Donor maps show just how widespread Sanders' support is

Well, either that or better maps. :slight_smile:

A dot choropleth map, f’rex, would be a much better choice. At least then presenters wouldn’t have to resort to vacuous nonsense like the claim that…

“the only way to visualize the other candidates’ fundraising is to produce sub-maps that exclude Sanders’ fundraising. Otherwise, his lead renders their efforts to date effectively invisible.”

Yep, that’s the ONLY way!

(Well, either that or hire someone who actually understands data mapping and display.)

1 Like

Depends on what you mean by ‘behind’. Warren is clearly focusing on the early voting states to keep her momentum going and knock Biden’s presumptive front runner status. Current polls show her within striking distance in IA, NH, and CA, doing at least as well, or better than, Sanders.

3 Likes

State by state - maybe, but she is running catch-up in the big picture.

1 Like

No they don’t. They make no value judgment at all, simply report the numbers. The mere existence of the article is hugely positive for Sanders and Warren.

Some writers, especially over there at Jacobin, are so convinced that the NYT hates Sanders that they will accept pretty much anything as evidence confirming that belief. “Oh look, they’re printing stories about him in black and white again, which makes him look old!”

2 Likes

Either you haven’t been following the Times’s coverage of Sanders or you’re being disingenuous. That coverage has been consistently, indeed transparently and embarrassingly, negative on Sanders.

In any case, like others in this thread, I’ve been consistently donating to Sanders, and will stop only if he ceases to be a candidate.

7 Likes

In fact, as a Sanders supporter I have been following the coverage, as well as the coverage of the coverage, and every time someone posts an article about how mean the NYT is being to Bernie I take the extra step of going to the article and seeing for myself. Almost always you have to turn the article sideways and squint at it really hard to see any sign of the bias that is being asserted. Meanwhile, the “NYT is mean to Bernie” assertion gets tweeted and retweeted a billion times, maybe with the addition of “It’s true!” coupled with a link to the last article that asserted this and was broadly tweeted. The narrative has taken on a life of its own, but even if it is true it is based on the flimsiest of evidence.

However, instead of hurling “you’re either ignorant or a troll!” at me, prove me wrong in this case. In this article, which is supposedly spun against Sanders, find the actual language which is “transparently and embarrassingly negative on Sanders”.

Funny. You all act as if people in large groups can’t be utterly stupid.

1 Like

And of course, treating it like a horse race, is better than voting on policy. /s

1 Like

Not at all. As discussed numerous times before on this site, we’ve spent the past four years watching the Know-Nothing 27% shovel money at America’s foremost public grifter because he knows how to play to their bigotry and their ignorance and their delusions that they’ll be millionaires onedayrealsoonnow.

Perhaps your comment was meant for a topic about the MAGA crowd instead of this one.

7 Likes

It’s irrelevant. The fix is in. The talk about “electability” proves it. The leadership of the DNC has already decided that Biden is going to be their candidate come hell or high water, because he does what they want most of all - he agrees to be controlled by them. He hews to the party line even when he knows it will cost votes. And in both parties, what the national committees want most of all, even more than winning, is to maintain control over the election process. And though he’s better at smiling than Warren or Sanders or all the rest, Biden is a machine politician to his bootheels.

1 Like

The guy who drew that map does understand data display. He also understands who signs his check.

2 Likes

Tom Perez controls Biden? It seems to me that even Biden doesn’t control Biden.

2 Likes

Well, it is a policy decision for me - and I feel they both have positions I want. So I’m going to ultimately support the one that is strongest. Right now that’s clearly Sanders.

I want to see one of these maps with Trump’s data. :thinking:

So if he gets the most people donating to him, why isn’t he leading in the polls? Is it just that his smaller base of supporters are more enthusiastic and willing to pony up?

well, they are socialists after all :cat:

winning the delegates would be needed to be the nominee, that, at least, is hard to argue with

2 Likes

Yet we do have people arguing with it all the time here; somehow – the narrative goes – goblins/the Clintons/the DNC will reach down with their magic power and “fix” the primary so that Biden wins. The mechanism by which this is supposed to happen is never revealed, and anyone who questions the narrative must be naive/uninformed/a neolib/the NYT.

3 Likes

You want Trump?

This is how you get Trump.

2 Likes

You get trump by focusing on real world issues that impact millions of Americans?

12 Likes

it worked last time in that the superdelegates were tilted for clinton from the start.

and there’s a lot to be said for media attention weighting one candidate over the other. ( fox news imo pretty much gave shrub the presidency when they were willing to cast a disputed count as a win in bush vs gore )

the contrary example is that nobody wanted the current president to win. so insider access to delegates and party money doesn’t always help. ( poor jeb. nobody really liked you either. )

3 Likes