He can have all the money in the world. If he does not make significant inroads into the African American community, establish some kind of stronghold in the south, and actually win the delegates, he is not going to be the nominee. Period. Full stop.
Another reason that small donations are the exact opposite of a drawback is that people who have donated a small amount are now in your database as donors, and many of them can be persuaded to be recurring donors. And over the marathon that is the primary and general election in the US, a donor base that can keep on giving month after month is a significant asset.
Until Warren came along at a serious level Bernie was my first choice.
I’m a donor both to Bernie and Elizabeth Warren but I had given much more for Bernie. I campaigned on the streets for Bernie in a highly red area in 2016.
I want to see Elizabeth win with Bernie as her vice president but I would be just as thrilled to see Bernie first with Elizabeth right behind him.
Either we get the first woman president who is incredibly capable I feel and eminently electable, or we get a man who reflects the best about America first with an incredibly capable woman right behind him.
Either way we win if either gets the nomination and hopefully the presidency, we can’t lose with either. Even if they knock Trump out and only get four years somehow I feel 4 years of serious truth from either would do a lot to fix this country.
Joe Biden is just an opportunist who rides on the tail coats of others, and does not have enough of a soul or a spine to change anyting in this country for the better
Well, either that or better maps.
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.)
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.
State by state - maybe, but she is running catch-up in the big picture.
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!”
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.
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.
And of course, treating it like a horse race, is better than voting on policy. /s
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.
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.
The guy who drew that map does understand data display. He also understands who signs his check.
Tom Perez controls Biden? It seems to me that even Biden doesn’t control Biden.
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.
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
winning the delegates would be needed to be the nominee, that, at least, is hard to argue with
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.