The president often had a weak, raspy voice during his first debate against Trump, in what Democrats had hoped would be a turning point in the race.
The president often had a weak, raspy voice during his first debate against Trump, in what Democrats had hoped would be a turning point in the race.
I think we’ve been operating on the false assumption that the Democratic partys primary goal is to win. I would wager that as far as campaign contributions go, it’s likely better for them financially if they barely lose. I feel like the past few presidential races have been the American populace trying to force them to win anyways when they obviously didn’t want to.
A lot of their decisions make a lot more sense in that context.
It’s easier to fundraise as an opposition party.
Any funds raised can only be used to win elections, not to buy themselves candy and ice cream. But if they don’t win they don’t get any personal gifts from lobbyists or cushy jobs after leaving office.
LMFAO that makes absolutely no sense. The only use of the money they raise is to win elections. It’s not like if they lose they can use the leftover money to buy a new car. If there even is any leftover money, which there almost always is not.
I admire your optimism, but even if you aren’t willing to bend the rules and stick to the letter of the ethics rules, you can still use campaign funds for a fairly broad amount of items. And, if you are willing to bend the rules… when’s the last time you heard of someone getting in trouble for misuse of campaign funds? If you remember one at all, i’d wager it was George Santos, and it took a huge amount of misuse there for people to start paying attention.