This is the idea behind the State Slate especially. These are unglamorous, good-governance candidates who have a strong chance not just of winning their seat, but flipping their legislative house. But most have no access to serious social media fundraising, which relies on drama
-
-
Show this thread
-
The rise of social media fundraising is a good corrective to the status quo (where corporate PACs, giant advocacy groups and Republican chambers of commerce control candidate viability) but it has its own pathologies. Remember to give with your head, not just your heart, in 2020
Show this thread -
The situation reminds me of those "give small loans to the poor" social charity websites that appeared a few years ago. Some deserving people have compelling, fascinating stories! But some are just regular normal people. Others are jerks, but could still use the help!
Show this thread -
I've come to think that 90% of what goes wrong with social media of any kind is that it rewards drama. It makes me want to just end it all!
Show this thread -
Anyway, give to the State Slate. The money goes far, the candidates are good (and a lot of overlap with similar efforts like
@sister_district, if you'd rather donate there). The funding approach is like watering the desert—nothing can bloom without it.https://secure.actblue.com/donate/state_slate_2 …Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Isn't this a general problem, apart from social media? The vast majority of raised funds goes to completely safe seats, where it is spent on consultants and other services which deliver literally no value, because the seat cannot lose?
-
And this is driven largely be Star Status of those people, and the desire donors have to back winners. Who wants to back from chancy thing, when you can put your money on a sure thing?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.