2016 Postmortem

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

34. The numbers don't include the current cycle yet. Bernie's numbers are from his Senate campaigns.

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 12:24 PM

Jul 2015

Which, again, were taking place in Vermont.

I'm sure some liberal bankers do support Bernie. We'll see how many. The thing is, very few people support Bernie to begin with, and in Hillary's home state the fraction is likely to be even lower.

I'll give you one more chance to not dodge my question. Before you saw the 3.4%, what would you have thought the percentage was?

I doubt you'll answer. Doing so would require to much honesty.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How can this be so confusing? 3.4% of Hillary's fundraising came from bank employees. [View all] DanTex Jul 2015 OP

Not confusing at all. Hillary takes a LOT of money from banksters. Period. Indepatriot Jul 2015 #1

And from labor unions, and from teachers unions, and from planned parenthood, and from.... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #3

Interesting point. So lets explore why she doesn't support the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #2

I guess she agrees with a number of liberal economists including Paul Krugman DanTex Jul 2015 #8

You don't bite the hands that feed you AgingAmerican Jul 2015 #18

You're either being purposefully misleading, or just don't understand statistics bobbobbins01 Jul 2015 #4

So if she took $11.2million from finance out of $328million, who made up the rest of contributions? JaneyVee Jul 2015 #5

Those two numbers represent different data sets. bobbobbins01 Jul 2015 #7

Clearly bit players, to be ignored ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2015 #24

From your linked page: hay rick Jul 2015 #6

Represented to the tune of 3.4% of all her campaing fundraising. DanTex Jul 2015 #9

Your number is wrong. bobbobbins01 Jul 2015 #10

Why don't you divide the two numbers and tell me what you get. That should clear up your confusion. DanTex Jul 2015 #11

You can't divide those two numbers. bobbobbins01 Jul 2015 #12

Sure you can. Try it! DanTex Jul 2015 #13

Please don't talk down to me when you're dead wrong. bobbobbins01 Jul 2015 #14

You're the one who is dead wrong. DanTex Jul 2015 #15

Let me explain it to you: bobbobbins01 Jul 2015 #20

Aha, so you're concerned about the corrupting influence of small donations. DanTex Jul 2015 #22

I believe this is what they call moving the goalposts. bobbobbins01 Jul 2015 #29

3.4% is the percent that is known to have come from financial sector employees in donations of $200 DanTex Jul 2015 #31

That number is absolutely meaningless. bobbobbins01 Jul 2015 #33

Or, just really bad at math. Dawgs Jul 2015 #37

More spin AgingAmerican Jul 2015 #16

Yes, arithmetic has now become "spin". DanTex Jul 2015 #17

Spin AgingAmerican Jul 2015 #19

Spin would imply hes twisting the facts bobbobbins01 Jul 2015 #21

He is spinning facts AgingAmerican Jul 2015 #25

Facts are facts leftynyc Jul 2015 #44

And when they are spun AgingAmerican Jul 2015 #58

I'm going to give you leftynyc Jul 2015 #59

Hillary doesn't do the spinning AgingAmerican Jul 2015 #61

How are you defining surrogates? leftynyc Jul 2015 #62

No answer, huh. Must be tough to re-examine your false assumptions. DanTex Jul 2015 #23

The REAL question is... AgingAmerican Jul 2015 #26

New Yorkers like Hillary. In fact, Democrats period like Hillary. DanTex Jul 2015 #30

lol AgingAmerican Jul 2015 #32

The numbers don't include the current cycle yet. Bernie's numbers are from his Senate campaigns. DanTex Jul 2015 #34

So the thieves who stole 40% of the middle class wealth AgingAmerican Jul 2015 #35

This analysis is pointless virtualobserver Jul 2015 #27

+1000000000 azmom Jul 2015 #39

endlessly analyzing any kind of pre 2010 data is pointless anyway virtualobserver Jul 2015 #54

We can only hope Molly Ivins was right HassleCat Jul 2015 #28

Hey Dan madokie Jul 2015 #36

Even if you think that, you should join in fighting the "Hillary is owned by banks" lie. DanTex Jul 2015 #38

Dan for the most part that is not a lie madokie Jul 2015 #41

3.4% of it is not a lie. Actually even less, because those are bank employees, not banks. DanTex Jul 2015 #42

We all see through this play on facts of yours madokie Jul 2015 #45

What makes you think she is owned by big moneyed interests? DanTex Jul 2015 #46

You are relentless madokie Jul 2015 #48

Just asking for the evidence behind the "owned" theory of yours. Is that wrong? Am I supposed to DanTex Jul 2015 #50

What.the fuck ever man madokie Jul 2015 #52

Try me. Why so secretive? We've gone back and forth so many times with me asking for DanTex Jul 2015 #53

You've been shown many times these last two days where your 3.4% madokie Jul 2015 #55

Why is it bullshit? It's just arithmetic. Division, to be precise. DanTex Jul 2015 #57

People seem to conveniently forget that Clinton's favorability is LOWER than her unfavorables London Lover Man Jul 2015 #40

She can't get there from here madokie Jul 2015 #43

so? I was a bank 'employee'. When people donate they ask your employer. Thousands & Sunlei Jul 2015 #47

Exactly. Not only is the total amount small, but "bank employees" and "banks" are different things. DanTex Jul 2015 #49

Don't you get it? If it feels like Hillary is owned by the banks redstateblues Jul 2015 #56

What level of employee. the peons or the manager types. hobbit709 Jul 2015 #51

That number only for donations of at least $200.00 bobbobbins01 Jul 2015 #63

one person gives you an Andrew Jackson, another person gives you a couple of Abraham Lincolns Agony Jul 2015 #60

Less than 20% from small donations. ieoeja Jul 2015 #64

This is true. This is a valid argument to make. "Hillary is owned by banks" is not. DanTex Jul 2015 #65