If there are no ads to tell me which candidates are accepting only small donations, where am I supposed to get this information to know who is a small donor candidate and who isn't?

FEC records, but don't waste your time. There are no candidates that meet the Don Harris purity "demand" where voters pledge to self-disenfranchise unless a "messiah" candidate that doesn't exist runs for political office.

The fatal flaw in the theory is that a group of people promising to not vote would force politicians to appease them. *laughs* Meanwhile, politicians are looking for voters. If everybody in Texas were stupid enough to join Don's idiot crusade, I would be the electorate because I'm participating in democracy whether Jesus is on the ballot or not. No one would need very much money to campaign because they could just focus on those actually voting -- me. I'm never not voting. :)

To place them in the correct congressional district? For what?

NO WHERE ON YOUR SITE DOES IT STATE THAT BY REGISTERING WITH ONE DEMAND, WE ARE GIVING YOU PERMISSION TO MAKE OUR PERSONAL INFO AVAILABLE TO ANYONE WHO WANTS IT!

NO WHERE!!!

From the One Demand site:

You may have noticed that the basic plan does not mention you contributing money other than stating that you can participate for free. This is because with One Demand your vote is more important than your money.

20% of the approximately 130 million national voters investing 100 dollars in political contributions would total over 2.5 billion dollars.

You say that people do not have to donate $100 to a campaign to sign up, yet all of the financial stats that you post are based on the assumption that every single person who signs up is in fact donating the maximum $200. These are 20% of the registered voters who have not voted been active voters in the past. You can safely assume that they also have not donated to campaigns in the past, but you believe that not only can you convince them to start voting, but to also donate the maximum $200.

Of course, since there are no candidates that meet your criteria, that means no money will actually be raised.

Yes, by a very large margin. He was VP for eight years, and his name was on the campaign signs for two general-election campaigns.

You are not normal. I am not normal. Normal people pay as much attention to primaries as you or I do to professional lacrosse.

do you really believe that joe biden right now has greater name recognition in the general public than bernie sanders and liz warren? maybe six months ago warren might have been a bit less conspicuous in the public view, but all three have had a fairly high profile at least for the last four years. i would argue that sanders due to his presidential run in 2016 has even higher name recognition with the general public than biden. i'm open to other hypotheses, but why is it so hard to fathom that perhaps biden's poll numbers might be due to people liking him or thinking he'd be a good president?

@don,

the word "idea" is very broad. the reason scientific journals require authors to put their goals, background, hypotheses, methodology and conclusions in different sections is so it will be easier for readers to tell which aspect of an idea is which. that way they can decide whether or not something makes sense as a whole, and the journal can decide whether or not to publish it. based on your repeated requests to CW, i'm going to intuit that your intermediate goal here is to be published.

what everybody here (apologies to any dissenters) has tried unsuccessfully to communicate to you is that your proposal is missing some crucial components that cw (or anyone else) would require in order to consider publication. most of us agree that your goal (limiting the influence of money in politics) is a good one. your hypothesis is indeed untried, as you claim. however, your methodology and conclusions don't seem to have any concrete relationship to that hypothesis - even less so since you began to act belligerently toward our host. not only does a submission for publication have to make sense, it also has to fit the goals of the journal in which it's being published, and the editor has to trust you as a reliable author. just because someone reports "news" doesn't mean that it's their job to report on those events that they don't find interesting or meaningful.

CW mentioned that creating your own blog would allow you to express your idea more fully. russ mentioned that he has experience running a national nonprofit, and you are up-front with the fact that you don't. instead of dismissing these expert criticisms as "twisting" the idea you have in your head (but which nobody else seems to understand), why not benefit from them by changing your methodology?

JL

Those who know little to nothing about Senator Biden tap out the most asinine comments about him.

It has always been that way and it will always be thus.

In the wake of Trump:Fox strife, One America News Network (OANN) was flouncing her goods around on You Tube feed last week trying to attract the attention of Trump and Trump Supporters. OANN talking heads are younger and Foxier than the current Fox stable, and all of these eager unknowns are more than willing to pimp a conspiracy theory to within an inch of its credibility.

OANN is the child of doting father Charles ("Pickled") Herring. A man who evidently likes to remain beneath the radar...as in not much bubbles up from a Google search.

Any pledges made to OneDemand are unenforceable at the ballot box. This reduces OneDemand to yet another nonscientific internet poll, of which there are already plenty - and all of which are worthless except for collecting suckers personal info for marketing or worse.

"Don"s URL does not indicate it has a web secure certificate. Another red flag.

As for personal info Don, you first. Real name, real face, real address.

Citizens can register at http://www.onedemand.org that they will only vote for small donor candidates and pledge to contribute small contributions directly to candidates.

Why, again, do I need to register with you? Why am I handing you my personal info? What purpose will it serve? I can vote for only small donor candidates without telling you my intentions or giving you my address!

Then the candidates won't need the DNC, DCCC, DSCCC, political consultants or ad agencies.

I’m sorry, but how will One Demand remove a candidate’s need for political consultants or ad agencies? If there are no ads to tell me which candidates are accepting only small donations, where am I supposed to get this information to know who is a small donor candidate and who isn’t? You are too busy whining about CW not telling the world all of the reasons One Demand is the next big movement to provide any real services to candidates or to voters!

If candidates are not putting out mass mailings or running ads letting us know what their political leanings are, how are we to make wise choices on who we want to represent us? You’ve made it clear that you don’t care about anything but supporting small donor candidates.... no, no that’s not right. What you have made clear is that you think CW should promote an idea you had that doesn’t do what you claim it will...an idea that you don’t want to put any real time into... so please tell me HOW ONE DEMAND will replace the need for political consultants and ad agencies?

Polls don't measure the future. They measure what people will say in response to particular questions, now. In this case, the polls are perfectly accurate in their ranking of what they do measure. But what they measure is mostly about name recognition, which is perfectly irrelevant. By the end of a presidential campaign, everyone will recognize the names of both major-party candidates.

Because Biden only two things going for him: (1) everyone recognizes his name and associates it with Obama, and (2) the vast majority of the population knows nothing else about him. No one actually wants him to be president -- him in particular, rather than any Democrat, or for that matter, anyone but the current ra*ist-in-chief. Once it gets to the general campaign, everyone will see him as a senile white guy who has been on the wrong side of a bunch of race questions and who has a habit of putting his hands on women who don't want his hands on them. There are plenty of people who are ok with that, but they're voting for Trump.

"Trackdown" starring Robert Culp as a Texas Ranger, and that episode was titled "The End of the World"... presented without commercials in its entirety (~ 23 minutes) at the link below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1D2ynASqe4

When the state lawman asks the Sheriff of Talpa how long he is going to let the "con man walk around town," Trump threatens the Texas Ranger: "Be careful, son, I can sue you."

Trump tries to bribe the Texas Ranger.

**Spoiler Alert**

It doesn't end well for Trump. :)

Did no one tell the Moron-In-Chief that his pardon power is limited to federal crimes? There is absolutely nothing on Earth Trump could do for those who would undoubtedly be facing criminal prosecution for their violation of numerous municipal and state crimes that would also have to be committed to illegally build that wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for.

Also, anyone contemplating breaking the law for the Criminal-in-Chief might want to check the whereabouts and legal issues facing Paulie Manafort, Roger Stone, Mikey Cohen, Mikey Flynn and numerous other of Trump's associates to find out how that following Trump's illegal orders is working out for them.

If this isn't obstruction of justice, we don't know what is.

Yes, sir... bribery... or if you want to get technical, it's conspiracy to defraud the government and obstruction of justice, violation of 18 United States Code 371... and another violation of Trump's oath of office and impeachable.

Indeed.

maybe donald would win re-election with biden as an opponent. maybe some other candidate could defeat donald. however, currently all top tier candidates poll ahead of donald in a general election match-up, with biden performing the best. fallible as the polls may be, i think it's highly unlikely that they've managed to rank the candidates entirely backwards. why would donald win against biden, and why would any other candidate defeat donald if biden could not?

JL

Biden is the nominee. Trump is reelected.

Jen Palmieri, Clinton’s former communications director, said there was “no question” that the Franken ordeal had a “huge, outsized impact on her.” '
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/29/kirsten-gillibrand-drops-out-2020-race-1477845

More seriously, I've read more than one article crowing that the single debate means "candidate 1" will finally go 'head to head' with "candidate 2". While this may be good for the network, who will be able to promote the debate like a sporting event or reality show episode, this is not good for the voters. If the debates were held over 2 nights, each candidate would have more time to explain proposals and positions.

I couldn't agree more.

And, before he even gets to Trump's lies, he can obliterate Trump's policies, one by one.

Please help me understand why you have concerns about Biden's ability to take on Trump in a debate/campaign in light of Bidenisms.

I mean, seriously … how fun it will be after a Trump/Biden debate when the media types count and compare the gaffes with the lies. Oh, right, they won't compare and contrast, they'll just count. I think American voters understand the difference and know which one defines the promise of America.

Reporters must be hanging on every syllable, all the time. I doubt they do the same for anyone else.

Did you see the clip of the female soldier - in uniform - who spoke with Biden at an event and hoped out loud that he is the next president.

A former general speaking on CNN said that was a big problem, especially since she was in uniform. He said with a very slight semi-grin that he was sure that there were some in the military who would not support Biden. What's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.

I have noticed over the years, particularly remembering General McCrystal's insulting comments about Biden, while acting under the Obama administration. Where does this sentiment in the military come from, I would like to understand.

REALLY??? Do you really believe that Biden’s gaffe raises this question? Biden could begin every morning from now until Election Day tweeting out that he can fly like Superman and Biden would still easily be able to take on Trump on the issue of being honest! He’d also still be able to claim that he is in better mental condition than Trump is!

..And that's all you're gonna hear. Pretty obvious by now that the party is all toadies. Some rumbling by Fox, now that the president isn't on their side so much, but really, where're they gonna go? Jeb? Ted?

gimme a break.