The total number of "contributions" is rendered irrelevant when many people have contributed hundreds of times each. Someone who gives 800 times in three months is still only ONE person with only ONE vote.

He will able to raise 700 million dollars in a General Election without becoming a caveman ..He raised 230 million dollars in 2016 and he's doing better this time around ….. ….

BTW, money doesn't translate into votes, as we've all seen.

Only donors that give a TOTAL of over $200 have to be itemized and reported to the FEC. No matter how many small donations a person gives, if those TOTAL $200 then their personal information must be itemized and given to the FEC, otherwise no.

So, obviously, the VAST MULTITUDE of Sander's donors do not have to be "itemized" simply because they have given less than $200 each.

Haven't we discussed this point, like, 3 or 4 times already?

....he received we have no idea of who gave it, it's address, occupation, employer, or amount. They can say anything they want about those people and we'll never know for sure.

So when they say X% of their contributions came from teachers, or anything else, we don't know.

...(as though that means something) and how low it's average contribution is, again with the way the contributions have been solicited that doesn't mean much, either.

So, here's how the top four stand with respect to "unitemized", i.e., we have no identities or details, through the 3Q:

Biden 13.2M
Warren 31.9M
Buttigieg 24.4M
Sanders 42.6M

That's a LOT more "unitemized", unknown contributions than the other three.

Inasmuch as the FEC has already flagged more than 9,000 itemized contributions in just two quarters (he began accepting money March 28), worth $951,000, it would be good to know more about the UN-itemized contributions. How many of them would be flagged by the FEC if they were itemized?

We talked about this before too.

The Obama campaign being fined by the FEC was an example you and I discussed last time.

So, if you think Sanders is committing an election crime, please report him to the FEC, otherwise I don't think you have a point.

Enjoy the rest of your evening!

I am needed in the real world. lol

That could come as a big surprise, I imagine.

I am on multiple email and SMS lists for Our Revolution, Progressive Democrats of America and Sanders 2020. I have been there for months. NOT ONCE, NEVER have I received a single solicitation to subdivide my donations into smaller, more frequent submissions. NEVER.

Moving on...

your cynicism is swept away like leaves before an angry wind with these numbers:

In 2019Q4, Sanders received contributions from 300,000 people who never contributed to his campaign previously in this cycle. That's counting EACH PERSON ONCE, no matter how many times during the quarter those people contributed. If they contributed twice or 800 times, they were counted once in this grand total and Sanders had 300,000 new contributors, not contributions, contributors.

My favorite number, though, is that this rate hit a new pinnacle on December 31, when 40,000 contributions from new donors arrived, counting each donor once and only once, no matter how many times on that day each donor made a contribution. 40,000 first-time contributors!

Now, if I were to give him $2.70 today, why would he send more today and some tomorrow, each time asking for $2.70 again?

Then there's this (btw, those 27 $1 contributions translate to $19 to the campaign, $8 to the credit card company and ActBlue):

It is a scientifically proven fact that in email marketing, a significant portion of messages go unopened. I know this because I have worked in the field for 20 years.

There are millions of email users who leave YEARS of unopened messages in their inbox with the intention of "getting to them later". I have close friends who operate that way. I have clients who do this and I am forced to send them another copy just so that the original message will be seen.

The phenomenon you have seen is STANDARD EMAIL MARKETING used by millions of marketing campaigns, including political ones. During the year-end push, DOZENS of non-profit organizations on whose lists I appear did EXACTLY the same thing yet no one accuses of them of trying to inflate their donor base artificially. If you'd like some examples: National Resources Defense Council, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals and The League of Conservation Voters. I received MULTIPLE solicitations from each of them, among others, within a span of 36 hours and thought nothing of it.

You conveniently sidestepped the larger, irrefutable fact that Bernie published grand totals in which donors were counted once for the calendar quarter, no matter how many times they contributed money during that quarter, and that number was 300,000 new contributors, a yuge haul.

As for the split of contributions to ActBlue, had you worked on a campaign as I have, you would know that ActBlue is widely ADORED within the Democratic Party around the country for helping to raise BILLIONS for campaigns up and down the ballot since its launch about 15 years ago. The convenience of donating to a campaign by credit card rather than mailing a check FAR, FAR, FAR outweighs the processing expenses because the convenience increases the likelihood that donors complete the transaction rather than being forced to find their checkbook, worry that they have postage on hand and remember to take the envelope to the street, nevermind the possibility of having the check be lost in the mail. Credit cards are here to stay and, what really counts, is that large numbers of small donors have chipped in a few bucks here and there.

I'm on all of those email lists.

When DUers make my point for me, it puts a lasting smile on my face.

....dreaded "big dollar donors", to send in small contributions frequently, for two reasons:

It artificially inflates the "number of contribution" statistic, and artificially deflates the "average contribution" statistic.

I realize that no amount of facts will convince you of the error of your ways in accusing Bernie of inflating his numbers by encouraging people to contribute multiple times in smaller amounts, of which he is guilty. If anything, he is guilty of showing the new model to future campaigns, such as Ocasio-Cortez for President 2028. I concede that my facts have failed to sway your thinking. HOWEVER...

________________________________________

WHERE YOU FAIL 100 TIMES OUT OF 100
________________________________________

In 2019Q3, Sanders had 300,000 NEW donors. "New" is defined as people who had not contributed to the campaign previously in the 2020 cycle. These people were counted once during the quarter, REGARDLESS of the number of contributions during the quarter. ONCE, ONCE, ONCE, ONCE, ONCE and the aggregate of first-time donors was yuge.

Demonstrate your best attempts at the mental lambada, if you wish. Your accusation moved beyond being irrelevant and immaterial to moot.

....that she accepted the maximum contribution from a billionaire?

As for the number of first-time donors, etc., can you direct me to the report in which all these numbers are? I looked on FEC.gov, couldn't find them.

I'll sit here and wait for you to insult me AGAIN.

....net worth invested on Wall Street.

Odd indeed.

All it does, in this case, is fatten the wallets of the credit card companies and the media people.

Amazing that he can’t seem to gain ground and that his organization seems to be on shaking ground considering he has more money than anyone.

Really a positive statement for Biden and Warren who are both doing better with the people and using less money.