I have been ruminating since the Dem Debate regarding some double standards regarding when someone does something considered "anti-democratic" or "in the pockets of oligarchs".
Finally I read this article in Vox that made me ponder and put more intellectual honesty behind "wine drinking".
As a wine-liberal gay white LatinO doctor I needed some real-world data to make a meme into an honest debate regarding big donor fundraisers.
Donors’ affection for Buttigieg is seen in this context as part of a broader trend of donors working to keep Democrats from embracing the left-wing stances the public allegedly demands. But a more systemic look at the evidence raises some doubts.
the author goes and explain how big dollar donors appear to move the politics to the right, but with the caveat that that seems to be more on moving the GOP. Looking at Democratic mega donors and their pet issues they also appear to be more left handed than the rank-and-file democrat which are themselves more left leaning than the median voter ( we are not talking about specific policies, just political inclinations as hard as it is to pigeon hole it into one "box").
It is of no surprise that small online donors are even further to the left that these wine drinking democratic donors. The latter are the big chunk of donors of Senator Sanders and Senator Warren.
Here the author and I disagree
replacing all fundraising with the establishment of public financing of campaigns — a measure that would likely lead to more moderate nominees from both parties.
I would like to see real data supporting this, as a moderate myself (in my own educated estimation I am center-left but inside the Kos world I am almost a "neo-liberal"), I have supported populists like Dean and Hillary ( allegedly a centrist or at least not-progressive by many) as my first choice during primaries, I always ended up voting for the nominee…. a meh for Kerry and Yasss for Obama 1 and 2 and You Go girl for Hillary 2016.
The article cites a book "Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail"
they have an amazing graph:
Jeff Stein, wrote for the same publication during 2016, regarding non-donors vs +$1000 donors:
where do we see the "aha!" , taxes.
Democratic donors in general are more supportive of tax increases than the rank-and-file, but if we just focus on the most wealthy of the wealthy they are less supportive of tax increases.
Looking into these small donors:
It is worth emphasizing, however, how idiosyncratic these small donors are. Back in 2016, for example, Sanders shattered records by raising money from about 7 million individuals. That’s a huge number. But it’s smaller than the 13 million people who voted for him in the primary, which in turn is smaller than the 17 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary. And the 30 million voters who participated in the Democratic Party primary is overshadowed by the 66 million people who voted for Clinton in the general election. And 40 percent of eligible voters didn’t vote at all.
This is just to say that while small donors are more like “regular people” in terms of their income level, they are also idiosyncratic in their level of political participation. Big donors are moderate compared to small donors — which is why they like Buttigieg and Biden, rather than Sanders and Warren — but big donors are progressive relative to non-donors.
The author ends with a small reference to public financing of electiones. I think that is worth another diary.
#winecavescaretoo