This message was self-deleted by its author

[paulbibeau]

This message was self-deleted by its author (paulbibeau) on Wed Dec 9, 2015, 03:51 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[leftofcool]

1. Would we prefer the top 5 give their money to Republicans again or to Hillary?

[paulbibeau]

4. Here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool-Aid#/media/File:Kool_Aid_Man.jpeg

[Kelvin Mace]

5. Frankly,

yes.

Then there would be a chance she was working for us.

[paulbibeau]

9. I have mixed feelings on my answer to that...

But maybe I can get people to agree that this sort of thing should concern us.

[leftofcool]

12. Unaccountable money in politics does concern me but we have what we have.

We need a Democrat for President and control of the House and Senate to change things. In the mean time, I want to see as much money as possible going to Democrats for the 2016 election.

[Kelvin Mace]

15. We will get the establishment approved Democrat

in the White House, but the congress will belong to the Koch brothers as they intend to spend a billion dollars to buy it.

[paulbibeau]

32. Yes. "Establishment approved." That's just the right phrase.

[hifiguy]

45. And to paraphrase George Carlin, the Estabishment is a club

and we ain't in it. Not you, not me, none of us. And the Establishment works only for its own enrichment, the people be damned. Who HRC will be working for is as plain as a pikestaff. And it ain't us because we ain't in the club.

[Kelvin Mace]

118. Yep,

but some folk do not wish to see that reality.

[VanillaRhapsody]

87. Not if she isn't elected she won't be...

and Jeb Bush has a massive war chest of cash!

[Kelvin Mace]

95. Jeb Bush's doughy

ass will not sit in the Oval Office.

The barking mad wing of the party loath him. The more they dig around in the graveyard that is his political career, the more festering corpses will be unearthed.

HRC is "The Chosen One".

The election is her's to lose.

[VanillaRhapsody]

105. She is "chosen" because 75% of Democrats support her....

and yes the Rightwingers loathe Jeb.....but he has all the money to run on in that party. In the current environment....your chances of election without spending oodles and oodles of cash is slim and none...

[Kelvin Mace]

111. And at one time

Bush the Lesser had a 90% favorability rating.

As to the money, its not the amount, its who is giving her money. Elizabeth Warren's top contributors were:

Emily's List
MoveOn.org
Harvard
MIT
Boston University

In her last presidential run, HRC's top contributors were

Emily's List
DLA Piper (Law firm)
JPMorgan Chase & Co
Goldman Sachs
Citigroup Inc

[paulbibeau]

113. Don't those names just jump out at you?

We're dealing with a lot of people who just don't want to see the pattern.

[Kelvin Mace]

115. They have Emily's List in common

and that's it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. So?

Where do you think she should get the money to beat Jeb Bush's mountain of money?

You understand you cannot win in the current environment without piles of cash right?

The Unions can't do it alone....sad but true...

[Kelvin Mace]

116. Maybe she could call Elizabeth Warren and find out

[VanillaRhapsody]

117. Elizabeth ain't running....and perhaps that is why...

she would STILL have to face Jeb Bush's pot o'gold.

[Kelvin Mace]

131. Her not running has nothing to do

with her knowing how to raise money from people other than Wall Street.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

126. lol...Hillary working for us!...haha...good one!

[Kelvin Mace]

130. Well, it's theoretically possible

you know, like warp drive.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

138. Frankly, I think warp drive is a helluva lot more possible. Can't say that about Elizabeth or Bernie.

[JEB]

107. I would prefer the shove their dirty money....

[mike_c]

139. the real question is what do those top 5 think they are purchasing with their donations...?

I don't want them giving their money to ANYONE if they think they're buying a president.

[NCTraveler]

2. You really don't understand how your logic is flawed, do you? nt.

[DeSwiss]

40. !

- That's rich.....

[paulbibeau]

43. I know.

I really pondered that for awhile. It was like a zen koan.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

58. What is the sound of one hand donating?

if a corporation makes a donation in the woods and no one is there to see it, does it go into GOP coffers by default?

[NCTraveler]

47. Hillary is rich.

The logic in the op is seriously flawed.

[VanillaRhapsody]

106. but she wasn't always.....Now Jeb Bush....ALWAYS

and guess what....Bernie Sanders ain't exactly poor either!



so again...YOUR logic is flawwed.

[FSogol]

3. Didn't the Lehman Brothers go out of business in 2008?

[paulbibeau]

6. Yes, the figures are over her career. That's why the numbers aren't there for 2012.

[FSogol]

16. Cool stats, bro!

[paulbibeau]

26. You're hiding behind your emoticons.

[FSogol]

28. No, just laughing at lame attempts to divide.

Here's some more smilies that show how I feel:

[Agschmid]

34. #Accurate

I may be hiding behind the hashtag...

[paulbibeau]

36. Fair enough.

This is the pic I generally use.

[NCTraveler]

7. Lehman Brothers gave Hillary and Romney zero dollars last year.

Proof they are in bed together.

[upaloopa]

8. So make your statement don't leave it there.

What are you saying? Are you saying Hillary is a Mit light?
I wonder if you think we should only take money from those who we agree with 100% even if we don't have enough cash to compete?
Is it noble to handicap yourself for principle's sake and go down with the ship? Why don't we just not run a candidate in 2016 because you know they will need Wall Street money to win.

[paulbibeau]

18. The numbers are disturbing.

You can come up with whatever excuse you want. But I think it bothers you, and I think that's a good thing for progressivism.

Look, if it comes down to Clinton or Jeb in the general, pull the frickin lever for Clinton.

But the day this kind of thing doesn't bother you is the day we lose a chip of our soul here.

[upaloopa]

31. It bothers me that the purity team has their

collective head up their ass! We can't afford to turn this government over to the right even if it means taking money from Mit donors. Until we get outside money out of politics that is the way it is. You are not helping that one bit by working against our winning with your f...ng principles!
Too bad you aren't as concerned about bothering the other side as you are about bothering our side!

[paulbibeau]

37. I bother the other side plenty.

[upaloopa]

44. If we don't win in 2016 they will bother you

plenty!

[paulbibeau]

48. Fair enough. But I still won't ignore the facts.

[upaloopa]

63. Nobody is asking you to ignore them. Just

in addition help our candidates win!

[paulbibeau]

65. No. The pushback is pretty clear here.

[F4lconF16]

80. His fucking principles?

You are not helping that one bit by working against our winning with your f...ng principles!

Fuck principles!

Fuck taking a stand! Fuck helping the poor! Fuck peace! Fuck stopping the prison complex! Fuck the climate! Fuck doing what's right!

Fuck principles!

I want our side to win!

...

This everything wrong with the Democratic Party. No thanks. I will stand by my principles until the day I die.

[paulbibeau]

84. Yeah, that's a good response too.

Thanks.

[arcane1]

10. It's an obscenity that we allow businesses to donate money to political candidates.

OBSCENE!!!!

[DeadLetterOffice]

30. Yes. Yes it is.

[MineralMan]

11. Those donors support everyone running for President.

They hedge their bets, just like they hedge their investments. Anyone who is surprised at that isn't paying attention.

[paulbibeau]

14. That's why I included the numbers.

The numbers show a clear preference for Romney.

[onenote]

20. And, in all likelihood, when the repubs settle on a candidate

The companies on the OP's list that gave more to Mitt than to Obama will give more to the repub than to Hillary.

Consequently, I'm having trouble seeing what the point of this OP actually is.

[MineralMan]

22. Yes, I saw that, and you're right.

Numbers are always hard to interpret if you don't have all of the numbers. People manipulate numbers and statistics to try to make their case all the time. Usually, they leave something important out, intentionally, in hopes that people won't investigate further. It's sort of dishonest to do that.

Thanks for showing all of the numbers. Thanks for being honest and providing all of the information.

[paulbibeau]

24. There is a larger campaign finance point here.

I think this shows something disturbing about Hillary (that's been said before, and by smarter people than me), and I want progressives to worry about this.

But I also think you have to look at this as a general argument about money in politics.

Citigroup's total record is to support Republicans *slightly* more than Democrats. I bet a political operative could tell us why, but I'm going to plead ignorance here.

My piece is only one data point, and I know that.

Still... I think it's a hell of a data point.

[MineralMan]

27. Yes. Corporate money should not be involved in electoral politics.

Since it is, though, most corporations spread it around, hoping for influence. That's why it's a bad idea in the first place.

We desperately need serious campaign finance reform. That won't happen, though, since Congress would have to be the body to change the laws. A pity.

[Johonny]

17. Your refusal to have Hillary outrage is inexcusable

Hillary wears shoes on her feet just like Mitt Romney!

[MineralMan]

23. I rarely have outrage about things like politics.

It does no good and raises my blood pressure.

[MosheFeingold]

70. "Those donors support everyone running for President."

Correct. They want (and get) influence from the UniParty.

[paulbibeau]

73. Yes. But the ratios also show they supported Romney more.

This does NOT counter your point. The fact that these guys will switch is probably part of the problem.

[MineralMan]

75. UniParty? That's bogus, silly, and misguided.

If you think there's only one real party, you're way off base. That corporations donate to all significant candidates simply is because they want to make sure candidates know that a donation was made. They think this gives them some control, and maybe it does.

We have two major parties, and their emphasis is very, very different. Particularly in the social issues. Attempts to make them appear to be the same is just flat silly. They are not, and control of government by either one will lead to very different results. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe that there is any point to elections in this country.

[Historic NY]

13. Several also gave to POTUS 2012..too

[stevenleser]

19. And in Warren's top list, two of the larger law firms that service the financial industry

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00033492

Ropes & Gray, Brown Rudnick, etc.

[paulbibeau]

21. Believe me, I think there's a larger campaign finance point here too...

But you have numbers like this going for Romney in the last election, and you should worry we're about to nominate a corporatist candidate.

[LittleBlue]

55. Not one bank in her top 10 list

Thank you for convincing me that her donor list looks much better than Hillary's

[stevenleser]

59. No, just the folks that defend the banks when anyone tries to take them to task for something.

That's so much better!

[jberryhill]

104. "The organizations themselves did not donate"

D'jever actually read that page?

OpenSecrets actually points that out in un-missable red letters.

When you make a donation, you are asked to identify your employer.

Every election cycle, we have endless threads about people who search by employer, and then claim that the organization itself did the donating.

Citibank, for example, has a gazillion employees. So, the way the game is played, you do a search on contributions to a candidate using "citibank" as the "employer" field, and then get to say "Citibank gave piles of money to X candidate."

It's a tired game every time it comes around, and manages to fool the people it is intended to fool, I suppose.

[paulbibeau]

112. I know. But then there's a reason they group this stuff together.

We're going over it in detail in the thread. I think it's silly to look at all that money from all those related companies and say there's no pattern.

[Nine]

25. "The organizations themselves did not donate."

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2014. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

[paulbibeau]

29. Yes, that's what they do.

OpenSecrets groups them together for a reason though. I think it's safe to say they're coordinating on behalf of Citigroup, for example.

[Nine]

35. No, it's not safe to say that at all.

For example, any employee of Citigroup who donated over $200 in any year between 1999 and 2014 will be included in the Citigroup tally. Citigroup is headquarted in NY where Clinton was a senator. Citigroup had 243,000 employees last year, and if you factor in turnover, they've had many more than that over the past 15 years. $774,327 in individual contributions is not remarkable in the least given all those factors. Citigroup's total assets last year was $1.89 trillion by the way, according to Wikipedia.

[paulbibeau]

64. Think what you want.

There's a clear trend showing a large group of people from very defined industries who showed clear support for Romney in 2012, along with a clear showing of support for HRC over her career.

Is it possible that some of them just happened to agree with Romney, and then an equal group of people happened to agree with HRC? I guess so. I don't know what the odds would be, but that doesn't look like a reasonable alternative explanation.

I think - and OpenSecrets thinks - it's useful to see these people as voting in a bloc for their economic interests. And the overlap between HRC and Romney should bother people. It's clear. You don't want to see it? Okay.

This comment thread is FULL of people who don't want to see any of this as a problem. Maybe that's a problem too.

[Nine]

82. You claimed they were coordinating on behalf of Citigroup.

Now you're just saying it's useful to look at trends. I agree with your revised position. I reject your earlier claim.

[paulbibeau]

83. I'm going to make an assertion...

I bet people within Citigroup send each other memos, and they have conferences, and they talk to each other about who they're going to spend millions of dollars on. I bet they do.

I don't have those actual memos. I wasn't at those actual conferences. But I think you're in denial.

Those reading can make up their own minds.

[Nine]

89. You keep changing the claim.

Do I think that happens to some extent? Yes. I also think there are people who donate to candidates entirely of their free will and not because they think it will please their corporate masters. I don't think you know which donations fall under which category but you are acting as if you do.

I have already stated simple reasons Clinton might have received many donations from Citigroup employees. You choose to ignore them.

[paulbibeau]

91. I'm not changing the claim.

I'm showing a pattern. I don't completely know why the pattern is what it is - I don't know all the details. I do not pretend to know all the details. At no point did I pretend to know all the details.

But I think the pattern is clear enough to be disturbing, and you're trying to minimize it. I suspect it's both a question of coordination and a question of groupthink. But both of those things make the same ultimate point - that Hillary represents the interests of Romney supporters in a way that ought to give progressives pause.

It should worry you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. I am not going to bring a knife to a gun fight

[JaneyVee]

38. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[paulbibeau]

39. Thank you for that.

That warmed my heart.

[JaneyVee]

42. Pure poetry. By the way...

Ironically she is officially the only candidate running who so far has made undoing Citizens United a top priority.

[paulbibeau]

46. That's very good.

Man, I'm going to kick at her edifice every step of the way for the war and corporatism.

But I'm building a Monster Manual out of the Republican candidates.

I'm not joking: http://paulbibeau.blogspot.com/search/label/GOP%20Monster%20Manual#.VS6vk_nF-So

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. Don't blame a player for playing by the rules of a rigged game and triumphing

Our brothers and sisters living in America's urban centers have brought to us a simple wisdom that couldn't even be achieved by matriculating at an Ivy League university.

[spanone]

41. and....?

[DeSwiss]

49. This is an absolutely corrupted nation -- down to the core.

Bribery is how they do it. And why the elections don't mean shit. They're per-arranged dog and pony shows put on by the elites to allow the baptized a chance to feel good about themselves and ''their participation in the electoral process'' and how they're ''doing the right thing.''

- All culminating in farcical ritual of ''electronic voting'' used to determine who'll be the emcee of this disastrous bullshit show for the next four-years.

K&R

[center][/center]


You can't fix rotten..........

[paulbibeau]

50. Yes. As an American and a human being it upsets me.

As a dude who taps things out on the internet, it's golden.

[AtomicKitten]

51. Which is why they are fine with Hillary or any Republican winning

and why Democrats need to run a candidate who isn't a wholly owned subsidiary of financial institutions.

[paulbibeau]

52. OH MY GOD WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ALL DAY?

Seriously. Thanks for coming by.

Seriously.

[AtomicKitten]

68. DU can be a tough room sometimes.

[paulbibeau]

71. What's bothering me is how soon the goddamn coronation started.

[CentralMass]

53. Well, that is disconcerting.

[paulbibeau]

57. I KNOW!

Thank you. Most people go immediately into shut down mode. They either dismiss this stuff, or they have an argument, or they question my agenda.

Isn't the beginning of wisdom to actually admit that something disturbs you? I don't know what to do with it. I fully, completely admit that in the general, if Hill is up against one of the 7 racist dwarves, I've got to go with her as the least insane option. But I can think two thoughts at the same time, you know?

And part of me thinks, goddamn we have to be able to do better.

[LittleBlue]

54. lmao

She's our best hope?

[BainsBane]

56. I think it's you who aren't hearing

Why would you be shocked by that information? As long as campaign finance remains as it is, big corporations and rich donors will contribute to both parties, as they always have, in order to try to gain influence. Your problem is in personalizing a systemic problem and in pretending it is all about one individual, Hillary Clinton. If you care about the role of money in politics, you need to focus on that. Defeating Clinton will do exactly nothing to address that issue, and even you have to be able to figure out that much. Plugging your fingers in your ears and singing la la la all day won't change that. My question is when are YOU going to wake up and quit pretending one woman is responsible for all the ills of America? There will be no major presidential candidate who doesn't receive funds from those donors--NONE. And you can thank SCOTUS for that. I have to wonder why you care so little about that and keep wanting to pretend it is all about Clinton?

[paulbibeau]

61. Nope, nope, nope, nope.

The numbers show that yes, these companies give to both sides, but many of them gave MUCH MORE to Romney. That ought to mess with your head.

And no, I'm not blaming Hillary for all the ills of the system. I said nothing of the sort.

You're making a straw man argument here to avoid dealing with some disturbing facts.

[BainsBane]

77. hardly a strawman

This list of donors is meant to be an argument against Clinton. Why would it mess with my head? That assumes I'm entirely uninformed with no understanding of how US elections have been funded in recent cycles.

You are personalizing a systemic issue. Calling my point a strawman only shows your refusal to address the problem. You expect us all to heed your personal views about Clinton. I don't give a shit what you think about her. I do care about the role of money in politics, and when people insist on ignoring the problem in favor of grinding an axe against a single Democratic candidate, I'm going to point out the obvious.

Here is how I see it. Making these issues all about one person reinforces the system that gives capital overwhelming influence in the electoral process. The problem is far, far more serious than Clinton's campaign donors. Big money influences not just presidential candidates but elections at all levels, and even the writing of legislation. Your tirades against Clinton ignore all of that, and in fact seek to create the misperception that the problem lies with her. It makes a major issue small. Perhaps your concerns are only small. Perhaps you don't really care about the influence of big money in our political system. Perhaps all you care about is defeating a single candidate. If that's the case, there is no point in my reading anything you have to say because I can get the same thing from a GOP campaign ad. If on the other hand you actually care about the role of money in politics, you need to get a handle on the scope of the issue and address that.

[libdem4life]

60. A little perspective, please. You can't eat, buy clothes, buy hardware, shoes, furniture

cars, farm equipment, houses...anything a consumer need without ultimately donating to the above...sooner or later. It's just life. Some corporation owns just about everything ultimately. It's the Global Economy. Do we want candidates who don't know that and haven't a snowball's chance in you-know-where just to make certain people feel better?

I know people who tried to "live off the land" and/or only buy locally. Guess what, for 99% it's impossible. Now go up the ladder a couple of notches...running for say Mayor. He's got to go to those who have disposable cash and it's not likely much of his electorate. Now, he goes County...same story...higher money/donors necessary...then State...Then National.

That's reality and every single candidate that has 1/2 a chance of winning nationally has to do it...unless they are exceptionally wealthy, and then we'd say they bought the office. Carly Fiorino comes to mind but still didn't win.

Wishing and hoping and hating doesn't change our current economic reality. And even Elizabeth Warren isn't going to be able to do too much but at least nip at their heels.

It's time for some thick skin and grown up logic, not wishful thinking...and attacking based on fantasy.

[Unvanguard]

62. That's pretty meaningless. You're looking at donors by employer.

So it's a fallacy of composition; it doesn't establish that individuals who wanted Romney to win now support Clinton.

[paulbibeau]

67. Someone else on this thread agrees with you.

Here's my point: The people who follow money group these donors by industry and by company for a reason. They don't pay big money like this just by accident. All those employees are just more civic minded than the rest of us? No. They're giving money for their company.

Almost all these companies (I think all but one) are listed as Heavy Hitters - they put money into campaigns in big amounts. It's well-documented that the companies themselves, and the industries themselves, have influence because of this.

[Unvanguard]

72. They're giving money because they're rich.

Their politics and party affiliation aren't generally determined by their workplace. Open Secrets groups them that way because Open Secrets likes being talked about and (as this thread illustrates) their somewhat-misleading presentation is an effective way to accomplish that.

Edit: Note also that this confession (that these are individual donations being tracked, and probably not from the same individuals) makes your thread title literally false.

[dsc]

66. I notice you don't tell us how much money they have given her, only their rank

you also don't provide the ranks of these entities for Obama and you don't provide the ratio of their giving to Hillary vs their giving to the GOP candidates or at least the top one or two they gave to. Without any of that, it is very hard to comment on this one way or the other. It should also be noted that since this is employees and not the company itself in the case of corporate entities on the list, we have no idea if the same people donated to Romney and to Hillary or if there were completely different sets of people donating.

[paulbibeau]

69. You're whistling past the graveyard.

[dsc]

74. No I teach math for a living

and I know when numbers have meaning and when they don't have meaning. Right now, you have provided numbers with pretty much no meaning. It is possible that these same companies donated in a similar ratio GOP/Hillary or Bush/Hillary and it is possible they didn't. I don't know that because you didn't bother to look for that. That makes the numbers less meaningful. I also don't know the amount any of the entities gave to Hillary because, yet again, you didn't bother to look for that. That makes the numbers even less meaningful. I concede this might be a problem, but I have no earthly idea and neither do you because you didn't bother to find out. Oh, and to add yet another layer of meaninglessness to this you went back her entire career and compare that to the couple of year period of the 2012 election.

[paulbibeau]

81. This sentence...

"It is possible that these same companies donated in a similar ratio GOP/Hillary or Bush/Hillary and it is possible they didn't."

That's not clear. What do you mean "GOP/Hillary" or "Bush/Hillary"? What year or election cycle do you think I should dig into?

Right now, I've got these huge companies from the same industry that supported Mitt Romney over Barack Obama by a WIDE margin, and they are Hillary's top 2 donors over her career. That's an obvious indicator that people in those companies think they can do business with her as with Mitt.

I don't mind digging further on this. Believe me.

[dsc]

97. I assumed you were comparing Hillary's presidential contributers now

to Obama's then but I found out you actually didn't do that (though you clearly implied you did). My Clinton/GOP or Clinton/Bush meant this cycle (under the assumption that Jeb got the most money this time). But since you used her Congressional donations that number would be meaningless.

[paulbibeau]

100. You're using garbled syntax so it's hard to understand what you're saying...

But no, I specifically said these are the top donors over Clinton's career. Her career began awhile ago.

I think these donations show show longstanding relationships between Hillary Clinton and the people who backed Mitt Romney in wide margins over Barack Obama.

It's not everything, no. But you're trying to say it's nothing, because of what it implies about Hillary Clinton.

I do promise - absolutely - that I'm going to write a longer piece about these connections. And I will post it on DU as well as my blog.

UPDATE: Sorry. My bad. I thought I specifically said over the course of her career. I linked to it, and I'm responding to a widely-circulated piece about her and Sanders. But I didn't specifically write the words. I didn't imply otherwise though. That's on you.

[dsc]

110. No it isn't

you compared her career, without saying it was her career to two different Presidential only lists. I foolishly assumed you were trying to offer a valid comparison. Incidentally you actually still have the data mislabeled as it excludes her Presidential campaign it is only her Congressional career which means that NY based companies are going to be over represented (she ran for Congress only in NY). Now I will try one more time to state my problem with what you did. One, for her, and only her, you rank her top ten donors without mentioning dollar amounts given by them to her or to her opponents (in 2000 that would be Guilani and Lazio and in 2006 that would be who ever ran against her). Even then, 2006 would be a very unfair comparison since she had only a token opponent then. Two, for Obama and Romney you gave a ratio but didn't for Hillary vs Jeb Bush now. For that matter you also didn't list career numbers or rankings for Obama nor did you tell us what those donors did. In short, you provided no context at all for your numbers.

[paulbibeau]

119. First of all...

If I JUST use her presidential run in 2008 the top 10 list contains 4 of the 5 names. Only number 10 (Cablevision Systems, which was a pretty small contributor) drops out. All the big names are still there among her top 10.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000019

So, no the big NY financial firms are not overrepresented on the list. They were the top 10 on her presidential run as well.

[paulbibeau]

120. Also...

OpenSecrets doesn't have a comparison between the donors who gave to Hillary and those who gave to Jeb Bush in this election.

And I understand, and I've made no secret, that we're comparing two different numbers here. But if someone is on your top 10 list of donors over your entire career, as well as specifically on your last presidential run... you have to take that person's phone calls. You have to be responsive to them. To pretend otherwise is silly.

And I think I've made it clear that in the last presidential election these people absolutely wanted to back a guy who wrote off half the country and was universally derided among progressives as a pretty heartless plutocrat.

That matters.

I will definitely write a longer piece that provides more analysis for this stuff. But here's my prediction: It's not going to make Hillary look better to dig into these numbers.

[dsc]

121. but it isn't someone

it is a bunch of someones who happen to work for one large employer. a point you seem to be missing.

[paulbibeau]

122. We've covered that. We disagree.

Like I said, I'm going to write more about this.

[liberal N proud]

76. Find a candiate they have not donated to.

[edhopper]

79. I won't vote for anyone who gets money from someone

gave to Obama.

Did i have the right reaction?

[paulbibeau]

86. They do. Look at the actual numbers though.

Up in her top 10 list are 5 companies that really wanted Mitt Romney to win. Yes, they gave to Obama. They give to Dems and Reps. Yes.

But her top donor gave twice as much money to Romney as Obama.
Her second top donor gave 5 times as much to to Mitt as Obama.
Her fourth top donor gave 2 times as much.
Her sixth top donor gave 4 times as much.

These are people - all from the financial industry - who wanted Mitt Romney to win, and they support Hillary as well. What does that say about her as a candidate for progressives?

[Eleanors38]

94. "What does that say?" She's cheap.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. As a gesture to the 1% I'm sure Hillary will send it back with a FU Very Much note.

Or, maybe not and she'll just pocket the payoffs.

[paulbibeau]

132. I think B.

[justiceischeap]

90. Donations to Obama in 08

University of California $1,799,460
Goldman Sachs $1,034,615
Harvard University $900,909
Microsoft Corp $854,717
JPMorgan Chase & Co $847,895
Google Inc $817,855
Citigroup Inc $755,057
US Government $638,335
Time Warner $617,844
Sidley Austin LLP $606,260

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

[paulbibeau]

92. Now, we're opening the can of worms...

I think the important thing is to go into the RATIO of who they supported in each election cycle. Because these big guys give money to everybody, right?

In 2008 for Citigroup for example, they clearly gave more money to both Dems - Obama and Hillary - than they gave to McCain.

In 2004, the people at Citigroup gave more (but only slightly) to W than to Kerry.

When you go to different companies on that list they show slightly different patterns. And at some point, I think you could argue that the politics are different. At what point is a year kind of irrelevant, and you're comparing apples and oranges?

The connection between Mitt and Hillary is pretty striking, and it does not say everything, but it should make progressives a little queasy here. And 2012 is recent enough that I think it's much more relevant.

[Unvanguard]

96. You're still engaging in the fallacy of composition.

You're interpreting this data to suggest something about the preference of Citigroup as an entity for particular candidates. But the data suggests nothing of the sort. It is about individual donors.

[paulbibeau]

98. I am interpreting it that way, yes. You don't.

Here is the statement from OpenSecrets on why they group these donors by industry and company. I'll leave it to people to make up their own minds. I bolded the part I thought particularly relevant:

"Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information
The organizations listed as "Top Contributors" reached this list for one of two reasons: either they gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization, or individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.

Under federal law, all contributions over $200 must be itemized and the donor's occupation and employer must be requested and disclosed, if provided. The Center uses that employer/occupation information to identify the donor's economic interest. We do this in two ways:

First, we apply a code to the contribution, identifying the industry. Totals for industries (and larger economic sectors) can be seen in each candidate and race profile, and in the Industry Profile section of the OpenSecrets website.

Second, we standardize the name of the donor's employer. If enough contributions came in from people connected with that same employer, the organization's name winds up on the Top Contributor list.
Of course, it is impossible to know either the economic interest that made each individual contribution possible or the motivation for each individual giver. However, the patterns of contributions provide critical information for voters, researchers and others. That is why Congress mandated that candidates and political parties request employer information from contributors and publicly report it when the contributor provides it.

In some cases, a cluster of contributions from the same organization may indicate a concerted effort by that organization to "bundle" contributions to the candidate. In other cases—both with private companies and with government agencies, non-profits and educational institutions—the reason for the contributions may be completely unrelated to the organization.

Showing these clusters of contributions from people associated with particular organizations provides a valuable—and unique—way of understanding where a candidate is getting his or her financial support. Knowing those groups is also useful after the election, as issues come before Congress and the administration that may affect those organizations and their industries.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/include/contribmethod_pop.php

[paulbibeau]

99. There's another source of information we can tap here...

Have people in the media covered these companies and their donations to Mitt Romney?

Have people in the media covered how these same companies have relationships to Hillary Clinton?

I already kind of know the answer to that. I will be writing here at DU and on my blog about WHY people think Hillary represents the interests of Romney backers. Many of the more progressive people on this site will probably read it and say, "Jesus, next you're going to tell me that water is wet, Bibeau! Don't crash my world like that."

But much of this might be a shock to you.

[paulbibeau]

93. Let me put it another way...

These guys gave money to Obama in 2008. But they really, really wanted to knock him out in 2012 when they saw what they got. And they wanted to replace him with a guy who was famous for writing off half the country.

But their love for Hillary is deep.

See?

[hrmjustin]

101. I am still going to vote for her.

[paulbibeau]

102. So am I.

In the general election? Sure. Assuming no one else beats her in the primary.

But I will NEVER pretend.

[hrmjustin]

103. Whatever.

[paulbibeau]

108. "Whatever." The devastating rhetorical gambit of 13 year-olds everywhere.

[hrmjustin]

109. Considering your7 to 0 hidden post from this morning I don't think you are pretending.

[paulbibeau]

123. I do not care if every single thing I write for DU is hidden.

I will wear that like a badge.

[hrmjustin]

124. Of this I have no doubt.

[lumberjack_jeff]

125. "Play the ball where it lies" This is where it lies.

The person who raises the most money (and hedge funds are the ones who have it) will win.

I'm encouraged by her populist rhetoric and I hope it sticks not just through the primaries but through the general election.

[Hoyt]

127. Many companies and political action committees give to both party's candidates.

[OregonBlue]

128. I'm thrilled they are giving their money to Hillary. I will vote for Hillary every single day of

the week before Jeb Bush. You go girl!!

[sufrommich]

134. I'll give you a 5 on a 10 point scale. nt

[mimi85]

135. Prepare for it to continue.

In the interim, enjoy your stay. And you may want to in the forum at the link instead. They won't stand for it either. BTW, what is an androcentrist?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1107

[Rex]

137. Sux when you find out the investment bankers own everyone, doesn't it?

Well not everyone and not ALL of them. I think some do it piecemeal.