Hi. I'm a Sanders supporter. This is why.

[AtheistCrusader]

I look at this:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/donordemcid.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528
And then I look at this:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/donordemcid.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019

Compare Number Of Individual Contributors graphs side by side, where the Y axis is donation size.
One of these is a nice smooth curve. One has a major distortion in it.

You might think that market theory is a good way to pick which horse to throw your money behind. I don't. I'm not in that $2k spike. I DON'T like that Citizens United chose money as a valid proxy for free speech.

The curve of Bernie's donors looks a lot like the population curve of income distribution in the US.
Hillary's does not. Hillary's looks like it has more to do with disposable income for higher wage earners.

Yes, I'm making an assumption; A candidate is more likely to be beholden to people with money. That's maybe not a fair assumption. But I'm betting it is.

I'd like a candidate that is beholden to MORE people, rather than fewer, higher-earning people. A candidate that higher wage earners are less likely to say 'that person has my interests at heart'. I think we've had too much of that. For too long.

If there's a flaw in my logic, please point it out.
I'll support the nominee, but right now, that's not settled. I want to see more actual voices (as a percentage of the actual population, not just the monied population) represented, so, for now, I support Bernie.

[arcane1]

1. An interesting comparison. At some point we have to ask "who do they have to thank?"

I prefer the Sanders answer to that question.

[kenfrequed]

2. Too true

And it is one of many, many reasons I support Sanders.

[upaloopa]

3. We all are Americans and we all have one vote

Most likely I will give more to Hillary than you will to Bernie. That doesn't make me any less of a person or human being as you. That doesn't mean I am any less concerned about the middle class than you. That doesn't mean I care less about social issues than you.
It just means I don't have as big of an ego as you.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. It's not about you as a person.

It's about whether your voice then means more to that politician, than my one vote?

[upaloopa]

6. Like I said we all have one vote. You support

Sanders because his donors give less as if Hillary doesn't deserve support because her donors give more. As if giving more means you aren't as "liberal" as thou.
The attitude that you are the people and we are not is just ego talking.
On edit: it also shows something else. It is very elitist.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Um, no. My concern is a particular class of donor is over-represented.

Why do you think that is?

If I've misinterpreted the spike in donation level, what do you think the correlation is?

[ibegurpard]

5. you bring the scorn upon yourself with remarks like this

If Hillary's the nominee I will gladly vote for her over a Republican. If Bernie manages pull it out though I will get an extra thrill out of knowing Hillary's loss was a blow to you.

[restorefreedom]

14. ouch.

not complaining, however.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. It depends on which wins. Votes or $.

[artislife]

13. Actually, you lost me at that last line.

The rest is true.

[restorefreedom]

15. yeah that kind of blew it

the rest was well reasoned imo

[leftofcool]

7. I have money. I will be donating to Hillary. She will not be beholden to me.

That does not make me a bad person, less a person than you, nor do I have to apologize for what little wealth I have earned by working for 50 years.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Won't she?

Do you suppose it changes the message a candidate hears, from 'the people' if 'the people' who can attend/donate are the ones that can afford that $2000 a plate dinner with the candidate?

Just as an example.

[restorefreedom]

16. you have nothing to apologize for

it is the system that is broken. when people like the kochs can buy candidates, and tax cheats and ginormous corps can donate to both parties with impunity, that is a clear sign to me that something is wrong. people should be able to donate to the candidate of their choice. but at some point, it becomes a game of "who do i owe more".

reform is needed, preferably with some kind of public financing and a cap on individual donations imo.

[reformist2]

8. The message I get --- 4 out of 5 big money donors prefer Hillary over Bernie!

Because Bernie had only 6,000 or so donors over the $250 mark. Hillary had 22,000.

Make of that what you will.

[Ed Suspicious]

11. I make of that, that Hillary will work to ensure that people who can afford to donate more to her

campaign will have factors that contribute to that condition enhanced even at the expense of those who cannot afford such large donations. If one makes their money from the stock market and the stock price is enhanced by "efficiencies" such as reduction in wages and wage earners from each company's payroll, then that sort of sets up a strange dichotomy. Work for enhanced wages and more jobs, but risk pissing off the ownership class who is bankrolling her political life and campaign, vs. work for increased use of H1-Bs and more neoliberal trade agreements so that shareholders can capitalize on lower wage workers and more lax labor and environmental standards available to them in other countries.

I'm voting for the guy financed by the little guy. Not even a question in my mind. Our interests are aligned. My interests are seemingly not aligned with the candidate financed by the more affluent.

[reformist2]

17. I agree. It's very hard to see Hillary doing anything that would upset the investor class.

I actually think she *used* to be an idealist liberal, but somewhere along the way in her lifelong pursuit of the presidency, she lost her way. Now she's basically just another political hack who wants to be president.

[99Forever]

18. It's a no-brainer.

A proven fighter for We the People or a corporate owned fighter for the.01%.


I know who gets my support.