Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020? No, it's 2020!

[hepcat]

Looks like Russia's doing their thing:

BOTS SUSPECTED OF SPREADING TWEET CLAIMING KAMALA HARRIS ISN'T BLACK ENOUGH

I’m sorry, but part of me believes that if we, as a country, fall for this shit again, we deserve what we get. Why is it so hard to understand that social media is NOT a reliable source of information? It wasn’t designed to be so, and it’s clearly not.

Unfortunately there are more people like em2 who fall for this shit because it tells them what they want to hear. That white America is under attack from within and from without. That they deserve to be given handouts, not anyone who doesn’t share their skin tone. And that science is more often an enemy than a friend.

[Fireball]

If public insurance is introduced (expanded, really), private coverage of the things covered under the public insurance would need to be outlawed in order to prevent fraud (otherwise, unethical companies could try to sell you something that's you're already entitled to as a citizen).

This is not true. Private and public insurance plans can coexist. They coexist inside the Medicare
Program right now in the form of Medicare Advantage. Nothing about creating a solid public option requires the elimination of private insurance. However, an attractive public option could send the private providers into a death spiral through market dynamics.

[Fireball]

This thread went crazy while I was gone. A couple of points:

• “Reactionary” always means extremely right-wing. “Radical” is the term for someone so far on the left that they want to really hurt other people and damage the political system to get what they want.

• Barack Obama was the most progressive president in decades, certainly the most progressive in the lives of almost everyone here. He did more to help everyday people than anyone since Johnson, or maybe FDR. Dodd-Frank, healthcare reform, his climate actions, etc, were major progressive achievements and shouldn’t be diminished. And he accomplished them while also saving the economy from complete collapse and in the face of unheard of opposition from the other party.

• The “Susan Sarandon” theory that electing Trump would cause a “progressive revolution” was idiotic in 2016 and unbelievably evil in 2019. We’ve seen the costs of a Trump presidency — children in cages, families torn apart, children dying, climate action stopping, gerrymandering legalized, the right to choose being hollowed out, the courts being crammed full of arch-conservatives who will unwind the rights of minorities and LGBT people. To say that you’d accept more of that because the Democratic nominee isn’t exactly who you prefer is childish and selfish to an extreme. The climate impact alone of a second Trump Administration would likely be enough to end human civilization.
  
  I would feel dirty voting for Bernie Sanders; I’d still do it. I would need therapy after voting for Tulsi Gabbard; I’d still do it. I’d fall asleep trying to vote for John Delaney; I wouldn’t hit the floor until having marked that ballot, though.

• The notion that Barack Obama is more progressive than Hillary Clinton is a common fallacy based entirely on Hillary being a bit more hawkish than Obama and a lot more rhetorically cautious. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Hillary had a more progressive voting record in the Senate during the four years that they overlapped in the Congress. Hillary had a more progressive policy agenda than Obama’s in the 2008 primary. Hillary ran on a more progressive platform in 2016 than Obama did in 2008 or 2012.

• Progressives who care about democracy don’t have a fallback to “bullets” if “ballots” fail. First, the right in America has an order of magnitude more bullets than the left. Second, violent left-wing uprisings produce left-wing authoritarian dictatorships, not democracies.

[hepcat]

This thread went crazy while I was gone. A couple of points:

• “Reactionary” always means extremely right-wing. “Radical” is the term for someone so far on the left that they want to really hurt other people and damage the political system to get what they want.

This has already been covered ad nauseam. I was the one who started it, and I admitted I used the wrong word. However, I wouldn't be adverse to this becoming a running joke.

[$iljanus]

This thread went crazy while I was gone. A couple of points:

• “Reactionary” always means extremely right-wing. “Radical” is the term for someone so far on the left that they want to really hurt other people and damage the political system to get what they want.

This has already been covered ad nauseam. I was the one who started it, and I admitted I used the wrong word. However, I wouldn't be adverse to this becoming a running joke.

That’s enough out of you, you radical reactionary...or is it reactionary radical?

[hepcat]

[El Guapo]

If public insurance is introduced (expanded, really), private coverage of the things covered under the public insurance would need to be outlawed in order to prevent fraud (otherwise, unethical companies could try to sell you something that's you're already entitled to as a citizen).

This is not true. Private and public insurance plans can coexist. They coexist inside the Medicare
Program right now in the form of Medicare Advantage. Nothing about creating a solid public option requires the elimination of private insurance. However, an attractive public option could send the private providers into a death spiral through market dynamics.

Aren't there European countries that have public and private mixed systems? I want to say the Netherlands does?

[$iljanus]

Great Britain has private insurance along with Israel (not European but did come to mind from an article l read) and I think many countries with national health care have some private insurance options. But they sure as hell aren't relying on private industry to manage their citizen's health care unlike our country where insulin is unaffordable for some people. Not cutting edge therapy mind you, but insulin.

[Fireball]

Great Britain has private insurance along with Israel (not European but did come to mind from an article l read) and I think many countries with national health care have some private insurance options. But they sure as hell aren't relying on private industry to manage their citizen's health care unlike our country where insulin is unaffordable for some people. Not cutting edge therapy mind you, but insulin.

Yes, our system sucks beyond belief. But we should be talking about realistic ways to fix it. Medicare for All, if it’s actually “take current Medicare and modify the pay structure and financing so that anyone can buy into it or everyone can be moved to it”, would be a good solution. But Medicare for All that means “all private insurance goes away, as well as all deductibles, all co-pays, and everything else we don’t like about our current system” is just a fantasy. That’s not Medicare, it’s something new. We know Medicare works, and should stick with it.

[El Guapo]

Great Britain has private insurance along with Israel (not European but did come to mind from an article l read) and I think many countries with national health care have some private insurance options. But they sure as hell aren't relying on private industry to manage their citizen's health care unlike our country where insulin is unaffordable for some people. Not cutting edge therapy mind you, but insulin.

Yes, our system sucks beyond belief. But we should be talking about realistic ways to fix it. Medicare for All, if it’s actually “take current Medicare and modify the pay structure and financing so that anyone can buy into it or everyone can be moved to it”, would be a good solution. But Medicare for All that means “all private insurance goes away, as well as all deductibles, all co-pays, and everything else we don’t like about our current system” is just a fantasy. That’s not Medicare, it’s something new. We know Medicare works, and should stick with it.

I read some gnashing of teeth from center-left pundits concerned that both Warren and Harris came out for abolishing private health insurance, from a general election perspective (since "abolishing private health insurance" tends to poll poorly). Are you concerned about that?

[Fireball]

Great Britain has private insurance along with Israel (not European but did come to mind from an article l read) and I think many countries with national health care have some private insurance options. But they sure as hell aren't relying on private industry to manage their citizen's health care unlike our country where insulin is unaffordable for some people. Not cutting edge therapy mind you, but insulin.

Yes, our system sucks beyond belief. But we should be talking about realistic ways to fix it. Medicare for All, if it’s actually “take current Medicare and modify the pay structure and financing so that anyone can buy into it or everyone can be moved to it”, would be a good solution. But Medicare for All that means “all private insurance goes away, as well as all deductibles, all co-pays, and everything else we don’t like about our current system” is just a fantasy. That’s not Medicare, it’s something new. We know Medicare works, and should stick with it.

I read some gnashing of teeth from center-left pundits concerned that both Warren and Harris came out for abolishing private health insurance, from a general election perspective (since "abolishing private health insurance" tends to poll poorly). Are you concerned about that?

Yes. Though both of them have ways out of it. Warren could release a comprehensive health plan that presumes that private insurance as primary provider of coverage will fade out due to market dynamics (which is likely true in any system with a strong public option); that would get her to “no private insurance beyond supplementary plans” which is completely defensible. Harris has been a bit all over the map on this question, and I presume will remain muddled through next November, should she be the nominee.

[El Guapo]

I wish at least one of the candidates were running strongly on democracy reform. Basically say something like "look, here are my general policy platforms, but realistically 90% of what myself and the other candidates are advocating for won't happen unless we also have majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2021. And there are real structural problems standing in the way of Democratic majorities in both chambers, and addressing those issues is probably going to matter more over the next few decades than any candidate's position on most of the issues of the day. So here's my plan for addressing those issues."

[$iljanus]

Great Britain has private insurance along with Israel (not European but did come to mind from an article l read) and I think many countries with national health care have some private insurance options. But they sure as hell aren't relying on private industry to manage their citizen's health care unlike our country where insulin is unaffordable for some people. Not cutting edge therapy mind you, but insulin.

Yes, our system sucks beyond belief. But we should be talking about realistic ways to fix it. Medicare for All, if it’s actually “take current Medicare and modify the pay structure and financing so that anyone can buy into it or everyone can be moved to it”, would be a good solution. But Medicare for All that means “all private insurance goes away, as well as all deductibles, all co-pays, and everything else we don’t like about our current system” is just a fantasy. That’s not Medicare, it’s something new. We know Medicare works, and should stick with it.

I read some gnashing of teeth from center-left pundits concerned that both Warren and Harris came out for abolishing private health insurance, from a general election perspective (since "abolishing private health insurance" tends to poll poorly). Are you concerned about that?

Yes. Though both of them have ways out of it. Warren could release a comprehensive health plan that presumes that private insurance as primary provider of coverage will fade out due to market dynamics (which is likely true in any system with a strong public option); that would get her to “no private insurance beyond supplementary plans” which is completely defensible. Harris has been a bit all over the map on this question, and I presume will remain muddled through next November, should she be the nominee.

I believe Gillibrand was talking during the debate about a “glide path” to a single payer system which sounded like what you’re suggesting, Fireball, and Warren could certainly pivot to that. Warren can also break down such a plan for people and sell it with both rational thought and passion without the Bernie histrionics.

[Fireball]

I wish at least one of the candidates were running strongly on democracy reform. Basically say something like "look, here are my general policy platforms, but realistically 90% of what myself and the other candidates are advocating for won't happen unless we also have majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2021. And there are real structural problems standing in the way of Democratic majorities in both chambers, and addressing those issues is probably going to matter more over the next few decades than any candidate's position on most of the issues of the day. So here's my plan for addressing those issues."

Warren, Harris and Buttigieg have all talked about that. Buttigieg has been the most outspoken on governmental institution reform. Harris has executive action fallbacks in most of her plans.

[El Guapo]

I wish at least one of the candidates were running strongly on democracy reform. Basically say something like "look, here are my general policy platforms, but realistically 90% of what myself and the other candidates are advocating for won't happen unless we also have majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2021. And there are real structural problems standing in the way of Democratic majorities in both chambers, and addressing those issues is probably going to matter more over the next few decades than any candidate's position on most of the issues of the day. So here's my plan for addressing those issues."

Warren, Harris and Buttigieg have all talked about that. Buttigieg has been the most outspoken on governmental institution reform. Harris has executive action fallbacks in most of her plans.

My sense is that no one is making this a "core issue", like health care reform was in 2008, and that instead it's more of one plan among many. Though my perception could be wrong.

[rittchard]

I wish at least one of the candidates were running strongly on democracy reform. Basically say something like "look, here are my general policy platforms, but realistically 90% of what myself and the other candidates are advocating for won't happen unless we also have majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2021. And there are real structural problems standing in the way of Democratic majorities in both chambers, and addressing those issues is probably going to matter more over the next few decades than any candidate's position on most of the issues of the day. So here's my plan for addressing those issues."

Warren, Harris and Buttigieg have all talked about that. Buttigieg has been the most outspoken on governmental institution reform. Harris has executive action fallbacks in most of her plans.

My sense is that no one is making this a "core issue", like health care reform was in 2008, and that instead it's more of one plan among many. Though my perception could be wrong.

While it may or may not be considered one of his "core" issues, Pete has said it's his Day One priority to fix the broken democracy system, at least to get things in motion like getting rid of Electoral College, making Supreme Court less politically aligned, etc etc

[El Guapo]

I wish at least one of the candidates were running strongly on democracy reform. Basically say something like "look, here are my general policy platforms, but realistically 90% of what myself and the other candidates are advocating for won't happen unless we also have majorities in both the House and the Senate in 2021. And there are real structural problems standing in the way of Democratic majorities in both chambers, and addressing those issues is probably going to matter more over the next few decades than any candidate's position on most of the issues of the day. So here's my plan for addressing those issues."

Warren, Harris and Buttigieg have all talked about that. Buttigieg has been the most outspoken on governmental institution reform. Harris has executive action fallbacks in most of her plans.

My sense is that no one is making this a "core issue", like health care reform was in 2008, and that instead it's more of one plan among many. Though my perception could be wrong.

While it may or may not be considered one of his "core" issues, Pete has said it's his Day One priority to fix the broken democracy system, at least to get things in motion like getting rid of Electoral College, making Supreme Court less politically aligned, etc etc

ok. That raises him up a bit in the crucial "El Guapo" rankings.

[Fireball]

Elizabeth Warren has a comprehensive anti-corruption plan, which is designed to change the pressures on members of Congress regarding legislation and broaden the window of what is passable. It has some pretty strong executive action elements.

Buttigieg identifies some of the right problems but his plans are thin, bad or unworkable. His magical-thinking Supreme Court plan really bothers me.

[Defiant]

Buttigieg shows staying power with $24.8m fundraising haul

A spokesperson added that the campaign now had $22.6m in cash, attracting 230,000 new donors in the second quarter, with an average contribution size of $47.42.

[Fireball]

Those are impressive numbers!

[rittchard]

Buttigieg identifies some of the right problems but his plans are thin, bad or unworkable. His magical-thinking Supreme Court plan really bothers me.

If you listen closely, he clearly says he isn't wedded to that single plan. He says it's one of many that experts came up with that he is floating. The important thing to note is that he is open to collaboration and getting ideas from the best and brightest. The current process is obviously ridiculous and so party biased, it's a joke. I'm curious to hear what your solution is; if it's really that solid maybe you should send it to Pete.

That kind of goes to a broader topic. Frankly I don't need candidates to present fully detailed plans because everyone knows these promised plans are rarely implemented in reality. I want to know what their key intent is, and that they are fully committed to making things happen by appointing the right people and collaborating with them. I don't expect a single person to get every single detail and have every answer to every question already completed, particularly at this junction, and I don't think it's realistic to expect that from any president or candidate. I'd much rather know they are open to working with experts and all the relevant information before making their plans.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

If these numbers don’t change dramatically, Buttigieg has zero chance:

https://mobile.twitter.com/SteveKornack ... 8147947522

[Defiant]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/statu ... 5594467328

[Jeff V]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/statu ... 5594467328

Really, the only polls that interest me at the moment is Candidate (x) vs. The Goonie. That is most likely an indicator on which candidate is attracting the most swing voters.

[Defiant]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/statu ... 5594467328

Really, the only polls that interest me at the moment is Candidate (x) vs. The Goonie. That is most likely an indicator on which candidate is attracting the most swing voters.

Except that that general election polls are mostly meaningless at this point in the cycle (IIRC, the average error in general election polls in the *December* before the election with the election results is about 12 points)

(Primary polls probably are worth somewhat more (eg, someone leading by a very large margin at this point in the race will end up winning most of the time) but still should be taken with a large grain of salt. But do tell us the state of the primary now, and do matter for things like media attention and fundraising)

[Defiant]

https://twitter.com/maureenjohnson/stat ... 1860318210

[noxiousdog]

If public insurance is introduced (expanded, really), private coverage of the things covered under the public insurance would need to be outlawed in order to prevent fraud (otherwise, unethical companies could try to sell you something that's you're already entitled to as a citizen).

This is not true. Private and public insurance plans can coexist. They coexist inside the Medicare
Program right now in the form of Medicare Advantage. Nothing about creating a solid public option requires the elimination of private insurance. However, an attractive public option could send the private providers into a death spiral through market dynamics.

Aren't there European countries that have public and private mixed systems? I want to say the Netherlands does?

Yes. The Netherlands does. So does France. The public universal systems with private supplemental consistently rank higher than pure public systems like Canada and Britain and far better than private only like the US.

[Max Peck]

If public insurance is introduced (expanded, really), private coverage of the things covered under the public insurance would need to be outlawed in order to prevent fraud (otherwise, unethical companies could try to sell you something that's you're already entitled to as a citizen).

This is not true. Private and public insurance plans can coexist. They coexist inside the Medicare
Program right now in the form of Medicare Advantage. Nothing about creating a solid public option requires the elimination of private insurance. However, an attractive public option could send the private providers into a death spiral through market dynamics.

Aren't there European countries that have public and private mixed systems? I want to say the Netherlands does?

Yes. The Netherlands does. So does France. The public universal systems with private supplemental consistently rank higher than pure public systems like Canada and Britain and far better than private only like the US.

We do have private supplementary health insurance in Canada for things that aren't covered by provincial healthcare.

[Defiant]

Buttigieg shows staying power with $24.8m fundraising haul

A spokesperson added that the campaign now had $22.6m in cash, attracting 230,000 new donors in the second quarter, with an average contribution size of $47.42.

Sanders announces his Q2 Numbers:

The presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) raised $18 million in the second three-month period in 2019, the campaign announced Tuesday.

Sanders also transferred $6 million to his presidential bid from his Senate campaign account, bringing his fundraising total for the quarter to $24 million.

In a call with reporters, the campaign emphasized the breadth of its small donor base, noting that the total amount came from about 1 million individual contributions that averaged $18. More than 99% of the donations were $100 or less.

link

[Isgrimnur]

Politico

Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s senior team urged him last month to withdraw from the presidential race gracefully and run for Colorado’s Senate seat or pursue other opportunities, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

The source said that the campaign only has about 13,000 donors, making it almost impossible to qualify for the next round of presidential debates in the fall. The campaign also only raised just over $1 million in the second quarter — about what he raised in the first 48 hours of his candidacy — and will likely run out of money completely in about a month.

At least five staffers have left or are leaving Hickenlooper’s struggling operation, including his campaign manager, communications director, digital director and finance director. Hickenlooper named a new campaign manager on Monday night.

Hickenlooper publicly blamed his former staff Tuesday for his failure to gain traction in the crowded Democratic primary.
...
But a source familiar with the situation disputed the governor’s characterization, saying he is lashing out at the political professionals around him and surrounding himself with Colorado loyalists rather than confronting reality.

[Jeff V]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/statu ... 5594467328

Really, the only polls that interest me at the moment is Candidate (x) vs. The Goonie. That is most likely an indicator on which candidate is attracting the most swing voters.

Except that that general election polls are mostly meaningless at this point in the cycle (IIRC, the average error in general election polls in the *December* before the election with the election results is about 12 points)

(Primary polls probably are worth somewhat more (eg, someone leading by a very large margin at this point in the race will end up winning most of the time) but still should be taken with a large grain of salt. But do tell us the state of the primary now, and do matter for things like media attention and fundraising)

No, you can still tell who is appealing to swing voters and to what extent. Over the next few months, if certain positions tend to excite centrist voters, you'll start seeing more pandering toward them. One observation following last week's debates is that currently a far-left position that excites the base (ala Trump) is something many candidates appear to be chasing. They may need to recruit some foreign influence to make it a winning strategy, however.

[Pyperkub]

This thread went crazy while I was gone. A couple of points:

• “Reactionary” always means extremely right-wing. “Radical” is the term for someone so far on the left that they want to really hurt other people and damage the political system to get what they want.

• Barack Obama was the most progressive president in decades, certainly the most progressive in the lives of almost everyone here. He did more to help everyday people than anyone since Johnson, or maybe FDR. Dodd-Frank, healthcare reform, his climate actions, etc, were major progressive achievements and shouldn’t be diminished. And he accomplished them while also saving the economy from complete collapse and in the face of unheard of opposition from the other party.

• The “Susan Sarandon” theory that electing Trump would cause a “progressive revolution” was idiotic in 2016 and unbelievably evil in 2019. We’ve seen the costs of a Trump presidency — children in cages, families torn apart, children dying, climate action stopping, gerrymandering legalized, the right to choose being hollowed out, the courts being crammed full of arch-conservatives who will unwind the rights of minorities and LGBT people. To say that you’d accept more of that because the Democratic nominee isn’t exactly who you prefer is childish and selfish to an extreme. The climate impact alone of a second Trump Administration would likely be enough to end human civilization.
  
  I would feel dirty voting for Bernie Sanders; I’d still do it. I would need therapy after voting for Tulsi Gabbard; I’d still do it. I’d fall asleep trying to vote for John Delaney; I wouldn’t hit the floor until having marked that ballot, though.

• The notion that Barack Obama is more progressive than Hillary Clinton is a common fallacy based entirely on Hillary being a bit more hawkish than Obama and a lot more rhetorically cautious. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Hillary had a more progressive voting record in the Senate during the four years that they overlapped in the Congress. Hillary had a more progressive policy agenda than Obama’s in the 2008 primary. Hillary ran on a more progressive platform in 2016 than Obama did in 2008 or 2012.

• Progressives who care about democracy don’t have a fallback to “bullets” if “ballots” fail. First, the right in America has an order of magnitude more bullets than the left. Second, violent left-wing uprisings produce left-wing authoritarian dictatorships, not democracies.

Quoting for attention, but I have a side question for Fireball - any chance there is a Miss Sloane-esque monster organizing push against the NRA while they are in disarray?

Now, the gun rights group is in total meltdown — and senior Republicans and Trump 2020 officials are alarmed.

In recent weeks, the NRA has seen everything from a failed coup attempt to the departure of its longtime political architect to embarrassing tales of self-dealing by top leaders. The turmoil is fueling fears that the organization will be profoundly diminished heading into the election, leaving the Republican Party with a gaping hole in its political machinery.

[Drazzil]

This thread went crazy while I was gone. A couple of points:

• “Reactionary” always means extremely right-wing. “Radical” is the term for someone so far on the left that they want to really hurt other people and damage the political system to get what they want.

• Barack Obama was the most progressive president in decades, certainly the most progressive in the lives of almost everyone here. He did more to help everyday people than anyone since Johnson, or maybe FDR. Dodd-Frank, healthcare reform, his climate actions, etc, were major progressive achievements and shouldn’t be diminished. And he accomplished them while also saving the economy from complete collapse and in the face of unheard of opposition from the other party.

• The “Susan Sarandon” theory that electing Trump would cause a “progressive revolution” was idiotic in 2016 and unbelievably evil in 2019. We’ve seen the costs of a Trump presidency — children in cages, families torn apart, children dying, climate action stopping, gerrymandering legalized, the right to choose being hollowed out, the courts being crammed full of arch-conservatives who will unwind the rights of minorities and LGBT people. To say that you’d accept more of that because the Democratic nominee isn’t exactly who you prefer is childish and selfish to an extreme. The climate impact alone of a second Trump Administration would likely be enough to end human civilization.
  
  I would feel dirty voting for Bernie Sanders; I’d still do it. I would need therapy after voting for Tulsi Gabbard; I’d still do it. I’d fall asleep trying to vote for John Delaney; I wouldn’t hit the floor until having marked that ballot, though.

• The notion that Barack Obama is more progressive than Hillary Clinton is a common fallacy based entirely on Hillary being a bit more hawkish than Obama and a lot more rhetorically cautious. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Hillary had a more progressive voting record in the Senate during the four years that they overlapped in the Congress. Hillary had a more progressive policy agenda than Obama’s in the 2008 primary. Hillary ran on a more progressive platform in 2016 than Obama did in 2008 or 2012.

• Progressives who care about democracy don’t have a fallback to “bullets” if “ballots” fail. First, the right in America has an order of magnitude more bullets than the left. Second, violent left-wing uprisings produce left-wing authoritarian dictatorships, not democracies.

Quoting for attention, but I have a side question for Fireball - any chance there is a Miss Sloane-esque monster organizing push against the NRA while they are in disarray?

Now, the gun rights group is in total meltdown — and senior Republicans and Trump 2020 officials are alarmed.

In recent weeks, the NRA has seen everything from a failed coup attempt to the departure of its longtime political architect to embarrassing tales of self-dealing by top leaders. The turmoil is fueling fears that the organization will be profoundly diminished heading into the election, leaving the Republican Party with a gaping hole in its political machinery.

Killer Mike was right. The left needs to be better armed.

[Combustible Lemur]

This expands what I was saying the other day

WHATEVER, I'm just a DINO unmoored from reality.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Defiant]

More Q2 numbers:

Mayor Pete Buttigieg raised $24.8 million with more than 400,000 donors.
Former Vice President Joe Biden raised $21.5 million with over 256,000 donors.
Sen. Bernie Sanders raised $18 million with nearly 1 million donors.
Sen. Kamala Harris raised nearly $12 million from 279,000 donors.
Sen. Michael Bennet raised $2.8 million.
Gov. Steve Bullock raised $2 million.

link

[Isgrimnur]

CNN

California Rep. Eric Swalwell is expected to announce Monday that he's dropping out of the 2020 race for president, according to a source familiar with his plans.

Swalwell is expected to make the announcement at a 4 p.m. ET news conference at his campaign headquarters in California, concluding a short-lived bid for the Democratic nomination that failed to gain any traction.

[Jaymann]

Swal's well that ends well.

[Defiant]

More Q2 numbers:

Mayor Pete Buttigieg raised $24.8 million with more than 400,000 donors.
Former Vice President Joe Biden raised $21.5 million with over 256,000 donors.
Sen. Bernie Sanders raised $18 million with nearly 1 million donors.
Sen. Kamala Harris raised nearly $12 million from 279,000 donors.
Sen. Michael Bennet raised $2.8 million.
Gov. Steve Bullock raised $2 million.

link

And Warren raised $19 million.

[Holman]

https://twitter.com/melaka_redux/status ... 8729508864

[pr0ner]

How will Wall Street pay for that?