return2ozma@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 8 months agoBillionaire-backed Koch network halts Nikki Haley campaign funding after South Carolina losswww.cnbc.comexternal-linkmessage-square41fedilinkarrow-up1241arrow-down16
arrow-up1235arrow-down1external-linkBillionaire-backed Koch network halts Nikki Haley campaign funding after South Carolina losswww.cnbc.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world · 8 months agomessage-square41fedilink
minus-squarelemmy_user_838586@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up29arrow-down1·edit-26 months agodeleted by creator
minus-squarePM_ME_YOUR_CODE@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up29·8 months agoWhen you have that much money, you fund every candidate. They may not win this round, but who knows what will happen next time.
minus-squarehydroptic@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up11·8 months ago Why were they backing her to begin with? Plausible deniability?
minus-squareCarbonIceDragon@pawb.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up7·8 months agoProbably so that just in case she did manage a win, they’d still have some amount of influence as one of her donors
minus-squareOldWoodFrame@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up3·8 months agoThey were backing her because they don’t like Trump. They didn’t support him in 2016 either.
minus-squareDragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafelinkfedilinkarrow-up0·8 months agoWhich is funny, because he’s everything they helped create.
minus-squareOptional@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·8 months agoThat only applies if you use “reason” or “logic”. So, y’know. They’ll disagree.
minus-squaretreadful@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·8 months agoBecause they couldn’t control Trump
minus-squareOptional@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·8 months agoI think they can’t get a good return-on-investment with the demented rapist. Let’s face it, he’s beyond incompetent, he can barely stick to the script and often-as-not he blows up what he’s supposed to support.
deleted by creator
When you have that much money, you fund every candidate. They may not win this round, but who knows what will happen next time.
Plausible deniability?
Probably so that just in case she did manage a win, they’d still have some amount of influence as one of her donors
They were backing her because they don’t like Trump. They didn’t support him in 2016 either.
Which is funny, because he’s everything they helped create.
That only applies if you use “reason” or “logic”. So, y’know. They’ll disagree.
Because they couldn’t control Trump
I think they can’t get a good return-on-investment with the demented rapist. Let’s face it, he’s beyond incompetent, he can barely stick to the script and often-as-not he blows up what he’s supposed to support.