ChrisWeigant.com

First Quarter Democratic Fundraising Numbers Are In

[ Posted Monday, April 15th, 2019 – 18:11 UTC ]

Today is not just the day when millions of Americans have to file their income taxes, if is also the day when the millions of Democratic presidential candidates also have to file their first quarter fundraising numbers. Well, that's a slight exaggeration, but it certainly seems like millions at times, doesn't it?

Early fundraising numbers aren't completely irrelevant, but there has been a noticeable shift this election cycle over what has happened in years past, at least within the Democratic Party. It used to be that early fundraising represented mostly the ability of the candidates to sweet talk big-money donors into backing their campaigns early on -- a measure of the prowess of convincing the movers and shakers within the party of any particular candidates' chances of winning. This time around things have radically changed, because now the race is to woo small donors, rather than big-pocket money bundlers.

This, like many things about running for president as a Democrat, has changed as a direct result of the 2016 campaign of Bernie Sanders. Sanders proved that raising money from mostly small donors was indeed a viable model for launching a major presidential primary campaign, a thing which had previously only been speculated about. Bernie equalled Hillary Clinton in raising money, but while Clinton relied on a big-donor network, Sanders was able to raise similar amounts from an army of small donors (who famously gave an average of "27 bucks" each). Suddenly something which had only been posited as a political science theory was shown to be a realistic way of running for president. This time around, many Democratic candidates are following in Bernie's footsteps and eschewing big donors in favor of only going after grassroots support. More people are "voting with their dollars" than just a small universe of big-money donors, in other words.

Let's take a look at the full list, at least as of this writing (some candidates are reporting very late in the day, especially those with not-so-impressive totals). From the lowest total reported to the highest:

  • Wayne Messam -- $83,745
  • John Delaney -- $1 million (see note A)
  • Julián Castro -- $1.1 million
  • Marianne Williamson -- $1.5 million
  • Andrew Yang -- $1.7 million
  • John Hickenlooper -- $2.2 million (see note B)
  • Jay Inslee -- $2.25 million
  • Kirsten Gillibrand -- $3 million
  • Cory Booker -- $5 million
  • Amy Klobuchar -- $5.2 million (see note B)
  • Elizabeth Warren -- $6 million
  • Pete Buttigieg -- $7.1 million
  • Beto O'Rourke -- $9.4 million
  • Kamala Harris -- $12 million
  • Bernie Sanders -- $18.2 million

Two notes are necessary to explain some of these numbers.

[A] -- John Delaney reported $12.1 million raised, but over $11 million of that was his own money, so $1 million raised from actual donors is somewhat of an estimate.

[B] -- Both John Hickenlooper and Amy Klobuchar got a little cute with their numbers, reporting money raised for both the primary and general election cycles as one lump sum. The other candidates are all reporting only money raised for the primaries, so Hickenlooper and Klobuchar are gaming the system to some degree.

There are a number of conclusions we can draw at this point in the fundraising race, even though it is still very early on in the actual primary race. While there are a number of expected minor candidates grouped together at the bottom of the scale (less than $3 million), the surprise here was to see Julián Castro's name among them. Many people commented when Castro entered the race that he might have missed his historical window to run, and it's looking like that observation may be panning out. There's even competition for "young upstart from Texas" for Castro to contend with. So far, Castro's campaign has largely fizzled, but he could always turn this around with a breakout debate performance or something.

Going one step up the fundraising ladder, we find four senators who really should be doing better. Kirsten Gillibrand is the worst of the lot, raising only $3 million even though she hails from a very wealthy and populous state. Gillibrand's campaign has been as lackluster as her fundraising figures, which is probably a big reason why they're so low. Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar aren't doing much better, especially considering Klobuchar's gaming of the numbers. Elizabeth Warren is doing the best of this bunch, raising twice what Gillibrand did, but she was a national political figure even before she ran, with much higher name recognition than the other three in this group. Warren has been running a solid campaign, but she obviously is having to compete for progressive donors with Bernie Sanders. Without Sanders in the race, in other words, Warren's numbers would likely have been a lot higher.

The real breakout winners in the first quarter are the next two on the list, Pete Buttigieg and Beto O'Rourke. In normal times, neither a small-town Midwestern mayor nor a failed Senate candidate would have much of a chance in a presidential nomination race, but these are anything but normal times. Both O'Rourke and Buttigieg have benefited enormously from positive media attention, but more importantly they're matching media interest with actual voter support in a big way. O'Rourke raised more money, but he already had a nationwide donor network to tap left over from his Senate bid, so the total announced by Pete Buttigieg is really the most astonishing number in the entire list. Both candidates have already had their breakout moments, and if they can back it up with a few solid debate performances, they'll both be considered top-tier candidates from that point on.

Only two candidates broke the $10 million barrier in the first quarter. Kamala Harris comes from the largest state in the country, in terms of people and in terms of donors, so it's not that surprising she was able to amass so much money so fast. Harris is also, to date, the most successful African-American candidate and the most successful woman running. Both of these are notable achievements, in such a crowded field. Harris got some early media attention, but this has somewhat faded over the past few weeks (while the cameras turned to O'Rourke and Buttigieg). But Harris is obviously in the race for the long haul, and has to be considered one of the frontrunners at this point.

Way out front of the pack, however, is Bernie Sanders. Sanders also made news today by releasing 10 years of tax returns, but that's a subject for another day. Sanders raised more money than the bottom nine candidates combined, and raised more than twice any other candidate other than Harris (who managed to raise two-thirds of what Bernie did). That is impressive.

Bernie hasn't gotten nearly his due in the media, which isn't too surprising considering how they treated his first candidacy. He's been leading the polling of declared candidates since the start by a healthy margin, and now his fundraising numbers are also way out in front of the pack. Any other candidate would be getting nonstop coverage as "the man to beat" and "the clear frontrunner," but so far very little of these sorts of stories have appeared. Of course, this is partly due to Joe Biden still playing coy with his announcement, since once Biden does join the race he'll instantly be either neck-and-neck with or out in front of Bernie Sanders. But until that does happen, the media is more content to seek out the next breakout candidate rather than seriously discuss the man obviously leading the race so far.

Other than polling, fundraising numbers are the only clear data points we have to measure the relative strength of the field of Democratic candidates. In June (before the end of the second fundraising quarter), we'll also get to see them in a debate, which could serve to shake up the race in a big way. But for now, these are the only solid numbers we have to gauge donor support for all the Democrats. And the big overall conclusion is that this time around the race for money is a lot different than in years past, with at least four of the top five fundraisers targeting small donors rather than the usual party fatcats. This has made the fundraising much more (small-d) democratic, and is a welcome change to the process.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

68 Comments on “First Quarter Democratic Fundraising Numbers Are In”

  1. [1] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Sanders raised more money than the bottom nine candidates combined, and raised more than twice any other candidate other than Harris (who managed to raise two-thirds of what Bernie did).

    Would it be analytical to point out that the $18.4 million that Sanders collected in the first quarter is actually not "more than twice" the $9.4 million that Beto O'Rourke raised in 18 days?

    Asking for a friend. :)

  2. [2] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Re: "Other than polling, fund-raising numbers ar the only clear . . ."

    I'm more than a little surprised that after 2016, Democratics are willing to pay pollsters for their polling numbers on presidential races. Isn't that sorta like buying investment advice from Bernie Madoff??

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    but it certainly seems like millions at times, doesn't it?

    You can say that again!

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This time around things have radically changed, because now the race is to woo small donors, rather than big-pocket money bundlers.

    Could that be because the big-pocket money bundlers believe there is only one candidate who can actually beat Trump and they are just waiting for him to get into the race? That would be smart thinking indeed.

  5. [5] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    Watching Bernie on Fox Town Hall - YouTube has it. He gambled and won, I think.

  6. [6] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Could that be because the big-pocket money bundlers believe there is only one candidate who can actually beat Trump..

    Of course it is.

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    STOP FUCKING LYING!!!!!

    "Sanders was able to raise similar amounts from an army of small donors (who famously gave an average of 27 dollars each)."

    The average contribution was 27 dollars. The donors did not average 27 each. Many donors gave 27 dollars multiple times and gave totals in the hundreds or thousands of dollars.

    A contribution is a one time thing. A donor, however is defined by the total amount of all contributions they make.

    GET IT RIGHT.

    "This time around, many Democratic candidates are following in Bernie's footsteps and eschewing big donors in favor of only going after grassroots support."

    NO they are not.

    They are following in Bernie's footsteps, but they are not eschewing big donors in favor of only going after grassroots support.

    As explained above the size of the donor is not determined by the size of each individual contribution the donor makes, it is defined by the total amount of contributions made by the donor.

    PERIOD.

    But I am glad that even though you are mistaken aboot what a small donor is, that you think eschewing big donors in favor of grassroots support is a good idea.

    After all, that is what One Demand is all aboot.

    Only a candidate that makes the One Demand commitment can be considered a small donor candidate.

    You are right that Bernie in 2016 proved the viability of small contributions that was previously thought to not be viable.

    And I was also right aboot that. In fact, I have been advocating that position as far back as the 2000 elections.

    That alone should be enough to consider and put into the public discourse a possible way to achieve what you think is a good idea- candidates eschewing big money donors, and adding citizens eschewing big money candidates.

    What the Democratic candidates (including Bernie) are doing now is pretending to be small donor candidates while still having large donors. You even admitted in a previous article that Bernie already had 20 donors max out their contribution limit in the first week of fundraising.

    The small donor claim is a scam and you are helping to perpetrate it.

    GET FUCKING REAL.

  8. [8] 
    TheStig wrote:

    DH-7

    "Many donors gave 27 dollars multiple times and gave totals in the hundreds or thousands of dollars." To Sanders?

    According to the Federal Regulations, multiple donations from a single individual totaling more than $200 to a single candidate must be reported. (You can find this at FEC.gov) You are alleging massive fraud on the part of individual donors to Sanders Campaign the Sanders Campaign itself. If true, this interesting (to put it mildly).

    But, what is your source or sources?

    It is true, and well known, that a single donor can legally give multiple small (<=$200)donations to multiple candidates without them being reported, but that's not what you implying.

    I think you are the one playing extremely lose with the truth.

  9. [9] 
    TheStig wrote:

    From the OneDemand website:

    "By registering as a participant in One Demand citizens will declare that in the 2016 elections they will only vote for candidates that finance their campaigns only with contributions from individuals in the aggregate amount of 200 dollars or less."

    It's not at all clear that you mean a One Demand Participant can only give an aggregate total of $200 to ALL CANDIDATES in ALL US elections.

    How are all the candidates going to know what the other candidates are collecting? How YOU going to get all that information?

  10. [10] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Digging a little deeper into you site I find on your Contribute Tab:

    "And while contributions to individual candidates are limited to 200 dollars per election ( 200 dollars for the primary election and 200 dollars for the general election ) participants can pledge that they will make thousands of dollars worth of 200 dollar contributions to multiple candidates. For example you could pledge 10,000 dollars of contributions to candidates and make 50 contributions of 200 dollars to 50 candidates or 100 contributions of 100 dollars to 100 candidates. So if 10% of the 130 million general election voters pledged an average of 500 dollars in total contributions it would total 6.5 billion dollars, providing an even stronger incentive for candidates to declare as hundred dollar candidates and for more citizens to participate."

    Not only do the Published Rules of OD allow multiple $200 contributions, YOU positively encourage ODer's to do so! Or at least you did in 2017.

    When did you have the change of heart?

    I eagerly the written tap dance you are about to respond with.

  11. [11] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Since I'm literally still watching paint dry, I notice that Russell Crowe is going to depict Rodger Ailes in an upcoming Showtime mini series. The Horror! Neither Crowe nor Ailes deserve this casting decision.

  12. [12] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Here you go, Stig, to make that time go faster:

    https://www.politicalorphans.com/no-help-is-coming-what-now/

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, apparently ya'all don't mind big money in elections..

    As long as it helps Democrats.. :D

    Amazing what ya'all can accept.. When it's Democrats.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don, you don't belong here unless you change your foul capitalized behavior. Please cease and desist.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Immigrant pummeled by 2 men for wearing 'MAGA' hat: Maryland police
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/make-america-great-again-maga-hat-immigrant-maryland-police

    Apparently, Democrats HATE immigrants that don't toe the Trump/America hate line...

    Democrats... :eyeroll:

  16. [16] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Stig-
    I tried earlier to reply to comments 8 and 9 but it didn't post. It may appear at some point, I suppose.

    But I will try again.

    My source for donors giving multiple donations that total in the hundreds or thousands to Sanders in 2016 is the FEC website. My source for Sanders campaign having large donors in 2020 is CW who wrote in that Sanders had 20 donors max out their contribution limit in the first week.

    There is no fraud on the part of the donors. The fraud is the same lie CW keeps telling aboot the size of the contributions and not the size of the donors somehow meaning that a candidate with large donors is a small donor candidate.

    If I'm not implying anything aboot whether citizens making multiple donations to many candidates ,the legality and it being reported (and I'm not), then why bring it up?

    Oh. you just like to make stuff up to argue against because you can't argue against my comments.

    I suppose candidates will know what other candidates have collected the same way they do now, you may have even mentioned it.

    And then you double down with the stupidity (just like Trump in some recent article by CW) with your next comments.

    Of course it's not clear that participants can only give an aggregate total of 200 dollars to all candidates in US elections- because it doesn't say that.

    In my other reply I noted how you cherry picked a quote, misinterpreted it and argued against that, again.

    I pointed how you could have found what you put up in comment 10.

    Apparently you are either too stupid or are pretending to be too stupid (more likely which then makes it okay to call you stupid)) to understand what you read.

    I haven't changed my position at all.

    It is a 200 dollar limit per person per candidate as it always has been.

    I guess it's when you can't dazzle them with brilliance you try to baffle them with bullshit.

    You need much better bullshit.

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Sorry Liz, but the proper word needs to be used to convey the proper emphasis.

    CW's constant repeating of this blatant lie required that emphasis.

    It's not like I just fucking for do it for no fucking reason when it's not fucking needed.

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    When it's for Democrats it's okay to take big money from large donors as long as you take it in small contributions.

    The big money isn't the problem for Dems- it's how it's collected that matters.

    At least that's how they rationalize it (or justify it if you are a Democrat that needs to rationalize the rationalization). :D

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry Liz, but the proper word needs to be used to convey the proper emphasis.

    I know you don't have to resort to foul language to make your point.

    If only you know how using that language actually detracts from your point and lessens the chances that you will be able to persuade anyone.

    I didn't even read the part of the comment that followed the capitalized foul language. So, there's that, too.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don, you may consider yourself very lucky if your comment in question is not deleted.

    If I were running things around here, it would not have seen the light of day.

  21. [21] 
    Kick wrote:

    chaszzzbrown
    5

    Watching Bernie on Fox Town Hall - YouTube has it. He gambled and won, I think.

    And do you know what that means, among many other things? If he continues to gamble, continues to win, and therefore becomes president some time in the future -- reiterating if -- and Fox News invariably starts cranking out the propaganda hit pieces that do lasting damage to his administration, Saint Bernard will never, ever have to wonder why it is that people lend credence to the utter asinine bullshit they'll be spewing about him on the American equivalent of Pravda. :)

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Huh?

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    4

    Could that be because the big-pocket money bundlers believe there is only one candidate who can actually beat Trump and they are just waiting for him to get into the race? That would be smart thinking indeed.

    Nope. The big-pocket money bundlers believe there are several candidates who can actually beat Trump, but they want to back a winner and are waiting to see who rises to the top; this thing is just getting started. :)

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    22

    Huh?

    Was that too difficult for you, Liz?

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/stop-sanders-democrats-are-agonizing-over-his-momentum/ar-BBVZ7Hq

    Democrat Civil War..

    It's a beautiful thing!! :D

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, it didn't make much sense to me.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    When it's for Democrats it's okay to take big money from large donors as long as you take it in small contributions.

    Why is big money OK for Democrats, regardless of the source, but big money is NOT OK for Republicans regardless of anything??

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I take it you're not exactly a fan of the Bern ...

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks Michale. :(

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    14

    Don, you don't belong here unless you change your foul capitalized behavior. Please cease and desist.

    So, let me get this straight …

    Comey is abdicating his responsibility because he doesn't publically respond to and refute every GOD-DAMNED ASININE THING TRUMP SAYS!? ~ Elizabeth Miller

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/06/comey-needs-to-clear-the-air/#comment-96012

    Curse you for making me defend Don Harris, but he's just following your lead with the capitals and cursing. This feigning the vapors is getting old, Liz. Could you please allow yourself to stop now? Is it something you believe you might be able to get under control? Because you seem more interested in actually policing the people on the board versus having "muscular debates."

    Why don't you allow yourself to take the very good advice of Elizabeth Miller and just bypass those posts you don't like?

    Why can't people just ignore what they don't want to read here by people they don't like without always making a big issue out of it.

    If you (generic you) can't do that, then you are part of the problem (general disrespect) that plagues this site. ~ Elizabeth Miller

    Could you please commit the above to memory and act on it every chance you get? Thanking you in advance. :)

  31. [31] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    28

    I take it you're not exactly a fan of the Bern …

    Not sure you are talking to me, but I'll answer regardless. I believe Bernie and Trump are basically two sides of the same coin. Heads you lose, tails you still lose.

    If somebody can buy into the utter fantasy that the politician who has been entrenched in Washington for nearly 30 years an "antiestablishment outsider," then they're simply not seeing the big picture. :)

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    A politician who is perceived as a political insider because he has been in Washington for decades is not necessarily a political insider.

    In fact, one should explain what they mean by political insider.

    For example, Senator Biden has been in Washington a lot longer than Senator Sanders and though many people see him as a political insider he is the guy that fights against the status quo.

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, one more thing Kick,

    I hope you continue to post my capitalized foul language post as it stands as the model and high water mark for what should be allowed around here.

    I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be facetious here.

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    26

    Well, it didn't make much sense to me.

    Getting ahead via certain means can come at a steep price, usually the price of one's integrity or soul, provided you had those things at the outset. "Dancing with the devil" is all fun and games until you get burned.

    If Bernie is going to legitimize the Fox by dancing on their network, then he'll never have to wonder who legitimized their propaganda. :)

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    33

    I hope you continue to post my capitalized foul language post as it stands as the model and high water mark for what should be allowed around here.

    Freudian slip there, Liz? *laughs* Tell us how you really feel. Oh, we completely understand. After all, what would you have to bitch about if people stopped cursing?

    I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be facetious here.

    Oh, I believe you 100%. You couldn't be facetious even if you tried... and you did... and I'd call that one "a swing and a miss"! :)

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Democrats who appear on Fox News are not "legitimizing" the network.

    On the contrary, they expose the very propaganda that actually delegitimizes the network, particularly the prime time line-up.

    You're gonna love Chris's new piece!

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    32

    A politician who is perceived as a political insider because he has been in Washington for decades is not necessarily a political insider.

    I don't expect a Canadian to understand the ins and outs of Washington, DC, but if you're a politician who has been in Washington, DC for multiple decades, then you are by definition a "political insider." It's not necessarily altogether a negative thing to be a "political insider;" in fact, there's generally no learning curve by making a fool of oneself when you know your way around and have been there awhile.

    In fact, one should explain what they mean by political insider.

    Then by all means, you used the term so you can explain what you mean. The term I used was... in fact... "antiestablishment outsider." All I am saying is that anyone who has been in Washington, DC, for nearly multiple decades doesn't exactly qualify as an "antiestablishment outsider" and never could.

    For example, Senator Biden has been in Washington a lot longer than Senator Sanders and though many people see him as a political insider he is the guy that fights against the status quo.

    I generally agree with you, although I have seen Senator Biden vote with the status quo many, many times... in fact, too numerous to list. Regardless, your opinion of Biden's status doesn't change the fact that Bernie Sanders isn't and for quite some time now could never claim to be an "antiestablishment outsider."

    I will vote for Biden over Sanders every day of the week. Now that's something we surely most can agree on! I just wish Joe would either shit or get off the pot. :)

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden has earned the right to enter the race when everyone and his brother is done entering. You know what I mean!?

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    36

    Democrats who appear on Fox News are not "legitimizing" the network.

    Perhaps you're not seeing the big picture; that's fairly standard operational procedure for you.

    On the contrary, they expose the very propaganda that actually delegitimizes the network, particularly the prime time line-up.

    For how long?

    You're gonna love Chris's new piece!

    I can "love" things I don't necessarily agree with. I can even ignore them. You should take Elizabeth Miller's advice and try it. :)

  40. [40] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    38

    Biden has earned the right to enter the race when everyone and his brother is done entering. You know what I mean!?

    Yes, I do, and I quite agree with you. :)

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I knew you would. :)

  42. [42] 
    TheStig wrote:

    So, it seems our disagreement boils down to the logic of your one-size-fits-all purity test.

    Sanders took contributions greater than $200. Off with his head!

    He returned about 2% of his contributions which exceeded Federal contributions, shame on him, but this doesn't really matter because the only thing that matters is never voting for any candidate who accepts more than $200 from a single contributor.

    About 58% of Sanders' funding was under $200, a much higher percentage than the other major candidates, but that doesn't matter, all small, or lose our vote.

    Sanders took almost no PAC money, other candidates use PACs as a major funding source. Why doesn't this matter?

    In OneDemand land a donor who gives $200 each to 535 congressional candidates, 100 senators and 1 president is considered a small donor!? Yes, and this is considered a good thing! What do call the income of a person who can afford to donate $107,200 to politics? Large. Why doesn't this seem to matter?

    Most people accept the principle of: given two imperfect alternatives, take lessor of two evils. Not in OneDemand Land.

  43. [43] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Most people accept the principle of: given two imperfect alternatives, take lessor of two evils. Not in OneDemand Land."

    HOLY SHIT!!!! (sorry Liz, but that was needed)

    You finally got something right.

    That is exactly the problem. Most people just accept the choices they are given no matter how bad the choices are.

    In OneDemand Land we do not just accept what we are given- we demand better- or at least adequate.

    Why it doesn't matter how many candidates a person contributes 200 dollars or less to is that that person has no more influence on any single candidate they give to than any other donor giving 200 dollars or less.

    Why it is encouraged is that the big money interests contribute across state and congressional district lines so there is no reason that people making small contributions should not help each other out across state and district lines.

    I have posted this statement many times recently. Do you have a retention problem?

    Another reason for that is to address what people that can afford to contribute more than 200 to a candidate can do to help get the money out of politics without making the problem worse by making large contributions to candidates.

    People like Bill Maher who gave a million to Obama's PAC. Or Kick, said she gave large contributions but had no nefarious intentions.

    The problem with people with the best of intentions in mind making large contributions is that they provide cover for those making large contributions that do have nefarious intentions.

    If a candidate has no large donors there is no question aboot the intentions of the donors because there are no large donors.

    This has also been posted. I suppose because of your retention problem I have to point out again that you may have a retention problem.

    You certainly lack imagination (what GHW Bush might call that vision thing).

    These donors are not at all limited to making 200 dollar contributions to 435 congressional candidates, 100 senatorial candidates and a presidential candidate.

    They can can give to multiple small donor candidates running in the same race. If a Democrat, Republican, Green Party, Libertarian and an independent candidate were all running in the same race in the general election as small donor candidates these donors could give to all of them.

    This way instead of providing cover for big money donors with nefarious intentions they will only be helping people that can only afford to be small donors or can't afford to be donors at all.
    #RR (retention reminder)

    These donors can also contribute to multiple candidates in the primaries.

    In states with only Democratic and Republican primaries they can donate to both Democrats and Republicans running in the same race and to more than one Democrat or Republican running in that race.

    This would increase the chances of a small contribution candidate winning those primaries. In fact, a small contribution candidate could win the primary for both the Democratic and Republican Party.

    While you may not agree with me, many people may feel as I do that a small contribution Republican candidate is better than a big money Democratic candidate.

    Certainly having a small donor Democrat and a small donor Republican running in the general election is preferable for many, if not most people over a big money Democrat and a big money Republican running in the general election.

    In states with top two primaries these donors could give to all the small donor candidates in the primaries.

    While you didn't provide much of a challenge, thank you for actually discussing what One Demand is in your last comment.

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    43

    That is exactly the problem. Most people just accept the choices they are given no matter how bad the choices are.

    As this pertains to voting, the majority of states do not generally allow the writing in of another candidate not on the ballot... thus, they either vote for the "choices they are given" or they forfeit their vote. Nobody needs help to not vote since not voting is relatively free and still requires no payment to nobody in order to not do it.

    In OneDemand Land we do not just accept what we are given- we demand better- or at least adequate.

    You should really rename that "Self-Disenfranchisement Land." Come one, come all... while millions of voters in multiple states are being cheated out of their right to vote through a myriad of means, we choose to not vote for candidates who can't meet our purity test because no one ever has! We think our vote counts more when it doesn't get counted at all. Vote for nobody: That'll show 'em! :)

    Why it doesn't matter how many candidates a person contributes 200 dollars or less to is that that person has no more influence on any single candidate they give to than any other donor giving 200 dollars or less.

    Or you could name it "Naïve Land" if you think the candidates can't figure out the voters who are making multiple contributions to multiple candidates of a single party or if you think money is the only avenue by which a candidate can be influenced. :)

    Or Kick, said she gave large contributions but had no nefarious intentions.

    No, I didn't say I gave "large contributions;" I said I have given the maximum individual contribution to multiple candidates of multiple different political parties, and you defined my contributions as "large contributions." You and I and the FEC obviously have extremely different definitions of what a "large contribution" happens to be.

    The problem with people with the best of intentions in mind making large contributions is that they provide cover for those making large contributions that do have nefarious intentions.

    Oh, for fuck's sake, Don. If you honestly believe that my $2,800 individual contribution to a candidate is some kind of pseudo nefarious means that provides somebody else some kind of precious cover for their $2,800 contribution, then you need to have your head examined for brain function. Have them check your frontal cortex for any evidence of reasoning ability. :)

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You are beyond hope, Kick, and I wish you would find another comments section where there is appreciation for your foul language.

  46. [46] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    45

    You are beyond hope, Kick, and I wish you would find another comments section where there is appreciation for your foul language.

    Your problem is entirely transparent, Elizabeth; "you are part of the problem," blah, blah, blah (paraphrasing) who is simply not capable of following the same directions you keep prattling on and on about.

    Why can't people just ignore what they don't want to read here by people they don't like without always making a big issue out of it.

    If you (generic you) can't do that, then you are part of the problem (general disrespect) that plagues this site. ~ Elizabeth Miller

    If you had the good sense to listen to Elizabeth Miller, you'd understand:

    There is cursing when necessary and then there is being an idiot. ~ Elizabeth Miller

    So... cursing when necessary was performed; it was my post so obviously it was I who made the decision as to when it was necessary. Seriously, though, just be thankful you weren't forced to read someone taking Our Heavenly Father's name in vain; that could have been traumatizing for you as well as having the added effect of damning your soul to Hell for eternity... oh, wait... too late:

    So, let me get this straight …

    Comey is abdicating his responsibility because he doesn't publically respond to and refute every GOD-DAMNED ASININE THING TRUMP SAYS!? ~ Elizabeth Miller

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/03/06/comey-needs-to-clear-the-air/#comment-96012

    In conclusion: Cry more. :)

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sadly, the comments sections at Chris's blog are largely non-serious, certainly as far as any enlightened and enlightening discussion is concerned.

    Not nearly as sad to contemplate as what has happened in France at Notre Dame de Paris this week but, sad nevertheless.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, Kick, surely you can find another example of cursing by me. That'll keep you busy and off the comments sections for a while, I should hope. :)

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth

    Sadly, the comments sections at Chris's blog are largely non-serious, certainly as far as any enlightened and enlightening discussion is concerned.

    Sadly, you seem more interested in picking the low-hanging fruit and droning on and on about commenters' word choices versus actually having a discussion about the multitude of words that you overlook in favor of your exercises in board policing and feigning the vapors, and that makes you a huge part of the problem.

    Seriously, though... no one is forcing you to read my posts! Allow yourself to "just ignore" them in the same manner you've insisted.

    What does it say about a person who keeps prattling on and on about Democrats who are afraid to go where Trump supporters are and referring to them as "cowards" and all manner of mean things... when meanwhile you are whining about itty bitty words that are nothing if not "presidential" because our president and his supporters frequently use them!?

    Democrats must go wherever they can reach voters who disagree with them and make their case. They can't afford to ignore Trump supporters. ~ Elizabeth Miller

    Okay, fine; that sentiment there is something we can work with. So you just pretend like you're a Democrat trying to reach a voter who disagrees with you and pretend that I'm a Trump supporter using foul language of which you disapprove except when it's you using it. You'll never win me over if you keep whining about my language like a condescending Democrat afraid of itty bitty Trumpian words.

    So... problem solved... if you can simply practice the same spit you keep spewing. :)

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Non-serious.

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    48

    By the way, Kick, surely you can find another example of cursing by me. That'll keep you busy and off the comments sections for a while, I should hope. :)

    I can go you one better, Elizabeth. I can show you an entire page where people are cursing like sailors throughout the entire 250+ comments section, and you don't chime in and say a word until Paula does it once.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/06/22/ftp489/

    Besides, you're not winning me over, and if you think I'm going to abandon Chris's comments section for the mere fact that some of the posters are hypocrites... well, you're not just a selfish prig, you're also delusional and barking mad.

    Pound sand, darling! At the very least you'll create a tiny little beach. ;)

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Settle down.

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    Pound. Sand. :)

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Must you always have the last word, Kick?

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, this line again?

    I see you've run out of things to say so you're back to prattling on and on while projecting exactly what you are doing... quite transparent to all, you must know.

    Poor CRS got nothing today so I could tend to your standard operational peevish neediness. *laughs*

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Why don't you try making a substantial comment on Chris's new piece?

  57. [57] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    You just don't know when to stop.

    Your advice to Kick should have been just:
    "Why don't you try making a substantial comment?"

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  59. [59] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    You seem to use the word NOT a lot.

    But the biggest and most consistent nots in your comment were not being accurate about One demand or your facts.

    Yes. I define your 2800 dollar contribution as large. You can't make a larger contribution to a candidate so if that's not large, what is?

    And if your are making large contributions in one contribution or total contributions you are a large donor.

    And no matter how much you want or need it to be aboot the contributions it the donors that matter.

    So the FEC may consider a small or large contribution doesn't matter. The FEC does not make a determination of whether a donor is large or small- only if it's legal.

    And unfortunately, too many people including our own CW also do not make a determination of what defines a small donor despite using the term repeatedly and incorrectly.

    If you think that you are not providing cover for large donors with nefarious intentions then you are probably one of those receiving cover or completely clueless.

    Up until now I gave you the benefit of the doubt on both.

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    59

    You seem to use the word NOT a lot.

    So?

    But the biggest and most consistent nots in your comment were not being accurate about One demand or your facts.

    You do realize that "facts" are by definition factual, right? *laughs*

    Yes. I define your 2800 dollar contribution as large. You can't make a larger contribution to a candidate so if that's not large, what is?

    Yes, I actually could. You want to know what large is? Large is the heretofore virtually unparalleled amounts of money being raised by corporate donors and unions in the form of PACs since the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United; now that's some crazy large.

    And if your are making large contributions in one contribution or total contributions you are a large donor.

    You believe individual donors making the maximum contribution as defined by the FEC are large donors; I don't. We can agree to disagree. #SSDD

    And no matter how much you want or need it to be aboot the contributions it the donors that matter.

    I don't need it to be about anything; although, you might want to check your mirror for someone who desperately does.

    So the FEC may consider a small or large contribution doesn't matter. The FEC does not make a determination of whether a donor is large or small- only if it's legal.

    Actually, the FEC does. Were you under the nonsensical impression that you made that decision? *laughs*

    And unfortunately, too many people including our own CW also do not make a determination of what defines a small donor despite using the term repeatedly and incorrectly.

    But for some ridiculous reason, you believe you define it!? *laughs again*

    If you think that you are not providing cover for large donors with nefarious intentions then you are probably one of those receiving cover or completely clueless.

    Again, check your mirror. I might agree with you if I was a bundler or a corporate donor providing millions of dollars via PAC or union, but I'm not so I don't.

    Up until now I gave you the benefit of the doubt on both.

    Up until now I didn't concern myself or even think about the prospect of whether or not Don Harris "gave me the benefit of the doubt," and I can declare now without hesitation or reservation that I still don't care if you think my contributions meet your purity test. :p

  61. [61] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    We can disagree aboot what defines a large donor.

    I doubt many people consider a donor making a 2800 dollar total contribution to a candidate a small donor.

    But credit where credit id due, you have at least defined a small donor as up to 2800 dollars to a candidate- or is 2800 dollars to one candidate somehow neither a large or small donor?.

    Anyone else care to take a stab at defining a small donor?

    CW?

    And whether you like it or not we all get to decide for ourselves what defines a small donor.

    All I am trying to do is get people that agree with me instead of you to work with me to achieve a goal.

    Why is that such a problem for you that you can't discuss it without all the bullshit?

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    DH
    61

    We can disagree aboot what defines a large donor.

    I doubt many people consider a donor making a 2800 dollar total contribution to a candidate a small donor.

    You want to move the goalposts now? The issue is the fact that you keep whining incessantly that a $2,800 contribution is "large;" whether or not "many people" would consider a $2,800 contribution as "small" is an entirely different issue. I would wager that the majority of people would find a $2,800 contribution as neither large or small, and I can virtually guarantee you that the vast majority of people wouldn't agree with the utter nonsensical and ridiculous assertion that someone who made a $2,800 contribution to a political candidate had a nefarious intention to buy influence or give other "large" donors some kind of "cover." It's absurd. You really should allow yourself to entertain the idea that a donation in that amount isn't inherently evil.

    Your "purity" assertions are rather similar to those of Saint Bernard Sanders who has insisted for decades that "millionaires and billionaires" were inherently evil, and many of the Berners bought into this idea and ran with it. Now that Saint Bern has admitted he is indeed a "millionaire," perhaps he and his minions could divest themselves of the ridiculous assertion that money is inherently evil that he's been spewing for years, but no... the vilification and purity test continues unabated, just redefined so as not to include Bernie... millionaires are now "off the hook."

    You could learn something from Bernie's exercise in moving of the purity goalposts... if you allow yourself.

    And whether you like it or not we all get to decide for ourselves what defines a small donor.

    I really don't care what your definition of "small" is. I do, however, take issue with your ridiculous assertion that people who give more are somehow "unpure"... the same old purity bullshit Bernie spews about "millionaires and billionaires"... until just recently. :)

    All I am trying to do is get people that agree with me instead of you to work with me to achieve a goal.

    I disagree. In fact, you are trolling an author on his own blog in an attempt to have him shill for your political activism... something he has made clear that he's not interested in doing.

    Why is that such a problem for you that you can't discuss it without all the bullshit?

    On the contrary, Don, the bullshit is all yours. :)

  63. [63] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Apparently you can't discuss it without bullshit. No surprise there.

    I am commenting on CW's articles and in this thread pointing out how is using the small donor term without defining it.

    You are trolling me.

    FACTS.

    And CW has not made clear anything aboot where he stands on the small donor definition or why he will not man up and address One Demand.

    Informing citizens aboot political ideas is the job of journalists. It is not shilling.

    Shilling would be promoting only ideas that benefit a preferred or a financially beneficial ideology while ignoring alternatives and presenting all ideas.

    CW may feel that One Demand and/or the definition of a small contribution candidate are not ideas/issues that are worthy of coverage for whatever reason.

    That's fine.

    If that is the case, then why can't CW just explain why that is the case?

    That doesn't seem too much to ask or in any way resemble trolling.

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    63

    Apparently you can't discuss it without bullshit. No surprise there.

    The only bullshit is your regular spew.

    You are trolling me.

    You poor thing. It must be hard being so ignorant that you can't quite grasp the concept that the trolling is all yours. If you don't want people to comment on your trolling, then TYA.

    And CW has not made clear anything aboot where he stands on the small donor definition or why he will not man up and address One Demand.

    Thank you for that demonstration of your illiteracy. It's unfortunate that you're having a problem with reading and interpreting the written word.

    Informing citizens aboot political ideas is the job of journalists.

    No, it isn't. There isn't a journalist on the planet whose "job" or responsibility is to discuss your (or anyone else's) spew. If you believe they do, then you're quite simply confused.

    It is not shilling.

    Well, you're technically right about that. It is not shilling because CW refuses to shill for you. If he did shill for you, then it would be shilling. Actually, you're shilling on CW's blog, and as long as you are, it's not exactly free of advertisements. I respect him for allowing you your space to shill on his website; however, I don't respect you for your continued trolling of him and his blog in your repeated attempts to order him to shill for you.

    Shilling would be promoting only ideas that benefit a preferred or a financially beneficial ideology while ignoring alternatives and presenting all ideas.

    Wrong. I blame your lack of education. :)

  65. [65] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It is obvious we have different opinions, including but not limited to, on what defines bullshit, trolling, journalistic responsibility and the definition of a small donor.

    I believe my position is in line with reality and yours is not.

    But I am the one that is willing to find out if I'm right or wrong.

    And that's the whole point of entering an idea into the public discourse- to find out if it can work or not. And to find ways to improve it so it can work if it doesn't work perfectly right away if possible.

    But you seem so afraid to find out if you are right or wrong that you can't even discuss the idea without nonsensical diversions to avoid addreesing the idea.

    For someone so certain of your position you sure are curiously afraid to find out if you are right or wrong or even defend your position with actual discussion.

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    65

    It is obvious we have different opinions, including but not limited to, on what defines bullshit, trolling, journalistic responsibility and the definition of a small donor.

    Actually, I don't think there is a scintilla of difference in our definitions of "small donor." Nope, none. The issue we're having is your repeated asinine utter line of nonsensical bullshit that somehow anyone who gives a candidate -- or any candidate that receives -- a $201 or more contribution is inherently unpure, evil, and a "Large Money" giver/taker. This ridiculous crap is not at all unlike Bernie's "millionaires and billionaires" purity bullshit... oh, wait... make that "multi-millionaires and billionaires" bullshit since this particular purity test similar to yours has now been conveniently/easily rewritten in order to protect the hypocrite Saint Bernard and now full steam ahead and pretend like everyone else with money is still evil except your icon that's been spewing that for three decades!

    I believe my position is in line with reality and yours is not.

    And I believe you are delusional and have trouble with definitions.

    But I am the one that is willing to find out if I'm right or wrong.

    Here, let me make it easy for you: You're mostly wrong a lot. :)

    And that's the whole point of entering an idea into the public discourse- to find out if it can work or not.

    Pardon me for stating the obvious, but your idea has been entered into the public discourse for quite awhile now, and you have your answer whether or not it can work since it's not working or you wouldn't still be trolling the author and begging him to shill for you.

    And to find ways to improve it so it can work if it doesn't work perfectly right away if possible.

    Wrong. You basically explain to everyone else how stupid and afraid they are for not agreeing with your trolling ad your bullshit... and have been doing the very same things over and over for 3+ years now: Troll the author and the blog, repeat yourself ad nauseam, curse when you are ignored, call everybody stupid or afraid who doesn't agree with your purity bullshit, etc.

    But you seem so afraid to find out if you are right or wrong that you can't even discuss the idea without nonsensical diversions to avoid addreesing the idea.

    See, there you go again with your spew. Oh, you caught me again being so "afraid" to discuss your bullshit that I've been discussing it with you ad nauseam for a very long time now. What kind of moron would look at the length of my posts and determine I'm afraid of words? Now that is really rich... and ridiculously clueless.

    For someone so certain of your position you sure are curiously afraid to find out if you are right or wrong or even defend your position with actual discussion.

    Let me be as clear as I can, Don: I am not afraid or even curious regarding my own opinions regarding your ridiculous bullshit, and I'm actually kind of fond of my own positions. :)

  67. [67] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    No difference between defining a small donor as one that gives 200 dollars or less to a candidate and a donor that gives 2800 dollars to a candidate?

    You could also believe the sun will rise in the west, but that hasn't even happened on GOT (yet), much less in the real world.

    I am not claiming that anyone giving over 200 dollars is evil- you are.

    200 dollars is an amount the majority of citizens can afford and is enough to raise enough as laid out in comment 43 and many comments in other threads.

    As is the fact that it is not a purity test- it is a minimum adequacy test. (see 4/19/19 FTP comments for link to the reality of your purity nonsense)

    I have already stated that I will not be supporting Bernie in 2020 unless he runs as a small donor candidate. Try to keep up.

    As for the rest of you comment, it can all be pretty much covered by the sun rising in the west reference above.

    Very Trumpian in that you make a false statement as if it were a fact and then follow it with statements that prove you have no idea what you are talking aboot.

  68. [68] 
    Kick wrote:

    * Straw man argument.
    * Straw man argument.
    * Easily provable lie.

    Oh, wait:

    I don't care.
    I don't care.
    I don't care. :)

Comments for this article are closed.