Elizabeth Warren's finance director leaving campaign

[RandySF]

(CNN)Michael Pratt, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren's finance director, is in the process of leaving Warren's presidential campaign as a result of the senator's recent decision to swear off soliciting money from wealthy donors during the primaries, according to a Warren campaign aide.

The aide told CNN Sunday morning that Pratt was "still a consultant but winding things down and transitioning out since we made the decision not to have (Warren) do high dollar events."
News of the departure came at the close of the first quarter fundraising deadline. In the coming days, a more complete picture of the Warren campaign's fundraising efforts is expected to come into focus. Her team has so far not released any early fundraising numbers, raising speculation that she is lagging behind her competitors.
The New York Times reported Sunday that Pratt resigned after a Valentine's Day meeting in Washington that eventually "grew heated," in which Pratt "noted that campaigns often collapse when they run out of money and pleaded with her not to cut off a significant cash stream."
"He pointed out that winning over wealthy fund-raisers across the country helped build networks that could translate into political support, not just checks," the Times said. "But Mr. Pratt lost the argument to two of Ms. Warren's closest advisers, Dan Geldon and Joe Rospars, who made the case about standing apart from the field and freeing up her schedule."



https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/31/politics/elizabeth-warren-michael-pratt/index.html

[highplainsdem]

1. Interesting. K&R

[elleng]

2. Why Elizabeth Warren, a Presumed Front-Runner, Trails Her Rivals in Fund-Raising

MEMPHIS — On a Sunday afternoon earlier this month, Senator Elizabeth Warren began a swing through the South by proclaiming that she was running “a different type of campaign” — one that did not include high-dollar fund-raisers but was entirely reliant on grass-roots contributions.

“If you think that’s a good idea, go to ElizabethWarren.com,” she told about 500 people at a town hall-style event in Memphis, adding: “Pitch in five bucks, do whatever you can.”

The next morning she woke up to some news about a surge in small-dollar contributions, but it wasn’t for her: Former Representative Beto O’Rourke had raised $6.1 million in the first 24 hours of his candidacy.

It was another blow to a candidate who has spent the first months of the Democratic presidential primary campaign seeking to distinguish herself from the field: She was the first major candidate to announce; she has set the pace on policy, unveiling a series of far-reaching proposals on child care, taxes and the role of large technology companies; and she defied the pleas of her longtime finance director and declared that she would stop pursuing big donations altogether.

But as the first fund-raising deadline arrives at midnight on Sunday, Ms. Warren — who last year was widely considered a would-be front-runner — finds herself in a political vise. Her rivals on either ideological flank will raise substantially more money in the first quarter than she does, and her focus on policy has not yet translated in the polls.

Ms. Warren’s early troubles reflect the broader challenges confronting the vast Democratic field, all vying for money and attention as they seek to dethrone President Trump. Harvesting online donations does not come easily to noncelebrity candidates, and the party’s longstanding fascination with youthful charisma — along with its current, Trump-driven fixation on electability — can outweigh qualities like experience or policy expertise.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/31/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-fundraising.html?

[madville]

6. Presumed Front Runner is generous

She's never been more than a mid-tier candidate at best. I appreciate her message and her great work in the Senate but money is not really her problem. Money can't buy that "it" factor that she seems to lack.

[brooklynite]

9. This is a meaningless political choice.

Warren's reputation wasn't tainted by taking high-dollar contributions in her Senate campaigns (I've had lunch with her and attended several fundraiser cocktail parties). No candidate you proactively disarm in a race that will cost more than $1 billion.

[at140]

3. Kudos to sen Warren for rejecting mega donor class!

Money is the devil in politics. Mega donors control many politicians, not average small fry donors.
I don't think I will live long enough to see all campaigns funded by gov't money ONLY. But boy, would that get rid of so much corruption in DC.

[RandySF]

8. Ok, but she's reportedly short on $$$

[NurseJackie]

10. Why intentionally cripple one's own campaign?

If someone wants to win, if someone wants to be competitive and get their message out (in this expensive world) then that candidate needs to play by the rules currently in effect and acknowledge the reality of today, not by the rules that everyone "wished" were true... and not by some fantasy that hobbling one's own campaign will "set an example" that everyone will follow voluntarily. It's an idealistic and unrealistic expectations. That's just not going to happen. It is, literally, giving the upper-hand to someone else. Oh well.

[at140]

11. If money was the most important factor

How come Rockefeller (from NY) never became president? How come we don't have president Perot or Bloomberg or Romney?

With internet & social media I don't think the expensive TV market is as important any more.

[NurseJackie]

12. I never said that and you know it.

Deliberately twisting things and attributing meanings to words I never wrote reveals when someone is arguing from a position of weakness.

Of course commercials are expensive. The folks at Olde Towne Media can confirm it if you don't believe me.

[at140]

13. I will chip in more to her campaign after

Hearing this news. Hopefully there will be a million more like me.

So long as Warren makes into the debates, she will be fine.

[ehrnst]

15. Campaign funds, not personal wealth.

You know exactly what NurseJackie is talking about...

[at140]

16. Rich people are allowed to spend UNLIMITED

Amounts on their own campaign. Bezos for example is worth $150 Billion, and could easily spend $10-15 Billion on his own campaign. That is more money than all the money spent in 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984 and 1980 in all presidential campaigns combined.

[ehrnst]

17. Not what was being discussed.

If you want to change the topic completely for a rant, just do it.

Don't make it about someone else being "wrong" about something.

[at140]

18. It just proves my point, that richest candidate or the one who

spends most money in the campaign do not always win or can win.
Bezos for example has more than enough money to spend on campaigns but
will never be elected president.

I am disgusted with how candidates depend on half a dozen mega donors to keep
their campaigns competitive. Why do you think laws are passed to favor the richest?
Why do you think 85% of recent taxcut went on to benefit the 10% richest?

So I would prefer that Senator Warren gets enough donations from small donations,
so that she will have the independence to do what benefits all people, not just the
richest 1%, 5% or 10%.

[ehrnst]

19. Again... the original point WAS about personal wealth NOT being as important as donations.

I am disgusted with how candidates depend on half a dozen mega donors to keep their campaigns competitive.

Your disgust clearly isn't shared by Senator Sanders or Senator Warren.

Perriello snags big endorsement in Bernie Sanders

The campaign quickly added an event with Sanders to its schedule, moving things around so it could hold a rally Thursday night at George Mason University with Sanders, who called Tom Perriello "a committed progressive who will stand up for working families."

https://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/shad-plank-blog/dp-perriello-snags-big-endorsement-bernie-sanders-20170404-post.html

Sen. Elizabeth Warren endorses Perriello in Democratic primary for Va. gov

He’s the kind of guy who says, ‘I am going to make change and I’m going to make change not for the richest, not for the most powerful, not for what’s politically expedient. I want to make change for hard-working families,’” Warren said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/sen-elizabeth-warren-endorses-perriello-in-democratic-primary-for-va-gov/2017/04/24/dfe1792c-2940-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html


Perriello’s Va. governor bid boosted by several big donors, including George Soros

He launched his campaign Jan. 5 with $500,000 from Sonjia Smith, a Charlottesville resident who is a major donor to Democrats in Virginia and nationwide, and $200,000 from Avaaz, an international nonprofit group that funds progressive activists and was co-founded by Perriello a decade ago. Perriello’s haul was buoyed by several massive campaign contributions, with half of his money coming from four donors.

Philanthropist and liberal activist George Soros was Perriello’s second-most-generous contributor, at $250,000, and Soros’s son Alexander chipped in $125,000. New York financier Courtney Smith gave $75,000, while California philanthropist Stephen Silberstein donated $50,000. Overall, 57 percent of Perriello’s money came from outside Virginia, compared with 11 percent out-of-state donations for Northam, according to VPAP.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/northam-has-financial-edge-in-virginia-governors-race-gillespie-leads-gop-field/2017/04/18/a44452f0-23a4-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html

[at140]

20. What has Perriello to do with senator Warren?

Of course Warren is going to endorse any and all democrats. Is that a problem for you?

Again to repeat my point, multi Billionaires like Bezos who have more money to spend on personal campaign than ALL THE MONEY SPENT IN PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS since Abraham Lincoln, seldom succeed winning presidency. Which then should become obvious that money is not the ONLY criteria for winning national elections. Certainly money gives an advantage to candidates to buy TV Ads, but that is never enough in most elections. A winner more often than not, has a message the voters like and has the skill to express it to his/her advantage. And that does not need a Billion dollars.

[ehrnst]

21. She endorsed him, even though by your metrics, he "disgusts" you.

Last edited Wed Apr 3, 2019, 07:25 AM - Edit history (2)

Your words.

I am disgusted with how candidates depend on half a dozen mega donors to keep their campaigns competitive.

That would e Perriello, which your preferred candidate lent her name and endorsement as a progressive to his PRIMARY run for governor.

Of course Warren is going to endorse any and all democrats. Is that a problem for you?

This was a primary, not a general, so there was another Democrat that she could have endorsed, and no, she did not specifically endorse "any and all" Democratic primary candidates, let alone governor candidates in primaries outside her own state. Is being informed that she did endorse a specific candidate whose campaign funding "disgusts" you a problem for you?

Elizabeth Warren made a decision to personally endorse this particular primary candidate for governor, despite the fact that he quite literally "depended on a half dozen mega donors to keep his campaign competitive."

I'm saying that your preferred candidate does not share your belief that sort of campaign fundraising is "disgusting" enough to disqualify them as a progressive, because apparently policies have far more weight with Senator Warren than how many out of state wealthy donors they had, or what percent of their campaign was funded by them. I think that you may want to re-examine your own metrics of who is and isn't "disgusting" in light of this information.

Is that clearer?

Which then should become obvious that money is not the ONLY criteria for winning national elections.

NO ONE here is arguing that it is. To say that they are is attacking straw man. But do go on repeating that you are the one who is "right" about something that no one is actually refuting. Unless you are trying to now claim that your "disgust" campaign funding criteriar never applied to statewide candidates, since Elizabeth Warren personally endorsed such a candidate as a progressive.

[Demsrule86]

14. And this is what happens...you need money to play the game.

She will be out of the race...pure but still out.you can't expect our candidates to win without funds,

[Jarqui]

4. Could be wrong but I don't think there is a better advocate for

those getting the short end of the stick financially.

She has good, grounded, practical ideas and is a very decent person.

I think she is an important voice with a perspective that all Americans should hear.

Hopefully, this news will stir her campaign up and garner her more support. I think she deserves it.

Some of her campaign has been hurt by Trump's ridiculing - which might motivate some to give her a hand.

I'm a little partial to Mayor Pete (I do like a lot of the Democratic candidates) but I'd have no problem supporting this woman.

[rgbecker]

5. I'm donating to Warren's campaign, won't you?

https://donate.elizabethwarren.com/page/contribute/seq-def

She's walking the walk and talking the talk. Smart and full of good ideas.

If Bernie slips, Warren will be there to pick up the banner.

[Omaha Steve]

7. DU has an ActBlue link for Warren for POTUS

Donate here: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/duforwarren