want to understand why.
I want to understand what you can spend THAT MUCH money on and get so little return. 

Or if there is actually a ton of return that I'm just not seeing over on the other side of the country as we look down the barrel of, for instance, losing the federal funding for basically every major transit project currently in the works in the country.  So...Cali has always been leading the charge on things like emissions standards.  and it sounds like from the wired interview that he's seeing that as the way forward - funding change locally to guide the way nationally - I just have very little hope that that will be effective with the kinds of sweeping deregulation the current administration would like to undertake. 

Convince me otherwise so I feel better? 

I'm just thinking about things that don't work on the state level.  LIke the Chesapeake bay restoration plays well in Maryland, and obviously we're pretty historically blue despite our current R gov, but that doesn't help us one bit if the feds roll back the agreements which were going to force PA to stop dumping so much shit (literal in some cases) into the rivers upstream.   And the extent to which that fucks our economy (crabbing, fisheries, the value of waterfront property, oysters, tourism, etc)...PA and it's farmers don't give a flying fuck.  The farmers in southern Anne Arundel County and on the eastern shore barely give a fuck and they live right next to the damn thing.

Like, it's great if California regulates the shit out of the energy sector - but if TX goes the exact opposite direction, have we actually accomplished anything nationally?  And then you add in international agreements and...yeah.  The despair. 

[ESF]

Mar 24, 2017 13:59:38 GMT -5 wawa said:

Mar 24, 2017 13:31:56 GMT -5 ESF said:

Tom Steyer gives a lot to California causes. He's been very effective here.  

I believe that. 
I'm just mad that this INCREDIBLY RICH AND POWERFUL DUDE who is on MY SIDE is just...ineffective on the national level.  I want to understand why.
I want to understand what you can spend THAT MUCH money on and get so little return. 

Or if there is actually a ton of return that I'm just not seeing over on the other side of the country as we look down the barrel of, for instance, losing the federal funding for basically every major transit project currently in the works in the country.  So...Cali has always been leading the charge on things like emissions standards.  and it sounds like from the wired interview that he's seeing that as the way forward - funding change locally to guide the way nationally - I just have very little hope that that will be effective with the kinds of sweeping deregulation the current administration would like to undertake. 

Convince me otherwise so I feel better? 

I'm just thinking about things that don't work on the state level.  LIke the Chesapeake bay restoration plays well in Maryland, and obviously we're pretty historically blue despite our current R gov, but that doesn't help us one bit if the feds roll back the agreements which were going to force PA to stop dumping so much shit (literal in some cases) into the rivers upstream.   And the extent to which that fucks our economy (crabbing, fisheries, the value of waterfront property, oysters, tourism, etc)...PA and it's farmers don't give a flying fuck.  The farmers in southern Anne Arundel County and on the eastern shore barely give a fuck and they live right next to the damn thing.

Like, it's great if California regulates the shit out of the energy sector - but if TX goes the exact opposite direction, have we actually accomplished anything nationally?  And then you add in international agreements and...yeah.  The despair. 

Have you seen this Vox article?


www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10941690/campaign-finance-left

[wawa]

Mar 24, 2017 14:02:59 GMT -5 ESF said:

Mar 24, 2017 13:59:38 GMT -5 wawa said:

I believe that. 
I'm just mad that this INCREDIBLY RICH AND POWERFUL DUDE who is on MY SIDE is just...ineffective on the national level.  I want to understand why.
I want to understand what you can spend THAT MUCH money on and get so little return. 

Or if there is actually a ton of return that I'm just not seeing over on the other side of the country as we look down the barrel of, for instance, losing the federal funding for basically every major transit project currently in the works in the country.  So...Cali has always been leading the charge on things like emissions standards.  and it sounds like from the wired interview that he's seeing that as the way forward - funding change locally to guide the way nationally - I just have very little hope that that will be effective with the kinds of sweeping deregulation the current administration would like to undertake. 

Convince me otherwise so I feel better? 

I'm just thinking about things that don't work on the state level.  LIke the Chesapeake bay restoration plays well in Maryland, and obviously we're pretty historically blue despite our current R gov, but that doesn't help us one bit if the feds roll back the agreements which were going to force PA to stop dumping so much shit (literal in some cases) into the rivers upstream.   And the extent to which that fucks our economy (crabbing, fisheries, the value of waterfront property, oysters, tourism, etc)...PA and it's farmers don't give a flying fuck.  The farmers in southern Anne Arundel County and on the eastern shore barely give a fuck and they live right next to the damn thing.

Like, it's great if California regulates the shit out of the energy sector - but if TX goes the exact opposite direction, have we actually accomplished anything nationally?  And then you add in international agreements and...yeah.  The despair. 

Have you seen this Vox article?


www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10941690/campaign-finance-left

so it really is that up till now the millions upon millions of dollars being spent on the left were just enough to stalemate the O&G industry and other corporate interests?  god this shit is depressing. 

Or was I supposed to be getting another takeaway from that?

[ESF]

Mar 24, 2017 14:29:03 GMT -5 wawa said:

Mar 24, 2017 14:02:59 GMT -5 ESF said:

Have you seen this Vox article?


www.vox.com/2016/2/9/10941690/campaign-finance-left

so it really is that up till now the millions upon millions of dollars being spent on the left were just enough to stalemate the O&G industry and other corporate interests?  god this shit is depressing. 

Or was I supposed to be getting another takeaway from that?

Yeah. Both, really. It's that money in politics doesn't matter, at least not in the sense we think it matters.

I think liberals have been too focused on money in political campaigns. Because that's not the real problem, that's why they haven't been able to make progress.  

[wawa]

Mar 24, 2017 14:50:03 GMT -5 ESF said:

Mar 24, 2017 14:29:03 GMT -5 wawa said:

so it really is that up till now the millions upon millions of dollars being spent on the left were just enough to stalemate the O&G industry and other corporate interests?  god this shit is depressing. 

Or was I supposed to be getting another takeaway from that?

Yeah. Both, really. It's that money in politics doesn't matter, at least not in the sense we think it matters.

I think liberals have been too focused on money in political campaigns. Because that's not the real problem, that's why they haven't been able to make progress.  

what is the real problem then?  Crazy people like Bannon being propped up by crazy people with lots of money like Mercer have been able to tap into some fucking ugly shit and successfully take over leadership of the country.  Why did that happen??  Or is that not what actually happened here?  Because despite doing my due diligence with my reading, and growing up in a rural area with an assortment of blue collar folks,  I continue to be totally baffled by why so many (white) people vote like they do.  I mean, I know the answer.  I just...so what next?  This isn't an ideological difference on the correct level of taxation vs. spending to produce optimum economic growth.  These people SUCK. 

There's been no similar breakthrough led by people with lots of money on the left, despite similar amounts of money being thrown around.  Is there just nothing to tap into?  since not enough people actually give a flying fuck about anything outside their own tiny lives - whereas lots of people sure do care about sinking their claws into at anything that allows them to retain their status quo and that's what the GOP tells them they can have?

Am I missing something?  (I may be coming off as combative here - I hope you know it's not directed as you, I'm just having a not optimistic day here about the future of...you know...everything...despite the "win" on the healthcare bill)

[froggy76]

I think it's crazy that someone donates that much money and I wouldn't have any clue who he was if it weren't for all the right-wing conspiracy theories.

Slightly off topic, but I wonder how these key donors decide it's worth it to continue giving money without a high probability it will make a difference. I donated a pretty substantial amount to the HRC campaign and of course I knew she could lose but now it just feels like such a waste.