The Truth is in the Numbers

[Bonobo]

[VulgarPoet]

1. Y'know what this tells me?

The establishment's ($)ain't is gonna be behind the repeal of everything the FCC has done for an open internet; going to fuck the middle class again, we're likely gonna hit another recession where the "solution" is to bail the banks out again, and basically, more of the same.

[Lucinda]

2. Interesting...Bernie's PAC numbers are way higher than individuals

Clinton's are way more individuals than PAC.
I hadn't noticed that before!

And this represents career contributions from those individual donors from 1999 to mid 2015.

[Bonobo]

4. A couple of huge problems with that observation.

The first is that although the percentage of PACS: Individuals is indeed higher on the PAC side for Bernie, the actual numbers themselves, as you can see, are a fraction of Hillary's.

So what does that mean? Well it means that Hillary is getting enormous and maxed out contributions from very rich individuals who are a part of the very wealthy corporations shown in the chart.

OTOH, Bernie is getting small donations from PACS made up of unions, universities and the like.

[Recursion]

6. No, the actual PAC amounts are much higher for Sanders

Significantly so. He seems to be getting a lot of money from the union PACs but not much at all from the members.

Clinton's biggest PAC contributor was for for $29388; Sander's smallest PAC contributor was for $35367

[Bonobo]

7. Umm, Sanders HIGHEST donor starts at $95,000 and Hillary's starts at $782,000

Perhaps if we saw more of the chart, we would eventually see those numbers comparable.

But at these figures, the point is clear. Hillary receives massive donations from "interests" that do not align with those of most people.

It is impossible to interpret this in any other way.

[Lucinda]

8. She was running for office from NY - much more expensive than running from VT

so her raised funds would NEED to be higher. Same thing applies to anyone running in FLA, CA, Texas, etc.

The fact that many of these listed companies are financial related, is also not out of the ordinary for a NY Senate run. NY is the financial hub of the US, and these companies have a large number of employees. Morgan Stanley had something like 13 floors in Two World Trade, and that is just one company. Some of the Dems in these companies supported her political campaigns. Bernie's contributions reflect the makeup of voters in his state. Smaller numbers, and more benign companies, as one would expect from a VT politician.




edited: corrected the name of the world trade center tower two

[Bonobo]

9. Here. This is for 2016. Take a look. Hillary is on the right, Bernie left (lol)

Key differences:

-Look at the amount of small donations vs. large donations

-Look at the PAC contributions

-Look at the "outside groups".

[Lucinda]

11. So? That has nothing to do with your original post. And of course

Clinton would be raising more money than Sanders. He's just now becoming widely known, and she has been known globally for almost 24 years. I've been hearing a lot of how much he has been raising now that he is getting serious coverage. Kinda to be expected all the way around...

[Bonobo]

12. Large contributions vs. small contributions is meaningless?

Furthermore, I believe the claim was made by you that Bernie had more PAC contributions (untrue) and the claim was also made that his campaign received the most in outside contributions. Also untrue.

[Lucinda]

14. The career numbers in your OP graphic support my PAC point which is what we were

discussing until you decided to change lanes.

And as far as the 2016 campaign, my statement above still applies. Bernie's fund raising is changing daily as his campaign becomes well known, but his numbers would of course be much smaller than HRC's for the period of time in your second graphic. She has a 24 year advantage as a public figure.

I am happy Dem candidates are raising money. It will be crucial in the GE. You'd better believe Bernie will find deep pockets if he becomes our nominee. It will be critical.

[Bonobo]

15. This is GD:P Primaries.

We are having a discussion which hopefully can lead to a greater understanding of reality, not just a bashing of opinions.

So no, I don't think drilling down deeper into the reality of this primary and its finances is "changing lanes".

I think the charts I posted in #9 show that Bernie's money is coming from small donations as opposed to Hillary's and that is meaningful to me anyway.

Furthermore, the PAC situation is not at all reflective of what you said (which was true in a way and only for the career totals).

I am glad that you pointed out to me that my OP chart was one which included the entire careers because you helped me arrive closer to the truth of things. So thank you for that, Lucinda.

[Lucinda]

16. I love Open Secrets...the 2016 cross tabs are really informative

when you dig in and look at the details for each candidate.

I'm glad Bernie is doing well and that you are happy with the donors he has. I feel the same about Hillary. I don't like SuperPAC's but I am glad she is making use of the tools the Reps are, until the practice can be ended. I think not doing so is naive.

They have different focuses, so their choices in fund-raising, as well as Bernie's large rallys vs Hillary's small groups in Iowa are evidence of where their focus is. Bernie is getting his name and his vision out there, Hillary is gearing up for the GE, and I think Bernie would be wise to move that direction too, in what ever way he is comfortable with.

[Bonobo]

17. No one can say it is not an interesting primary, that's for sure. nt

[Lucinda]

18. That is it. n/t

[Recursion]

3. Why are his PAC figures so much higher than hers?

That's interesting

[Bonobo]

5. Keep looking. Keep thinking. nt

[beam me up scottie]

10. Ah, I get it!

[Bonobo]

13. They're not in this election. See post #9. nt