Obama's Donors Flocking To Sanders, Romney's Going To Rubio

[eridani]

The Republican data surprised the bejeezus out of me--I thought surely Jeb and Snot would be the beneficiaries here.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/07/17/obamas-donors-flocking-to-sanders-romneys-going-to-rubio

Bernie Sanders is drawing more of Barack Obama's 2012 campaign donors than Hillary Clinton.

And Marco Rubio is scoring the biggest share of Mitt Romney's contributors thus far.

These are the findings of Crowdpac, a San Francisco-based political data-mining firm which analyzed the July presidential campaign finance reports.

The Vermont senator has already received contributions from 24,582 of Obama's donors; whereas Clinton has only tapped just over 9,000 of them. Martin O'Malley, the former Maryland governor, has grabbed 383 Obama donors.

That means Sanders has nabbed 72 percent of the 34,340 Obama donors who have given to a candidate in 2016, according to Crowdpac.

[grasswire]

1. WOW

that's impressive

[nxylas]

2. I would have expected Romney's to go to Walker

Based on anecdotal evidence from people I know, his union-busting seems to appeal to those who supported Mr 47% last time.

[merrily]

3. I doubt Obama's larger donors will flock to Bernie. Remember, in the 2008 general, Obama

got more money overall than McCain and more Wall Street money than McCain--and that was only hard money. I cite the general only because I don't recall the primary breakdown. However, if Sanders had really nabbed most of Obama's larger donors, Sanders would be really rolling in the Benjamins.

One major difference we must not forget: This time around Hillary is the very clear preference of the party's pros and back room "boys," who see Sanders as the enemy.

I am not at all sure that was so in 2008. In 2008, many of them thought, as I did, that Hillary would be a bigger risk than Obama in the general because of the Clinton baggage. IMO, Obama was the choice of the party's top, top guns in 2008 (though I have been excoriated for posting that).

So, again: Let nothing discourage you, but remain aware that, if Bernie is to succeed, we must come up with the money and the effort. By all means, let news like this encourage you, but do not let up, even a little. Donate as though your life depended on it and make sure you show up to an organizing meeting on July 29 and work off your bottoms.

[Scuba]

4. /\_/\_This right here_/\_/\

[davidpdx]

5. I agree with you, we are going to have to work hard for it

In terms of Democrats the big donors are all moving one direction, whereas in 2008 Obama was able to capture some of those big donors early on and expand.

I disagree with you that Obama was the (elite) party choice, I still think it was Clinton until she got walloped in the late Feb primaries and caucuses and it was obvious that her campaign was badly mismanaged. Neither of those things will happen this time around which will make her harder to beat.

[dreamnightwind]

6. I agree with your analysis

and would like to add that, learning how to and developing methods for defeating big money is needed to elect Bernie, and to elect anyone to any office who is not owned by corporate interests.

We should try a number of approaches.

Donating our own money is certainly one of them.

Money doesn't buy votes, it buys campaign infrastructure and ad-buys.

Infrastructure can hopefully be accompished with tons of volunteers.

Ad-buys can be replaced in a number of ways, such as social media outreach, word of mouth, tabling, recruiting influential people to make public endorcements, BernieTV (and using social media to get it seen by people), artists and musicians creating art and songs that can hopefully go viral, and direct outreach to the MSM to get Bernie and his issues and events the coverage they deserve.

Also, an area I think we really need to focus on, is techniques for using a candidate's acceptance of corporate money to discredit their legitimacy as representatives of the people. I'm not sure how to accomplish this, only that it would be extremely helpful if we could find a way. We'd need to do things like identify donors and the amounts of their donations (plenty of online resources already exist to give us much of this info), link the donations to positions on issues that are likely to be influenced by that money (a little harder, requires knowledge of specific interests the donor is seeking to advance), and find or build an effective way of establishing that linkage in the public's mind.

This is a much bigger thing than just electing Bernie, it's what we need to learn how to do (or at least my attempt at identifying some of the tasks) to elect anyone who will represent us rather than their large corporate donors.

[merrily]

7. You are so correct. We need to learn how to do this to elect anyone who represents us, not the 1%

Excellent points.

Bernie has some very netroots smart people working for him. The July 29 organizing program is genius, IMO.

I am on facebook and reddit whenever I can be, though I probably spend too much of my online time here, where no one's mind is likely to change.

I also bring up Bernie with friends and relatives, almost all of whom are Democrats.

I've donated a number of times.

But, I am eager to do more. I am looking forward to July 29.

[dreamnightwind]

17. Thanks for all that you do

I hope the 29th goes well. It is hard to organize thousands of volunteers in any effective way. If we're going to beat big money in elections, it's another skill we have to learn, how to effectively organize lots of loosely aligned and differently skilled volunteers to actually get things done. I don't envy Bernie's staff trying to deal with all of that. But as the saying goes, it's a good problem to have.

[merrily]

19. You, too.

Usually a good problem to have is referred to as a "high class problem." This one, though, is a 99% problem.

[TBF]

8. You're correct - when Obama came to Houston he

did private fund-raising dinners with the wealthiest trial lawyers and their friends. The dinners were in very private exclusive homes in River Oaks - just as George Bush's were (this is Bush city - Poppy still has a home here). I remember posting that at another website and knew we were being taken for a ride. The only thing I could say is that I thought Obama would be less damaging to the most vulnerable amongst us. ACA is probably proving me correct on that - it has helped everyday people (non 1%ers).

By contrast Bernie is coming to Houston this weekend and he keeps having to find larger space. I expect him to get republican cross-over here. Some of the Ron Paul folks like him because he's independent.

[merrily]

9. Yep, Bernie is definiteldy different. He's bought and paid for by us. And, if not us, no one.

[GoneFishin]

10. Thanks for the reminder. I have been donating more and on a regular basis to Bernie than I ever have

in my life because I am aware that few big donors will go his way.

I will give until it hurts for Bernie.

I hope others will suck it up and go the extra mile for Bernie too.

[merrily]

11. I gave Obama more between 2007 and 2008, but that was for the general too.

I wish I had that money now, to give to Bernie.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Excellent summary.

[merrily]

14. Thanks!

[Le Taz Hot]

12. 72%!

Wow!

[SoapBox]

15. Very interesting.

[hedda_foil]

16. Rand Paul is only picking up a small share of Dad's donors.

I have a feeling that a lot of Paulites will wind up voting for Bernie.

[eridani]

18. The ones who hate banksters more than non-white people anyway n/t