Over the weekend, everyone wanted money, Pete Buttigieg went invite-crazy, and Tulsi Gabbard declared that you can tell she would be a great President for everyone based on how thoroughly she put Hillary’s mouthpieces in their place.
For all new readers: Welcome! I am currently on the mailing lists of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, though I have previously been on the mailing lists of 28 Democratic candidates! This blog breaks down recent emails with charts and excerpts. If you already know all of this, feel free to skip to the next chart!
It took some time for the Trump emails to kick in, so I started officially tracking his list on July 7. I have been tracking Biden’s for longer, but I will start comparing them as of July 7. All of these emails are going to a new email, and I have not donated, filled out surveys, signed petitions, or otherwise interacted with either candidate’s emails.
The rules I try to follow for the various categories are laid out in The Framework.
Pete Buttigieg flooded my inbox with a total of 10 emails in 2 days. Elizabeth Warren was the next closest at 6 emails, while Joe Biden and Cory Booker both only sent 5 emails over the weekend.
Now, to be fair, many of Buttigieg’s emails were about upcoming events I might be interested in.
Still. TEN emails? In TWO days?
At least the emails were fairly evenly split across the weekend. Saturday had a few more, as per usual, but there was nothing extraordinary going on between the days.
Joe Biden’s birthday is on November 20, same as the next debate, so in addition to the $2 million fundraising goal that I am not supposed to tell him about, I’ve also been asked to sign Biden’s card.
Marianne Williamson invited me to share my story in an email that could be sent to her followers.
Other than that, most of the candidates were engaging in typical campaign behavior. Fundraising asks were common.
Julian Castro wanted 200,000 individual donors for his debate qualification, so he kept trying to be sneaky and ask me to fill out surveys that would ask for a donation. Everyone else was pretty satisfied with their donor numbers: Joe Biden wanted 46,000 people to sign his card since he’ll be the 46th President, while Elizabeth Warren wanted 607 donations from Michigan, one for each of America’s 607 billionaires. Cory Booker wanted $550,000 to enact his plan to get on the December debate stage, while Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Marianne Williamson, and Anderw Yang were all striving for a $1 million goal.
Warren was definitely giving the billionaires a hard time over the weekend. In addition to asking for one-for-one donations to match the number of billionaires, she was also highly critical of Jeff Bezos asking Michael Bloomberg to consider running for President.
Yesterday, it was reported that Jeff Bezos — CEO of Amazon and the richest man in the world — asked Michael Bloomberg if he would consider running for President.
This is what happens when you threaten to root out the corruption that has taken our government hostage. The wealthy and well-connected will always have each other’s backs if it means having a Washington that caters to their every need.Team Warren
Now, not to defend billionaires, but let’s rephrase what Warren said. “People who frequently associate with each other and have a lot in common will always have each other’s backs…”
There is a lot to be upset about when it comes to wealth inequality, but to get mad that people who are likely friends in real life (remember, there are only 607 billionaires in the entire country) have each other’s backs? The horror!
Like I’ve said all along with Tom Steyer: I cannot believe someone is inherently bad just because they have more money than they could ever use. If you’re going to argue against them, argue against what they’ve done (or haven’t done), and not simply what they have.
Warren does go on to chew out Amazon for paying $0 in taxes. That’s fair to get upset about. There is something fundamentally unfair about that.
But not because Bezos asked Bloomberg for a giant favor that happens to fall into Bloomberg’s wheelhouse.
Tulsi Gabbard was not angry this weekend. She was actually having fun, from the sounds of things. She was showing off how she would be a great President for ALL the people by totally owning the hosts of The View and Hillary Clinton’s mouthpieces.
I wish that was my hyperbole on her email. It’s not.
No thank you.
(don’t look too closely at the grammar in the last sentence there.)
Andrew Yang wasn’t having a great weekend. He’d set an ambitious goal of $1 million for another ad buy, but he wasn’t where he thought he’d be.
Yang Gang —
When we set our goal of raising $1 million before November 13th, I assumed we’d hit it. After all, we’ve never missed a public goal before. And with so much on the line, I knew the Yang Gang would step up again.
To qualify for the December debate, we have to hit a series of polling thresholds in the early states. That’s why we sunk $1 million into a statewide ad campaign in Iowa. If we hit our goal, we’ll double our investment and keep our ad on the air for another week.
Yang Gang, whether we qualify for the December debates or not is up to you. It’s that simple. And right now, I’m no longer certain we’ll hit our goal.
Missing the December debate is not an option. Taking our ads off the air is not an option. Losing momentum in this campaign is not an option.
The Yang Gang has never missed a goal — and we’re not going to start now. Let’s kick things into high gear and turn it around.
Donate now and see your donation count on Yang2020.com, our real-time tracker.Carly Reilly, Finance Director, Yang 2020
Yang sent several emails along this vein over the weekend: they aren’t where they expected to be, Yang Gang, pick it up! One line in particular jumped out at me, one line that they’ve used similar forms of before. “Whether we qualify…or not is up to you. It’s that simple.”
I don’t think that’s very fair to the Yang Gang. They aren’t the ones running the campaign, after all. If Yang and his campaign are unable to get his voice out and engage the people they need to engage, that isn’t the fault of the people offering them money and support. There’s something to be said for the public ownership of a campaign and feeling like you have a real stake in what’s going on, but at the same time, I feel like the onus to make it work should be on the actual candidate. Can you demonstrate that you can lead a vast coalition of people across the entire country to get the results you want?
Could an argument be made there that if you can’t successfully manage a Presidential campaign, you wouldn’t do a very good job as a President? Possibly…
The debates are coming up, but fundraising is once again on top. Joe Biden was so happy with his October success that he’s decided to pull a list of people who have just donated for the first time in November (as a response to the email he was telling me this in) to thank them. Because… that makes sense. October was great, so let’s ignore those first-time donors in favor of the ones who didn’t donate in November.
As a donor, he let me know that he was actually calling reoccurring donors, and if I set up a reoccurring donation, I could be on the list. Uh-huh. Okay. I believe that.
Michael Bennet had a bad email in which he addressed me as Kara both as a donor and as a non-donor.
My name isn’t Kara.
He did say it was the shortest email in my inbox, and for the moment, he was correct.
Julian Castro, meanwhile, decided to announce that the primaries should be reordered. Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the country as a whole and are given far too much importance as the first in the nation states.
This is in part a response to an answered deemed dismissive by Elizabeth Warren when asked the same question (she wasn’t going to say anything bad about Iowa or New Hampshire, she was just a player in the game) and in part a way to distinguish himself from the other candidates who were mostly giving non-answers or explaining how as a whole, the four first states (including Nevada and South Carolina) were fairly representative of the country.
However, as critics pointed out, Castro had signed a pledge that he would support Iowa’s place as first in the nation…
Personally, I sort of agree: as a Michigander, I felt quite a bit of FOMO (fear of missing out) when looking at all the rally events going on in Iowa. However… it’s a state’s rights thing. If Michigan wanted to hold their primary earlier, they can. The only thing really holding anyone back is New Hampshire having it in their state constitution that they get the first primary of the country. If Michigan wanted it the day after, they could.
So, if anyone wants their state to be sooner in the Presidential primaries, they should petition their state for some change. Warren is largely right on this: the candidates are just players of the game. For now. That’s not to say they can’t put some pressure on the states later, but for now, saying the game isn’t fair with the established rules at this point in the race is pretty much just complaining that you aren’t doing better.