Bernie Sanders hits 4 million donations mark, campaign announces

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Sen. Bernie Sanders is part of a top tier of candidates in the national and early voting state polls who are vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.

But when it comes to donations to his campaign, the longtime progressive lawmaker and populist champion from Vermont is in a league of his own, far ahead of his 2020 rivals. Sanders' campaign announced on Tuesday morning that it's now received more than 4 million individual contributions from people across the country, making the senator the fastest candidate in history to reach the fundraising mark.

“Working-class Americans across the country are chipping in $3, $18, $27, or whatever they can to help elect Bernie Sanders because they know he is the only candidate who will fight for them and take on corporate greed and corruption,” campaign manager Faiz Shakir touted. “This is what momentum looks like.”

Sanders is making his second straight White House run. His campaign highlighted that the candidate didn’t reach the 4 million individuals milestone in the 2016 cycle until after February’s New Hampshire primary, which is still more nearly three months away.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bernie-sanders-hits-4-million-donations-mark-campaign-announces/ar-BBWZLhR?li=BBnbfcL

[The Valley Below]

1. Good plan to have people make dozens of tiny donations.

Then it can be spun as "millions" of donations.

Credit where credit is due.

[CentralMass]

6. .Does that comment make any sense ? It is an artifact of many supporters contributing what they can.

[TidalWave46]

9. Makes perfect sense.

It was strategic when taking on Clinton. Now it's just a part of the game his base plays. Smart move if you ask me.

[George II]

13. Inasmuch as some of his contributors give tiny amounts...

... several times a DAY that comment makes lots of sense.

[sheshe2]

27. It makes perfect sense to me.

[betsuni]

16. It is vital to be seen as "grassroots."

[The Valley Below]

22. I'm thinking an app that would automatically make micro-donations of maybe 2.7 cents (?)

every x number of minutes or seconds, might took really grassroots and be technology-forward at the same time. What do you think?

Billions of donations. Or is the B-word bad marketing?

[betsuni]

32. Fabulous idea.

Call it Roots of Grass. I lean and loaf at my ease observing a spear of summer grass a billion times.

[R B Garr]

24. Exactly.

👍

[sheshe2]

28. I have missed you, RB!

[R B Garr]

29. Thanks, she! I've missed you too!

That means a lot.

[sheshe2]

31. I just checked your last posting a few days ago.

I know you said ya have been busy.

I was worried though.

[R B Garr]

33. That's really sweet! I do get busy with hubby's schedule

and driving a lot to pick him up etc. But it was 3 months to the day... I remembered sometime in November was the time frame, so thought I would check in! Hope all is well with you!

[sheshe2]

34. I am doing okay, RB.

[George II]

5. Inasmuch as some of his contributors give tiny amounts...

... several times a DAY that comment makes lots of sense.

[Uncle Joe]

3. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin.

[George II]

4. And yet he's only released details of only about 60,000 of his contributors. Wonder why?

Last edited Tue Nov 19, 2019, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)

[NurseJackie]

7. I wonder if maybe that's all there are... just those.

I wonder if maybe that's all there are... just those. An average of 80 donations from only those individual sounds much less impressive than four million donations (a boast that's just vague enough that some may conclude four million different donors.)

Wonder why?

I suppose there could be other reasons: software issues or inexperienced accounting people on his campaign. But, time will tell.

[JudyM]

8. How does that compare to Biden?

[George II]

10. More than 70% of Sanders' contributions are unitemized, only 35% of Biden's are...

...unitemized,

And Joe Biden isn't sending out daily emails bragging about the number of contributions he's received as though that's an indication of "grass roots" support, and asking for more "small" contributions.

Here's this morning's email (highlights are mine):

We'd like to ask you to make your first contribution today. But before we do, we hope you will give us a moment to say why your donation — especially today — is so important to our campaign.

Last night we ended the day 32,860 contributions short of where we were at the same point in October. That's a lot of donations, but our movement is capable of closing the gap in one day.

So what we are aiming to do between now and tonight at midnight is maximize the number of donations made to our campaign. Each one is important. Particularly because tomorrow is the fifth Democratic presidential debate, and Bernie needs to know we're with him.

That is why we need to ask:

Can you make your first $2.70 contribution to our campaign today? Bernie is counting on your support to make this a big day for our campaign.

Anything we are able to accomplish will be because of lots and lots of people coming together, not only to win this election but to transform our country.

Thank you for adding a contribution today to make that possible.

In solidarity,

Team Bernie

[JudyM]

11. Easier to track individual donations if you're receiving some fraction of someone else's.

How many donations has Joe received compared to Sanders’ 4 million?

[George II]

12. Just answered your question. The fact is we know who contributed 65% of Biden's receipts.....

....less than 30% of Sanders'.

This isn't a contest, we're nominating an opponent who can drive trump out of office.

[JudyM]

14. The percentage doesn't inform about the actual numbers was my point.

To illustrate: say Joe had 1000 donors and Bernie had 50,000, the effort to produce the info would be a bit different.

If “it’s not a contest” why all the attacks? Some folks here think he’s got a lot to offer and are interested in discussion without such continuous biting derision in every positive post about him... Joe may be a good candidate, but there are others and IMO a big tent is the best way to go, without such teardowns that will invariably drive any rifts in the party deeper.

[George II]

17. Perhaps because these fundraising posts misrepresent the facts behind the numbers...

For example, there's one woman who has given more than 800 times and maxed out at $2800. She has an average of about 11 contributions PER DAY and an average contribution of $4 each (this is all available at FEC.gov). There are many other contributors that have done similar.

So she's part of that "massive 4 million contributions" even though she's only one person who gave 800 times. If every contributor did the same as her, that 4 million contributions would boil down to only 5,000 individuals. See how that can be misleading?

On the other hand, if she gave one @ $2800 she's be considered a "big donor". Meanwhile other candidates are demeaned for catering to "big" contributors, even if they gave exactly the same amount as this one "small contributor".

Finally, there are now at least four OPs pushing this misleading concept of the significance of "4 million contributions". In fact, the first one today actually said 4 million contributors which was edited once that was called out.

[JudyM]

18. I won't argue with that but that woman doesn't represent the vast majority of Sanders' donors,

I would wager. Don’t you believe the concept of big donor influence is a worthwhile discussion within the party?

[George II]

19. We all have to remember that the maximum allowable aggregate per person is $2800.....

I seriously doubt that a candidate is going to sell out for a mere $2800. Aside from that, the average aggregate of Sanders contributors is more than $400 each (for those he's reported details), not much lower than the average for other candidates who are continuously castigated for accepting "big" contributions.

And encouraging contributors to give many $3 contributions so the number of contributions can be inflated and the average can be deflated.

It's disingenuous to claim a so-called "grass roots" campaign that is actually being funded by contributors giving a similar level as other candidates. Someone who can contribute $2800 over the course of only three months is not a "grass roots" supporter.

The emphasis should be on issues and how to address them rather than how each candidate funds their campaigns.

[JudyM]

21. If various and sundry PACs weren't in the picture I'd agree. That changes the game.

I admire candidates who are trying to stay away from their influence.

[George II]

35. Just about every candidate has Super PACs working in their favor.

[R B Garr]

23. It's not about one woman. It is the fact pattern that accounts

for an amplification of donors. I would rather talk about that since it’s manipulation. Assuming manipulation is really the issue and not just a purity test that is manipulating data for one candidate only.

[JudyM]

25. For me, the far more troublesome manipulation is that which is effected by donor influence.

[R B Garr]

36. This is just a purity platitude, though. Nurses have a

Super pac. Anyone who wants to fight Republicans is doing the right thing. Just insulting people to elevate one candidate’s platform is what is troublesome.

[JudyM]

37. There is no need to make demeaning characterizations against me/my values if the goal is to

have intelligent discussion about beating the republicans. Many Dems hold these values. That is all.

[R B Garr]

38. Thanks, exactly the point-- no demeaning things against

Democrats just to promote one talking point that is misleading anyway.

[mvd]

15. I sure wish I could donate. I have no money

It’s great that he relies on the smaller donations and doesn’t take the big corporate money. We really need less corporate influence in politics.

[George II]

20. NO CANDIDATE CAN TAKE "BIG CORPORATE MONEY"! That is a false narrative.

[chillfactor]

26. sorry not a bernie supporter...n/t

[emmaverybo]

30. Impressive support of sizable majority of the sizable minority that constitutes Dem electorate.

Bernie may well lead in the minority of Dem voters, but unfortunately still falls way behind with our most important constituencies, important not only for their being crucial to elect, but ya know, just for being important in every way, on every front, as people, not an electorate to be used. Real bellwether of where we are morally. Not Iowa or New Hampshire.

Says something that progressives support progressives with such low black communities support. Not sure what that says, but can’t possibly be good.