,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
I really like Mayor Pete. But when I see how much time he spent fundraising as compared to Beto I think of how (a) the results were predictable (Pete raised exponentially more money), (b) the media *punished* Beto *relentlessly* for focusing his time/energy on voters, not donors.
My point: voters want candidates to be on the trail with *them*—and almost never courting donors.
Yet if a candidate does that, the media punishes them and—moreover—takes no responsibility for glibly playing up the money "horse race" that separates politicians from their voters.
Yet if a candidate does that, the media punishes them and—moreover—takes no responsibility for glibly playing up the money "horse race" that separates politicians from their voters.
PS/ That's no knock on Mayor Pete—who I deeply admire. I understand this is, finally, a money game. It's more that I wish that when a candidate takes a hit on fundraising to be with voters, media acknowledges that that's a choice (an *honorable* one) that simply has consequences.
PS2/ And I'll say kudos to the other candidates who spent their time mostly with voters, not donors, even as I understand that—for several of them—they were able to do that because name-recognition was bringing in money anyway, whereas folks like Pete had to scramble for capital.
