94% of Clinton's donations for 4th quarter under $100. Tops year end goal by $12 million

[Persondem]

Quotes are from this article.

"Clinton has prided herself on raising funds from women and donors of small amounts. In the most recent quarter, 94 percent of donations received were $100 or less, her campaign said."

"At the beginning of this campaign, Hillary Clinton set a goal of $100 million in primary contributions for 2015 and blew past that goal, raising more than $112 million in primary money for the year," her campaign said in a statement."

Well, how dare she accept all that money from the middle class. She obviously been bought and sold by those ne'er do well 45%-ers. If she's elected she will promote all kinds of legislation that would help those numerically dominate donors of hers - like promoting health care for women and children, helping young people afford college and other 45%-er type things!

I just do NOT see how anyone could vote for a candidate so in the pocket of the 45%. Oh the horror!!

[underthematrix]

1. I love the way HRC is all about outcomes sans the noise.

She is handling her business.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. But ...

They tested the response of two groups — one that experienced mortality reminders and one that didn’t — to three hypothetical gubernatorial candidates. One was "task-oriented and emphasized the ability to get things done"; another "emphasized the importance of share responsibility, relationships, and working together"; and a third was "bold self-confident, and emphasized the group’s greatness" ("you are part of a special state nation&quot . After a reminder of mortality, there was an eightfold increase in support for the charismatic candidate.

vox.com/2015/12/17/10323956/trump-fear-of-death

[underthematrix]

8. don't think we, the DEMS have any candidates that are

Last edited Sat Jan 2, 2016, 02:26 AM - Edit history (1)

charismatic. The only one we do have isn't running for office because he already has that seat. I think HRC has shown she's got FLAVA and I like that. She definitely needs to bring more of that to the campaign trail. Bernie is like a small town mayor. Nice guy with great ideas he'll never see come to fruition because he doesn't have the political capital to get it done. O'Malley just looks lost.

[JDPriestly]

20. But Bernie is the one bringing out thousands. His crowds testify to the fact that he is

charismatic.


I really don't think we can argue with his crowd numbers.

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. Which supports the underlaying research ...

Maybe the Bernie campaign is onto something in its wooing trump supporters ... they, both, seek the came kind of candidate ... stylistically, i.e., a bold, self-confident, will protect the "us" from the "them"; whereas, those supporting O'[Malley and HRC, are attracted to "task-orientation" and "competence".

[Armstead]

74. We need to stand up against "them" because there is a them

Its not a tin hat conspiracy, but a class based matrix of concentrated money and power that is creating a dystopian have and have not society.

It is morally obscene and economically unsustainable to have, fior example, chief executives and corporate owners and investors who earn hundreds of millions of dollars --and billions -- for throwing people out of work, lowering their wages and otherwise expoloiting them.

We have allowed since 1980 a system that is based on that value system. We do not need "competant" members of that elite oligarchy to correct the problem.

[1StrongBlackMan]

76. We do not disagree ... There is a "them" ...

But, we disagree here:

. We have allowed since 1980 a system that is based on that value system. We do not need "competant" members of that elite oligarchy to correct the problem.

First ... the PTB have been around a lot longer than the 1980s; and, secondly ... FDR and Kennedy, both competent members of that elite oligarchy ... that worked to correct the problem. (This is not to say HRC or O'Malley are FDRs or JFKs)

[uponit7771]

116. +1

[JDPriestly]

85. Someone who will protect "us" from "them."

You mean like FDR did, like Martin Luther King did, like Abraham Lincoln did, like we thought JrFK would?

The "task-oriented," candidates who claim to be "competent" are the losers in presidential races.

The Jimmy Carter v. Ronald Reagan campaign was a case in point.

Republicans still look back on the Reagan years with nostalgia, forgetting the horror of those years, -- the absurd war in Central America, the Iran-Contra hypocrixy -- the changes in the tax code that altered our economy to this day.

All of that is forgotten because Reagan had charisma.

Jimmy Carter was extremely "task-oriented" and far more "competent" than Reagan. History proves that. But the oil crisis and the hostage crisis marred Carter's presidency.

Maybe the Middle East backed Reagan, but he sure was neither competent nor task-oriented.

Bernie is both charismatic and competent and task-oriented. Watch the videos on Mother Jones of Bernie as mayor of Burlington. Both charisma and competent. Very task-oriented but with his eyes on the issues that matter to people and therefore charismatic.

Bernie's crowds don't lie. He can bring the voters out. That is why charisma and the crowds the charismatic draw are so important in our politics -- because they mean that people who support a candidate will actually come out and vote for that candidate in elections.

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. That is just a recital of what the research found ...

The American public prefers the image of a strong man above the image of task orientation and competence.

[JRLeft]

88. Hillary stands for the corporate state, like all third way corporate democrats.

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. Okay. n/t

[JRLeft]

91. I know it's hard for you to see it, because you are a fan.

The inequality gap continues to widen under republicans and republican lite. I believe Hillary will win, and when she does when the inequality gap continues its expansion just remember this post.

[Hekate]

96. Oh, a lot of us will remember not just your post but the rest. My prediction...

....is that the same people here who have spent the past 7 years bewailing that this or that constituency has been tossed under the bus, only to move the goalposts when Obama quietly ticked off another box on his agenda, will simply carry on as per their usual.

Hillary Clinton, a Democrat her entire adult life, is as quietly methodical as Obama. Remember that she tried to get universal health care through Congress while FLOTUS, and that is one reason the GOP hates her with such venom. Think of that before you believe the canard about her "baggage." Now that the groundwork of the ACA has been laid by Obama's hand, I believe she will continue to work toward her original goal. Toward doesn't mean she will necessarily get it all -- but it will get better.

[JRLeft]

101. TPP is the nuclear bomb of damage to working class people, but I

assume you support it since you defend corporatism as good policy.

[Hekate]

102. Ad hominem attack is weak sauce. Tata.

[JRLeft]

104. All the proof I need.

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. A fan of whom/what? ...

I suspect that the income gap will continue regardless of who is elected, as the proposals of all of the candidates (as currently presented, e.g., raising the minimum wage - even to $15.00/hr., and increasing taxes on the wealthy) will not appeciably affect the matter.

And I suspect that the candidates, all, know it.

[JRLeft]

100. By the time that kicks in it will be worth less than it is now.

Not to mention the damage the TPP will inflict on this nation. There are those who won't ever challenge the system. http://thirdway.org/ the people in that organization, supporters of the stays quo and republican lite dems.

[1StrongBlackMan]

107. Boogie Man Alert ...

I stated that NONE of the candidates' proposed plans will appreciably affect income inequality ... you want to talk about the 3rd-way!!!!

[underthematrix]

126. I think people are gonna be surprised by HRC. I think she's gonna

left. i think she will go hard left if she gets a blue Congress.

[JRLeft]

127. LMFAO, based off what evidenc?. I'm sorry, but how many times

do some of you have to be fooled before you wake up to reality. Every time dems take money from industry, they sell out the 99%. History says she won't get away from her corporate background.

[riversedge]

94. ohmymy-that boring talking point over and over. Get some new material.

[Voice for Peace]

131. No, people not looking at bernie as a "protector"

More like this:

A sergeant who is unafraid to be honest with the soldiers he leads into a fight; who inspires trust, and confidence in the power of us little fighters to achieve Victory over a sleazy enemy.

We can name that beast: it is greed, killing this humanity.

Bernie is a leader with no doublespeak or hidden agendas. He is practical. Not an armchair warrior. Two events today in MA. Young folks are awakening to the cause of their lives. 🌟💥🌟

[underthematrix]

82. Crowds don't mean he's charismatic. It just means he's speaking

to the resentments of a specific constituency

[JDPriestly]

83. What in your view does mean a person is charismatic?

Charisma draws large crowds in my book.

The Roosevelts, both FDR and Teddy were charismatic. They both drew huge crowds.

I can't think of a charismatic president who did not draw big crowds.,

I can't think of a charismatic movie star who didn't attract crowds.

Same for musicians.

The mark of charisma is the ability to draw big crowds.

What do you consider to be the signs, the marks of charisma in politics?

[underthematrix]

86. Check out President Obama

[JDPriestly]

87. He is charismatic compared to the rest of our politicians, but not compared to

FDR or Teddy Roosevelt.

The great reformers in our history have been the truly charismatic presidents.

Obama seemed charismatic when he was running for office, but he hired too many machine politicians and did not really achieve the reforms, not even in his own cabinet, that were necessary to become the kind of charismatic and popular presidents that the Roosevelts were.

It's a matter of knowing the history of the Roosevelt presidencies. Obama's is not comparable in terms of the charisma of the president and the adoration of the American people for that president. I like Obama very much, and he has a lot of support, but he has not united the country like the Roosevelts, especially FDR did.

FDR faced criticism from certain quarters, but his charisma was so great that he was held in great awe and enjoyed the affection of the vast majority of Americans. My mother was a teenager in the FDR years. I experienced first hand what her love was for the very charismatic FDR. No president in our time has enjoyed that popularity. No president.

Bernie is not as charismatic as FDR, but he is the Democrat who is drawing the crowds and is certainly the most charismatic of our Democratic candidates this primary season.

[Hekate]

103. Too funny. Those presidents are long dead. Is that all you've got?

[JDPriestly]

106. Our recent presidents have not had the charisma that those prior, dead

presidents had. It is funny in one way, but very sad for the Democratic Party and for Progressives. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, but a progressive Republican -- not like the Republicans of today. Although I have to say I detest his love of war.

[underthematrix]

125. President Obama is a great President and is the most charismatic President of the

recent past, including President Bill Clinton. The best evidence for this is all Obama-like stuff Bernie supporters use to measure Bernie's success. it's really sort of amusing.

[uponit7771]

117. +1

[Armstead]

73. "Bernie is like a small town mayor" who GOT THINGS DONE

He get reelected numerous times, and earned the support of progressives and conservatives for his ability as an executive to achieve practical goals..

A City may be smaller than the US but it requires the same executive abilities.

[Hekate]

97. I wouldn't use that line of reasoning if I were you. For one thing, the US presidency....

....is like nothing else in terms of the number of balls that need to be juggled. For another, the GOP keeps using that analogy of "the very small, like your household budget, is just like the fantastically large and complex federal budget."

[Armstead]

130. Same dynamics required

Negotiation, administration, juggling a lot of balls......Sure its smaller but same talents.

[roguevalley]

59. yeah. she sure is. read this little ditty:

http://www.adn.com/article/20151221/outside-billionaires-fuel-joint-effort-between-clinton-alaska-democrats

Color me pissed.

[Historic NY]

80. So how much has Bernie raised for the Democrats down ticket or the Party itself.....

10k is small change in the scheme of things it was give to a political committee... If BS gets to the general he'll gobble up that money, thats a fact because he will need it. I don't hear he saying he will reject any funds from the DNC, do you?


It not going to stop unless CU gets fixed.

"The New York Times reported that Clinton and former President Bill Clinton were scheduled to hold the first fundraiser for the Hillary Victory Fund last week in New York City, with a performance by the singer Sting.

The fund -- technically called a “joint fundraising committee” -- takes advantage of a 2014 Supreme Court ruling, the McCutcheon decision, that eliminated a $75,000 cap on the total amount of money that individuals could give to political parties and committees during a two-year election cycle.

McCutcheon was the second 5-4 decision, following the 2010 Citizens United ruling, loosening campaign finance rules and allowing for much larger contributions to federal elections by individuals, unions and corporations -- over Democratic objections.

Joint fundraising committees like Clinton’s, Ryan said, are created “for the convenience of donors -- so a donor can write a huge check to a single entity rather than having to write a bunch of smaller checks.”

Now, donors can give as much as $350,000 to Clinton’s fund, to be divided between her campaign, the DNC and the 32 participating state-level Democratic committees. Those committees can spend the money themselves, or, like the Alaska Democrats, send the cash back to the DNC, since state-level parties can make unlimited transfers to their national affiliates -- a move that Ryan said effectively allows the DNC to raise far more than the $33,400 legal limit on direct donations from individuals."

[Persondem]

81. Nice post with some details that were new to me. Thank you. nt

[uponit7771]

115. +1

[sonofspy777]

2. Astroturfing her donations

Kind of a pattern with her isn't it?

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Conspiracy theories are the stuff of legend on DU. eom.

[underthematrix]

12. That's funny astroturfing donations even though I have no idea what you mean

[Cha]

15. $18 million for the Democratic Party in the fourth quarter.. !

[Codeine]

128. Unfair hide for upaloopa replying to this post.

People are just hiding to make points for the teams now.

[oasis]

132. Could it be that the "More Debates" crowd wants less debate

within their own community?

[ucrdem]

3. 98% of her 2016 contributions come from individuals:

Candidate Summary, 2016 Cycle: Source of Funds

Individual Contributions - $76,077,856 (98%)
PAC Contributions - $638,460 (1%)
Candidate self-financing - $278,821 (0%)
Federal Funds - $0 (0%)
Other - $476,466 (1%)

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f

[Fearless]

25. Way to ignore the super PACs

[ucrdem]

27. PAC contributions are shown and I included them.

[JonLeibowitz]

30. PAC contributions are not superPACs with which she is directly coordinating.

[Fearless]

35. Bingo.

[ucrdem]

36. LOL, it's illegal to directly coordinate with SuperPacs:

Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php

In any case SuperPac funds are reported at the link I posted above, but aggregated by total raised.

[JonLeibowitz]

40. You should do some reading about your candidate. Or inform her of the (il)legality of her actions.

Specifically:

Correct the Record, a group started by David Brock, a staunch ally of Hillary Rodham Clinton, is recreating itself as a stand-alone “super PAC” that has the ability to coordinate with her campaign.

Correct the Record, initially run by the opposition research group American Bridge 21st Century — another Brock-connected super PAC — had been focused loosely on the goal of defending all Democrats from attacks. Now its sole mission is helping Mrs. Clinton.

...

The new version of Correct the Record will be able to communicate with federal campaigns and party committees, as it is not involved with independent expenditures.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/12/hillary-clinton-aligned-group-gets-closer-to-her-campaign/

Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to work in tight conjunction with an independent rapid-response group financed by unlimited donations, another novel form of political outsourcing that has emerged as a dominant practice in the 2016 presidential race.

On Tuesday, Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton rapid-response operation, announced it was splitting off from its parent American Bridge and will work in coordination with the Clinton campaign as a stand-alone super PAC. The group’s move was first reported by the New York Times.

That befuddled many campaign finance experts, who noted that super PACs, by definition, are political committees that solely do independent expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political party. Several said the relationship between the campaign and the super PAC would test the legal limits.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

Democratic Party presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton also gets support from the Correct the Record super PAC through public channels. The group posts opposition research to its site that the Clinton campaign can reuse. The Clinton camp also pays a market rate to use the super PAC's non-public research. This essentially makes the super PAC a direct arm of the campaign, subsidized by six-figure contributions Clinton cannot raise directly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/super-pac-coordination_56463f85e4b045bf3def0273

------------

Also while the link you posted to mentioned superPACs, your summary did not and was therefore misleading. That is what Fearless was pointing out. Your deflection of mentioning PACs instead of superPACs which was Fearless' point only helps to reinforce the impression to readers that you were trying to mislead.

[ucrdem]

46. In other words, I'm correct. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

50. If you say so. Brilliant retort to a refutation of "illegal to directly coordinate with SuperPACs"

[joshcryer]

39. I wonder what the self financing is.

What it goes to. Paying caterers when there's no account, transportation, or what.

[SunSeeker]

4. K & R

[Gothmog]

9. This is great news

This was a great fundraising quarter

[Hassin Bin Sober]

10. These numbers are misleading. Of course the small donations will look larger if you...

... look at the donor and not the amount.

Clinton actual amounts:

Small Individual Contributions - $13,292,382 (17%)
Large Individual Contributions - $62,785,473 (81%)

$76,077,856



81% of the aggregate amount comes from large individual contributions.

Out of the 17% from small individual contributions, I would be curious to see how many are less than $100


Nine people can donate $100 and one person donate $1 million for a total of $1,001,000. 90% of the donors are at $100 but not 90% of the funds.

(Disclaimer. This is meant to be an example how many small donations skew the numbers. Not meant to imply HRC is getting $1 million dollar individual donations)


Sanders:


- Small Individual Contributions $30,652,976 (74%)
- Large Individual Contributions $9,300,567 (22%)

$39,953,544

[ucrdem]

11. Max individual contribution to one candidate: $2,600

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/limits.php

[Cha]

13. So are they "misleading"?

[ucrdem]

14. Clearly they're in the pocket of the 1%

but all that will change soon because

[Cha]

16. Hi you! I'm just wondering if

he knows what he's talking about or if I have to call him on his misleading with his "misleading".

[ucrdem]

17. Well, "one person can donate $1 million" is a crock of bs,

because the legal limit per candidate is $2,600, so that's misleading. The numbers are from OpenSecrets. Whether they're correct I don't know. They're only current to October, and they report 4% of Sanders' 3rd-quarter contributions coming from "other," with no clarity about what that might be. They claim to take the numbers directly from each candidate's election commission filings.

[Cha]

21. Thanks.. I probably won't bother.. I just get tired of them jumping on Hillary threads with

that kind of statement if they're not true.

Like the "astroturfing" one above.

[ucrdem]

23. Ah.

The figures are accurately copied from OpenSecrets, but the editorializing is baloney.

[JonLeibowitz]

32. Strictly speaking you are correct. It is however possible to donate $997,400 to a superPAC.

Indeed, you can even do so anonymously.

[ucrdem]

37. But SuperPacs can't give money to or coordinate directly with a candidate or campaign:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php

[JonLeibowitz]

41. See post #40.

[ucrdem]

45. Lovely. And?

[NCTraveler]

77. Love that graphic.

Look at the shiny lights. Look at the crazy. Ignore the fact my hands keep disappearing.

[Number23]

114. Is that a real graphic?? If it is, it wins the Internets. Today, tomorrow and every day after

[JonLeibowitz]

33. The only thing incorrect in that post is the degree of impact large dollar donations have.

Apart from the fact that the legal limit is $2700 per person ($5400 per married couple), the post is accurate.

The HFA numbers are indeed misleading. They wouldn't even respond to a NYT question asking what proportion of their funds came from small dollar donations.

The campaign declined to say what percentage of the $37 million it brought in the fourth quarter came from small contributions.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/01/hillary-clinton-raised-37-million-in-last-3-months/?ref=politics

I guess they were hoping we wouldn't notice that.

[ucrdem]

43. Yes but that was the whole gotcha.

As for hoping we wouldn't notice, I notice the NYT doesn't source that statement. Who declined saying what to whom exactly? Better to wait for the actual spending report.

[JonLeibowitz]

47. The source is clearly the Clinton campaign. I don't know who works for Clinton & it isn't relevant.

[ucrdem]

49. That's your assumption. I'll wait to see the report. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

51. In what universe is "The campaign declined to say what percentage..." not sourced from HFA?

[ucrdem]

53. Could be the HFA answering service for all we know. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

55. I might not trust the NYT's narrative and spin, but the source here seems rock solid.

You are free of course to embrace delusion. Not going to stop you.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. I know that. It's an example of how numbers can be skewed if you only look at the number of donors.

[ucrdem]

28. It's best to check your facts before "unskewing" anything.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

31. Yeah, the fact is 81% of Clinton's individual contributions come from large individual contributions

And 22% for Sanders.

Counting the top number of donors is silly.

[ucrdem]

38. "large" = $200 to $2,700.

I checked.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

44. Yep. Nowhere near 94% of the donations come from sub $100 donations.

I'd be curious to see the donation amounts broken down in brackets of, say, $100 dollar increments.

Advertising the top number of donors is silly.

[ucrdem]

54. What are you talking about anyway?

Reuters:

In the most recent quarter, 94 percent of donations received were $100 or less, her campaign said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKBN0UF21C20160102

You're disputing that??

[JonLeibowitz]

56. What they mean is the 94% of the money did not come from sub $100 donations

It is confusing because people always confuse donations, donors, and % of money raised. I am guilty of this myself sometimes.

[ucrdem]

57. Reuters: "In the most recent quarter, 94 percent of donations received were $100 or less"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKBN0UF21C20160102

Are you disputing this?

[JonLeibowitz]

58. I am not. I was explaining the mistake that the other poster was making. I.e. agreeing with you.

[ucrdem]

60. Okay. In that case

[Hassin Bin Sober]

61. I wasn't making a mistake.

It's my position that counting the number of "donors" making sub $100 dollar donations is misleading.

A thousand people donating 10 cents ($100 dollars) can skew that number versus one person donating $2600 dollars. - OMG 99.99% of this candidate's donations are only10 cents!!!!!

[JonLeibowitz]

63. Oh absolutely. It is incredibly misleading. I just thought you were contesting the facts

You know it is misleading because HFA refuses to disclose what proportion of the funds raised were due to small donors. Meaning the number was not substantal. HRC is all about spin spin spin while the elite bankroll her campaign.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

64. I tried to make it clear in my first post I was talking about dollar amounts.

But the other poster wanted to fixate on the "million dollar" example I gave as if I was trying to claim HRC was getting million dollar individual donations.

Well it is silly season on du.

But I can see how referring to the funds in the bank as "donations" can be misleading.

[cali]

65. Bundled contributions.

[joshcryer]

42. Is there a breakdown in $100 increments?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

48. I don't know. I was just typing the same question in # 44 before I saw this.

[joshcryer]

67. I found the data and made a thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251967360

It'd be possible to go through each page like I did but if someone knew how to use excel they could do it for each range without much effort.

[TexasTowelie]

109. I'm a former stat analyst, database and Excel user.

Here is a brief analysis of contributions for the HRC campaign:

There are about 42,000 rows where the dollar amount is $100 or less (including negative amounts noted for insufficient fund checks, etc.). The total for rows of data is about $1.9 million.

The amount for the range between $101 to $200 totals about $753,000. That accounts for about 5,000 rows of data.

The number of rows for donors making donations above $2.500 is about 17,400.

I wish that I had software like Microsoft Access since I'm actually more proficient with it than I am with Excel. i would be able to group the data so that it would summarize multiple contributions by the same donor and also analyze data such as the reported occupations of the donor.

Keep in mind that since the same donor could be giving small amounts on monthly or quarterly individuals it could move donors from the small contributors category into the large contributor classification (>$200). Thus the argument that Bernie Sanders has raised more money from small contributors still has not been answered. However, I did notice that among the donors that contributed the maximum amount to HRC there are occupations listed such as student, artist, model, homemaker, retired, volunteer, interior designer, etc.

[tammywammy]

118. Can you use a pivot table?

I haven't looked at the data, but if the names are the same (as in same name with same format) a pivot would add up the total.

[TexasTowelie]

122. Yes, I know how to use pivot tables.

I am considered to be an extremely advanced user in Access, Excel and Word and built many sophisticated software applications in Access. Unfortunately the version of Excel that I have available is somewhat limited so my best bet is to use the subtotals command and work from that summary table. The only reason why I used Excel was to export data from Access so the people that had less technical skills could view and work with it.

If I had Microsoft Access on my computer I could analyze the data to death and run queries almost instantaneously to answer virtually any question asked in real-time. Excel is not really built to handle large amounts of data and is stalling out on doing a simple function where i asked to subtotal the amounts by contributor name. There are only about 84,000 records for the HRC contribution list and I dealt with databases with as many as 5 million records.

[tammywammy]

123. I didn't mean to offend you, I was just making a suggestion

[TexasTowelie]

124. No offense was taken.

I was a math major in college and enjoyed working with data, but I know that I can't cope with the same issues that I used to deal with in the past.

[joshcryer]

129. Yeah, I made that argument about "small donors" in the other thread.

I could fall in the $600 range simply donating $50 a month (I haven't donated that much, just theoretically speaking, I've donated around half that).

But thanks for your insight here, this is what I was looking for. Seems tammy also has more information, as well, which I'll be getting soon I think.

[tammywammy]

121. I looked at this data a little, and it's only through the previous quarter ending 30 Sept.

The FEC hasn't posted up through the end of the year yet.

[gordyfl]

66. I Get It.

Most of the money Hillary has collected for her campaign comes from BIG Donors.

The majority the money Bernie has received comes from small donations.

I thought everybody understood this.

[tritsofme]

18. It only counts if they vote in Internet polls!

[Cha]

22. Now you're catching on!

[mikehiggins]

19. Strangely enough, despite my Sanders avatar, I got a note from HRC

thanking me for joining her campaign and asking me to donate one dollar.

Now, if you have a whole bunch of people donating a buck (no, I didn't) then the average donation to her campaign goes down quite a lot. If someone on wall street donates a whole lot and a bunch of people donate a buck apiece, then the average donation is much lower. Looks pretty good when you are trying to make poll data look real.

[Fearless]

24. The major donors maxed out months ago already.

[ucrdem]

29. What major donors?

[Fearless]

34. Those that donated the maximum?

Was I not clear?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

52. It can be a problem for a campaign.

Not saying that is the case here, but I recall it being a problem for Romney. Iirc, a lot of his donors maxed out so he couldn't squeeze more out of them. Obama was in a much better position as his donors were more spread out and still eligible to contribute.

[Eric J in MN]

62. There are candidate events in which big donations

...go to the DNC and state Democratic parties. The eventual nominee is indebted to people who make those big donations, but can say that his-or-her campaign didn't get that money.

[joshcryer]

68. $45 million of that comes from 16k people.

[uponit7771]

119. Can you link and quote this? tia

[oasis]

70. Kick for the nay sayers.

[hobbit709]

71. "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics"

[99Forever]

72. Figures lie and liars figure.

Last edited Sat Jan 2, 2016, 09:52 AM - Edit history (1)

It's all in how you spin the numbers.

We know the score Hillary and insulting our intelligence by putting up a false front about your true financers doesn't fool anyone. Typically Clinton tone deaf and intellectually dishonest.

[Armstead]

75. The contradictory inconsistancy of These claims

On one hand Clinton supporters say "Oh Sanders can't win because you need Big money to run for president, and he can't do that. We need the Clintons who are able to raise the needed money."


On the other hand they say "Oh look. The vast majority of Clinton supporters are small donors."

Bernie has proven his ability to raise large suns money from large numbers of supporters, equal to and greater than Clinton.

So what creates this superior money raising abolity that Clinton supporters refer to?

Could it be.............Big money donors, bundlers and shadowy SuperPacs?

[chervilant]

78. O, so funny!

And, so sad -- HRC struggling to prove she appeals to the "little people"! She seems determined to prove herself as popular as Bernie, and -- so far -- her efforts are pretty lame.

Like so many others herewith, I'll vote for HRC if she's our nominee, but I remain hopeful that Bernie will carry the nomination all the way.

[GoneFishin]

79. Big deal. "(This version of the story corrects paragraph 5 to say 94 percent of donations ...

... were $100 or less, not 94 percent of total money raised in the quarter)"

Also from that same story.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

93. That highlights the reasoning behind advertising "94% of donations are under $100 dollars"

The media, and a segment of DUers, are making it sound like 94% of her funds are coming from sub $100 dollar donations.

It's like GWB advertising his "average tax cut is $1100 dollars" - yeah, pennies for you and me and hundreds of thousands of dollars for millionaires and billionaires.

[reformist2]

84. How do we know a lot of millionaires didn't write $100 checks, 25 times.

[Persondem]

105. That's not how political donations work. They are tracked by the person

making the donation so it is known when a particular donor reaches the limit. Besides how do you KNOW that Bernie's donors aren't really millionaires writing multiple checks ?

[coyote]

92. It's funny reading the responses on this thread...

Clinton has a real trust issue...nobody believes she received 94% of her money small donations. If this was a thread about Sanders receiving small donations, nobody would question it.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

95. It's not a matter of trust. It's a fact.

That 94% number jumps right off the page and says somebody is gildding the Lilly.

[GoneFishin]

110. That's a hell of a non sequitur. "... and everyone else in the progressive movement ..."

[Hassin Bin Sober]

111. I had to look. I still don't know what that one was belly aching about. LOL

[uponit7771]

120. People don't trust facts, more proof some people are more emotionally involved in this than

... others

[Vinca]

108. Jeb has raised a mountain of money, too, but I doubt he'll see the White House anytime soon.

[jfern]

112. As of the previous report, 64% of all money she raised was from maxed out donors

[Snotcicles]

113. That's a play on words. If 94 people of 100 gave her one dollar each and six people gave her

five million dollars each. 94% of donation received would be under one hundred dollars.
It does not say 94% of funds received were from donations of one hundred dollars or less.