Donor maps show just how widespread Sanders' support is

Originally published at:


The Times does realize the vote of an $80 donor counts the same number of times as a vote of a $46 dollar donor, don’t they?


“Business”? That implies personal profit, and “good” implies large personal fortunes.

Who are you implying is getting rich from the Sanders campaign? And how do you suppose they’re doing so?


Well, clearly Bernie is taking all that money and putting it directly into his pockets, because no one who doesn’t reject all money, or who lives in a house that they bought, or who buys commodities, or who runs for office, etc, could possible be a REAL socialist! It says so right there on the wikipedia! /s


Yes. It is among the odder of the purity tests.


Maps like this drive me nuts. They are almost only good for misleading people. Our population isn’t even a little bit close to evenly distributed so a map that is heavily filled with a color looks like it says a lot more than it does. Judging by the maps you would think that Bolluck and O’rourke are powerhouses compared to Buttigieg and Warren. This a better area for tabular data than maps.


And yet the party establishment still wants to see this contest in the general election:


And the condescending application of it demonstrates its applicators’ obliviousness to the risibility of their failed reproach.


Its nice to see Bernie with so many donations which clearly will translate to votes. Although lots of people who are not donating will vote for others I believe Sanders will have lead. We’ll know when the voting begins. He has the clearest message of all the candidates, and my feeling is even if he ends up not leading and winning, I am throwing him my support to give his policy initiatives more weight, as that is what I did in 2016, and by all measures it fucking worked.


something like this?


Say what now?

You wrote,

It’s good business, this socialism, isn’t it?

What does “business” there mean to you? And how is what the Sanders campaign is doing, and anyone working in it, “good business”?

You said it, and what you’ve said so far when asked to explain yourself really doesn’t explain it.


My first choice is Warren. Second Sanders. But I’ve donated to both campaigns with an eye to trying to beat Biden in the primary. It would be interesting to do a poll of how many individuals donated to multiple primary candidates, and what the groupings look like.


Please do not derail this thread. If you want to discuss the history of socialist political and economic theory, please create a new thread for the purpose. It’s not a bad discussion, but if it starts taking over this thread I’ll begin flagging for off-topic.

Thank you in advance for being a considerate member of the community.


(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 12 hours unless flagged)

I like Warren too - a wonkier approach to the same issues, a good mechanic. But IMHO the first mission is to make clear to the DNC that uncle Joe does not get this run, and to that end Warren must take a back seat to Sanders’ lead until Biden steps aside. Until then my feeling is as good as Warren is, she is only taking support away from Sanders, and may end up a spoiler that lands us with Biden.

Sanders is leading. Be smart and go with it.


If he beats Biden in the primary, he’ll have my undivided support in the general. I understand what you’re saying. Throw all support behind one candidate to defeat Biden. It’s a reasonable proposition. As we get closer to the primaries next Spring, I’ll need to pick which of them I want to support more. Ability to stop Biden will be a significant factor in that decision.


Similar here. If Warren clearly pulls ahead of Sanders and before the voting begins I’ll vote for her to retire Biden. But I’m not going to help her come from behind. Sanders lead is our best bet.


The small print notes that this doesn’t include data about donations under, $200, where most of Sanders and Warren’s donors are. Biden and Harris are pretty well connected to the wealthy donor base. The NYT has been pretty down on both Sanders and Warren, not surprisingly.


i get that the data isn’t there, but

it sounds like they’re mixing apples and oranges ( the times doesn’t allow incognito browsing so i can’t see the article ) - that the graphic doesn’t include lower donations, but their discussion of the graphic does

Heh. My first choice is Sanders. My second is Warren. But I’ve contributed to both campaigns because Joe Biden has spent his entire career shepherding and enabling the worst Republican policies. I don’t want Trump, but I also don’t want the equivalent of McConnell or Hastert or Ryan.

For all the vaunted “centrism” and “for every liberal we lose in the cities we’ll pick up two Independents in the suburbs” that the DNC wharrr-garbles about Sanders is the first in a while who has actually had some crossover appeal. And he didn’t do it by promising to make things shittier just a little slower like the Dem establishment has for thirty years.