PDA

View Full Version : Bernie Sanders!



Paul Pless
10-01-2015, 03:25 PM
The official reporting deadline isn't until Oct. 15, but Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are already out with big numbers for the third quarter.
And those numbers tell us something about the state of the presidential race on the Democratic side.


Sanders' insurgent campaign raised $26 million in the third quarter $2 million of it in the last day, according to campaign spokesman Michael Briggs. Almost all of that was in small-dollar donations. Sanders' campaign said the Vermont independent has gotten more than 1.3 million donations (from 650,000 donors some have given multiple times) since Sanders started running.


This is a dramatic increase from his fundraising totals in the previous three months and is a reflection of a summer of big crowds and surging poll numbers.
Hillary Clinton's campaign gave its own preview of third-quarter fundraising, saying she raised $28 million, more than Sanders, but not by much. A campaign aide said 93 percent of her donations were $100 or less.


"We are thrilled and grateful for the support of hundreds of thousands of donors across the country, helping us raise a record $75 million in the first two quarters," campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement. "Thanks to our supporters, we are able to meet our goals and build an organization that can mobilize millions of voters to ensure Hillary Clinton is their fighter in the White House."


Although Clinton's campaign touts its small donors, throughout the campaign, Clinton has also held numerous big-dollar fundraisers, often several in a single day. Clinton even held a fundraiser Wednesday night as the moments ticked down to the end of the quarter. Held at the 40/40 Club in New York, 130 attendees donated $1,000 to $2,700 each.


Sanders has held only a handful of fundraisers, and supporters could get in with a $50 donation.

Norman Bernstein
10-01-2015, 03:31 PM
It's great that Sanders has been able to draw so many small dollar donations.

However, it's not enough. He has to start drawing BIG dollar donations, as well.

Paul Pless
10-01-2015, 03:33 PM
It's great that Sanders has been able to draw so many small dollar donations.

However, it's not enough. He has to start drawing BIG dollar donations, as well.why, when he raised virtually the same amount as his rival did?

Norman Bernstein
10-01-2015, 03:36 PM
why, when he raised virtually the same amount as his rival did?

Because from now until the primary, a lot MORE money needs to be raised. To remain competitive, he needs more than just the small donations can provide.... and Hillary could potentially out-earn him, among the big buck contributors. If she gets just one well-heeled bundler who brings in $2M, he needs to match that with thousands of small contributors, and that takes a lot of energy.

Maybe he can.... I'm not saying he can't.

John Smith
10-01-2015, 03:36 PM
It's early yet. We don't know how Sanders will play in more diversified states. I'd like to hear someone in authority say he'll be on the primary ballot in all states, as I have to say if I'm on the committee in charge, and you have to be a registered Democrat to vote in my state's primary, you're going to need to be a registered Democrat to be on the ballot.

That said, after the apparent heir to Boehner's speakership told the world last night that the Benghazi investigations were a political strategy, I'm hoping Bernie stands strongly with Hillary and condemns the GOP's investigations.

I'm sure he has to give this some thought, as it's hard to tell how it plays. If he remains silent, it cost cost her votes, but it could cost him votes by denting his integrity. If he stands tall and does what I see as the right think, it may gain her votes, but it might gain him votes for doing so.

the end game here, for the Democrats, IMO, ought to be what path gains them the most seats in congress.

Paul Pless
10-01-2015, 03:40 PM
Because from now until the primary, a lot MORE money needs to be raised. To remain competitive, he needs more than just the small donations can provide.... and Hillary could potentially out-earn him, among the big buck contributors. If she gets just one well-heeled bundler who brings in $2M, he needs to match that with thousands of small contributors, and that takes a lot of energy.

Maybe he can.... I'm not saying he can't.do you recall obama's small donation campaign in 2008?

you do realize that much of bernie's appeal is that he is a grass roots campaigner and anti big money and anti special interest money and has been so for virtually his entire political career?

BETTY-B
10-01-2015, 03:40 PM
I read somewhere - I think the Rolling Stone article on Trump- that at this stage last time, Obama was spending a million a day. And twice as much is likely to be needed nowadays. Not sure if that means money spent by superpacs too or not. Either way, Bernie's numbers need to come up.

I think I'll give my first bit to him when I get back to the station in life later today!:d

Nicholas Scheuer
10-01-2015, 03:49 PM
If Bernie gets enough "small dollar" donations, why exactly does he need "mega buck" donors? I've got my "Feel The Bern" cup! Do you?

Norman Bernstein
10-01-2015, 03:50 PM
do you recall obama's small donation campaign in 2008?

you do realize that much of bernie's appeal is that he is a grass roots campaigner and anti big money and anti special interest money and has been so for virtually his entire political career?

Of course... the grass roots approach has a great deal of appeal.....

....but that doesn't mean that it will be successful. Intellectual elites may recognize the virtuous purity of his campaign approach.....

....but intellectual elites don't make up even a small minority of voters. A candidate needs votes from the knuckle draggers, too... and those folks need to be hit over the head with campaign ads, telephone polls, literature, lawn signs, and bumper stickers... and that stuff costs real money.

If he can raise as much, from small donations, as Hillary can, from both small donations AND big ones, then he'll have a chance.

SullivanB
10-01-2015, 04:13 PM
There will be continued sufficient popular support to keep Sanders in the race. More and more folks are and will be including contributions to the campaign in their budgets. Whether his momentum continues to build steam depends on his making meaningful inroads with African American and Hispanic voters. The same desperate hope for good and honest government for the people that motivated Americans to support Obama is doing it now, for Sanders. It's real and it will last, if only because his supporters know they have an honest champion this time around, one who won't turn away from them once he's in office. Sanders' plan to bring the people into the fight is real, and it's the only way real change will ever occur.

Dan Cooley, good for you! Planned Parenthood and Bernie!

skuthorp
10-01-2015, 04:21 PM
Much as I like the look of Sanders, the restrictions of the office and the established political culture will ensure that he toes the line if he wins I'm afraid.

elf
10-01-2015, 04:24 PM
Interesting data here in this poll:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/01/hillary-clintons-support-from-black-voters-plunges-in-a-new-poll/

elf
10-01-2015, 04:34 PM
Clearly, if elected he will have to have exercised long coattails, since he will be a ineffectual as Mr. Obama without a lot fewer Regressives in the House.

I am pleased with the fund-raising success at this point, but I'd really like to see a distribution, at least by state, of the sources of that money.

The positive thing about a small-donation philosophy is that folks who can come up with $35 to $50 once quite often can do it monthly. With 670,000 donors (I believe I have that number right) Mr. Sanders has a good chance of keeping on raising money at a steady rate.

A factor possibly not considered here in this conversation yet is the sea change in communication since Mr. Obama first ran. This election cycle may be the first one in which channels of communication populated by the age groups which have historically been least inclined to participate in basic civics may now be the primary channels for that group. Mr. Sanders' staff is certainly intensely focussed on those channels. And that population is the one most likely to only be able to cough up $35 to $50 each month.

John Smith
10-01-2015, 04:46 PM
Much as I like the look of Sanders, the restrictions of the office and the established political culture will ensure that he toes the line if he wins I'm afraid.

I really like Sanders, but I really like him as a senator. I think that's where we need him. And Warren. And more like them.

Frankly, I'll be happy to give him my vote if he wins the nomination, and I'd consider making a donation to his campaign ONCE I AM TOLD BY THOSE RUNNING THE PRIMARIES IN VARIOUS STATES THAT HE'LL GET ON THE BALLOT.

oznabrag
10-01-2015, 04:51 PM
I really like Sanders, but I really like him as a senator. I think that's where we need him. And Warren. And more like them.

Frankly, I'll be happy to give him my vote if he wins the nomination, and I'd consider making a donation to his campaign ONCE I AM TOLD BY THOSE RUNNING THE PRIMARIES IN VARIOUS STATES THAT HE'LL GET ON THE BALLOT.

Maybe you should make this a little project for yourself.

Call each of the states' primary runner guy and ask him.

Don't be surprised if it takes awhile for them to actually understand the question.

If you want to make it easier on yourself, you could call Bernie's campaign HQ, I'm sure they have thought of this. If they haven't, you should warn them!

SullivanB
10-01-2015, 05:46 PM
I really like Sanders, but I really like him as a senator. I think that's where we need him. And Warren. And more like them.

Frankly, I'll be happy to give him my vote if he wins the nomination, and I'd consider making a donation to his campaign ONCE I AM TOLD BY THOSE RUNNING THE PRIMARIES IN VARIOUS STATES THAT HE'LL GET ON THE BALLOT.

I agree that we could use a lot more like them in the Senate but it's been suggested that Warren or Sanders can do better for the American people in the Senate than they could in the White House and I believe that's clearly wrong. If I remember correctly, it's something that was tossed out by, or about, Warren when she let us know she wasn't going to run, and I thought it was clearly wrong then. They simply aren't able to apply sufficient heat or get sufficent attention when it's called for. A/the big reason Warren gets the attention she draws, now, is because she's still perceived by many, including the media, as a potential candidate for president. Look at how folks reacted to her speech re Black Lives Matter and racial injustice. That sure rekindled the speculation.

A senator or two, however effective and well liked, simply cannot match the clout that the President of the United States can muster, if that president really wants to muster it. It's not called the bully pulpit for nothing. And it's a mistake to assume that the President can't be largely responsible for proposing and/or the passing of big time legislation. It's the Oval Office where they're more likely to make big things happen and do the most good for the American people.