Why would Bernie bring more voters into the Party?!?! THAT TRAITOR!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

Thanks for posting!!

And HAPPY NEW YEAR!!




Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

....hundreds of "small" donations, this is no big deal.

For example, one person in Michigan represents more than 800 of those "5 million contributions", she gave 800 contributions of only $3 each! If every one of his contributors did that, he'd only have about 6,300 unique contributors.

How many contributors does he have, and how many will be itemized on his FEC filing? THAT is the important thing.

....how many individuals made up those numbers. So he's got an average of about 3 per person? And I would be curious how many of those 733,000 will be itemized on his FEC reports.

but the number of donations has become somewhat irrelevant when people donate hundreds of times to artificially create a narrative.

There is a reason they are framing it that way. The donation are more impressive than the total....also clearly not saying 5 million donaters.

He still wont lead in votes.

He is doing better in fundraising this time out …..We don't need the donor class ….. If Bernie is the nominee , he'll raise a shitload of money …..Power to the People …

....about all the contributors of his that have given thousands of dollars each? Are they bad?

Thanks for the thread Hassin Bin Sober.

forth with Warren, in the polls. In the meantime, Biden will retain his lead until his victory as the Democratic nominee.

I seriously do not get this argument that millions of regular citizens donating is the same as getting money from billionaires and corporate interests.

It’s a lot of things. Just not an actual argument.

....are getting contributions from "millions of regular citizens". Neither is true.

The money goes to pay for the campaign, not into the candidate's pocket to spend as they please.

Billionaires who donate to Democrats do not hand them an envelope full of cash with a note: "Here is a lot of money. From now on you must act just like a Republican or you will regret it. If you do not, next election I will hand an envelope full of cash to a Republican. I am so stupid that I waste millions trying to bribe Democrats who always raise taxes on the wealthy and regulate industry instead of giving it to Republicans who will always cut taxes on the wealthy and deregulate industry." Sighed DONOR CLASS.

I've seen TV ads from Steyer, Bloomberg, and even Buttigieg in these last few weeks, yet none from Sanders -- what is he spending all his contributions on?

Those three you mentioned re only in the polls because of the massive advertising campaigns. And they a still trail.

I mean I have no idea what the Democratic appeal of Bloom berg is but ok.

And ironically Steyer's ads may be working against him as apparently people are sick of seeing them.

Sanders, who has been in the top tier, doesn't' seem to need those kinds of ads as much.

Maybe he's using the money on the rallies.

And Sanders has meandered between 15-20% in the polls over the past year and hasn't come close to ever being the frontrunner. If buying TV ads can net someone 5-10% in the polls like it has Steyer, Bloomberg, etc., why isn't he doing that?

Yes many if not most of his contributors do break up what they donate

I do. I donate ten bucks a month because that's what I can budget. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion obviously.

In fact, it has some advantages

For one, the money lasts longer. People are far less likely to ever hit the maximum donation. It provides stability.

For another and a point, I think gets overlooked, if your whole schtick is that the wealthy have too much power in politics, outraising your opponents who are talking that money becomes really important. The defense of Democrats talking in big corporate and billionaire money is that we need it to win the money game. But are we sure that is true? Maybe we don't need to sell our Democracy after all.

...."better" than a person who gives $120 one time?

What do you think of someone who gives multiple times each day? Here's just the March contributions of one such person, the date and the number of $3 contributions (there was one $250 in that span, too):

3/22/2019 9
3/23/2019 14
3/25/2019 17
3/26/2019 15
3/27/2019 12
3/28/2019 15
3/29/2019 15
3/30/2019 12
3/31/2019 20

That's 129 contributions in nine days. And she went on through June, giving 825* times over the course of 73 days. Don't you think that's gaming the # of contributions bragging point? Number of contributions, not contributors, is an empty talking point.

*turns out she exceeded the allowable $2800, too, but the contributions were accepted.

Hopefully, I don't' need to explain that reference though I will if asked.

Anyway, the thing is we are still talking about millions of contributions. Most people aren't' doing what you are accusing them of above. And even if they were, that still wouldn't' explain the overall amount.

120 dollars is a long way from 26 million, regardless of how many times that 120 is broken up. 120 x 100 or 1000 10,000 won't get you there. The math doesn't' add up to support the anecdote above is the norm.

A $100 donation from one person can be split into ten separate $10 donations, so the number of donations doesn't matter.

The total number of donors is a more important figure. But donors to any campaign can split up their donations, it isn't unique to Bernie. It almost always means that repeat donors are giving on a regular schedule, usually monthly. Very few people would go to the trouble of dividing us a single donation into smaller separate units for statistical purposes. It is good for any candidate to have a steady cash steam. The fact that no other candidate comes close to matching Sanders in this regard is significant.

and therefore the campaign had to give some back. A surprising number -- at least to me -- were from individuals who made multiple separate donations on the same day.

It is one way to bring the reported average down, and his supporters are smart enough to know that.

The only difference is people make a big deal out of it for Bernie cause they mad.

...financial metrics that, as we've seen, ultimately mean nothing.

....of the total dollars were not itemized through the third quarter.

At the start of the race he was about 10% behind Biden and today he's.....about 10% behind Biden.

Biden and Bernie have to worry about getting voters.

...and I’ll continue to opine on the reality of the Primary. One such reality s that Sanders has half the support he did in 2016 and has shown no sign of growing his numbers.

The last time Biden was BELOW 25% was never.

assuming he has absolutely no chance of beating Trump?

paid for ads for Bernie in order to weaken support for Hillary.

to claim "millions" of "donations" and to drive down the size of the average "donation," only reinforces the cynicism many of us (self included) feel about the Sanders' campaign.

I suppose there is a link to be had somewhere???

As far as I know he encourages small donations but not for the purpose to lower the average.

ActBlue gets a transaction fee on each transaction.

I thought he would slow down after a heart problem, but he soldiers on!

How is that even Democratic? Because bs 'Citizens United'? As long as this stands, with no campaign finance reform, we're screwed.

Congratulations to your candidate.

Link to tweet

Which is a record as well.