These are some campaign numbers that REALLY mean something!

I'm going to start this off with a statement about me: I am actually not a big Sanders supporter/fan. I don't really agree with his politics or his ideologies (I am pretty Libertarian/conservative and followed Ron Paul for years)... but when it comes to the Democratic side of this 2016 election I would choose him over Hillary any day of the week.

The reason I started this thread was to point out some pretty basic, but also very significant, numbers. Take a look at the data below in regards to both the Clinton and Sanders campaign contributions (FYI I got this info from fec.gov...)-

Hillary Clinton 2016 size of contributions:
$200 and Under $16,000,731
$200.01 - $499 $2,118,327
$500 - $999 $2,558,329
$1000 - $1999 $6,882,521
$2000 and Over $48,727,460

Bernie Sanders 2016 size of contributions:
$200 and Under $33,693,254
$200.01 - $499 $2,181,785
$500 - $999 $1,705,071
$1000 - $1999 $1,440,420
$2000 and Over $933,013


He has raised over $40M and about 97.5% of his contributions are individual contributions under $2k and about 83% of his contributions are individual under $200! Like him or not, I don't think there is anyone here who can recall a politician doing this kind of a feat in any of the recent US campaigns (Senate or Presidential). Regardless of your political ideologies, this is an extremely significant feat, and win or lose I hope he is recognized for that. This is not something that is common in today's politics, and to see someone do this is quite a change. This LITERALLY is the definition is a "grass roots campaign".

BTW - I know that this subject has been stated here before in individual posts but I couldn't actually find any threads explaining it explicitly. If they exist, please disregard this thread and dispose as necessary.

I hope this will pave the way for more grassroots campaigns in the future...left or right wing...when your message resonates and you aren't the same as everyone else it's good for the country. Social media is taking over from the main stream media.

Trump also, but he's a billionaire. Differrent but also significant, in that we have a lot of multimillionaires and billionaires in the US that would put up some of their own money and might in the future after seeing the success that Trump is having.

What both of these two different campaigns are showing is that you can run a successful campaign with out being a corporate lapdog. Which is the biggest problem we have in the us today. All of our politicians are puppets of huge corporations and lobbies. Perhaps things are changing.

a reply to: charolais

Yes, the conservative pundits know about it for all the MSM doesn't report it. They think Hillary is about to be Obamaed again like she was in 2008. At this same time back then, she had a 30 point lead she managed to blow, and this time her lead is only 20 points. The media is already starting to float some ominous signs around her campaign and questioning whether or not she'll go the distance.

Regardless, Bernie doesn't have quite the cult of personality that Obama did.

originally posted by: amazing

What both of these two different campaigns are showing is that you can run a successful campaign with out being a corporate lapdog. Which is the biggest problem we have in the us today. All of our politicians are puppets of huge corporations and lobbies. Perhaps things are changing.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Left or right they are all lobbied TO THE HILLS and that is something that needs to change. It's not American.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: charolais

Yes, the conservative pundits know about it for all the MSM doesn't report it. They think Hillary is about to be Obamaed again like she was in 2008. At this same time back then, she had a 30 point lead she managed to blow, and this time her lead is only 20 points. The media is already starting to float some ominous signs around her campaign and questioning whether or not she'll go the distance.

Regardless, Bernie doesn't have quite the cult of personality that Obama did.

It's so hard to tell this time.

Last time, using CNN as one example, the media really didn't have a favorite...they liked Obama but Hillary had a lot of traction. This time CNN is blantanlty pro Hillary.

So the media isn't reporting real numbers or who's ahead. Unless all the voting machines are rigged, which is a real possibility, I think Sanders is going to hit Hillary like a Mack Truck in the first couple of primaries and CNN and Huff post will either blantanly lie or be as shocked as everyone except us on ATS.

I'm still not sure how FOX and Right wing media are playing the democrats. Yeah they hate Hillary, but they don't seem to be giving Sanders any solid coverage either.

Quick question, since Bernie isn't actually a Democrat, and therefore most likely won't be issuing campaign funds to the DNC, where exactly will all of this money go when he loses....

I understand that Obama gave Hillary money to help pay some of her debt after the 2008 elections, and that they can, in fact, use some of their funds to reimburse themselves after the fact, so honestly I want to know where all of these poor peoples money is going after he loses out.

I say this only because Ron Paul gained quite a bit of support as well from the average person in small amounts just like Bernie is doing, not near as much, but still, most of his was grassroots too. He on the other used his to support his own groups and further his own persona, which really kind of rubbed some people the wrong way....will Bernie do the same...or...

originally posted by: Chickensalad
Quick question, since Bernie isn't actually a Democrat, and therefore most likely won't be issuing campaign funds to the DNC, where exactly will all of this money go when he loses....

I understand that Obama gave Hillary money to help pay some of her debt after the 2008 elections, and that they can, in fact, use some of their funds to reimburse themselves after the fact, so honestly I want to know where all of these poor peoples money is going after he loses out.

I say this only because Ron Paul gained quite a bit of support as well from the average person in small amounts just like Bernie is doing, not near as much, but still, most of his was grassroots too. He on the other used his to support his own groups and further his own persona, which really kind of rubbed some people the wrong way....will Bernie do the same...or...

That's a good question, but he's running in the Democratic primaries, so I think for all practical purposes he's a democrat. The main question is what happens if he runs independently, which is also the question for Trump and Rand Paul.

a reply to: amazing

They don't spend much time on him because he hasn't done much to spend time on.

He doesn't hit hard on Hillary for the most part, and much of what he's saying, they've already addressed for the time being.

You can't really blame them for spending most of their time on the GOP candidates because those are the ones most interesting to them at the moment. If Bernie makes it to general, you'll get a better idea what they think.

a reply to: amazing

It just seems like a get-rich-quick scheme to me, and for some, it just may be a quick lesson in socialistic strategies that most don't seem to understand.

I guess my grandpa was right when he told me that if I wanted to be rich and free of the justice system, become a politician.

Sounds like the same ponsey scheme done by Barack Obama in 2012...

Group Warns of Foreign, Fraudulent Donors to Obama Campaign
abcnews.go.com...

The report's focus is President Obama's re-election campaign, which has collected historic sums from online fundraising, relying predominantly on donors who give in small-dollar increments.

Obama and Democrats announced last week that they raised $181 million in September - more than any incumbent president has raised for his re-election in a single month. The funds poured in through more than 1.8 million transactions, 98 percent of which were in increments of $250 or less, officials said.

Under U.S. federal election law, contributions from foreign nationals to presidential campaigns are forbidden.

"People around the world are being asked for donations by the campaigns themselves, simply because they signed up for information on campaign websites," Schweizer and Boyer write. "The problem: candidate webpages don't ask visitors from foreign IP addresses to enter a military ID or passport number. Instead, the websites use auto-responder email systems that simply gather up email addresses and automatically spit out solicitations."

The authors claim the current system is also subject to "robo-donoations"- computer-driven giving to a campaign through various aliases to evade contribution limits and avoid detection. The Federal Election Commission conducts little to no oversight of internet fundraising practices, leaving each campaign to police itself, the report claims.

Sounds to me like the campaigners are looking for foreign investors to sponsor their campaigns to develop international networks to making money and dirty deals.

a reply to: charolais

If nothing else, it ought to prove that politicians don't need corporations and banks to fund their campaigns and it ought to inspire Americans across every ideology to demand candidates go grass roots. It's time to get Big Money out of politics.

Bernie has shown by being the example, that yes, even today... if The People believe in you, they will fund you.

powers-that-be will do their best to fixate everyone's attention on the totally controlled presidential race.
Most everyone will ignore the heart of the problem, the Congress and become caught up in the presidential circus.
The powers-that-be will once again con everyone into believing the most important issue is who the El Presidente is...
The simple truth is, if Congress was doing its job, the Congress could set everything right.
It's not about El Presidente. It's about Congress.
The Congress has more power than the executive branch. Sure the President can sign or veto bills but the important point to remember is it all starts with Congress. REMEMBER . . .

Even if the president vetoes a bill, the Congress can override the veto.
We have to realize that the Congress encourages fixation on the President so they can pass the buck, blame what they are doing on the Executive branch.
Fact is, Presidents have no Constitutional authority to do most of the things they claim they can do.
Our so-called representatives have sold us out so many times it makes my head spin......

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: charolais

Yes, the conservative pundits know about it for all the MSM doesn't report it. They think Hillary is about to be Obamaed again like she was in 2008. At this same time back then, she had a 30 point lead she managed to blow, and this time her lead is only 20 points. The media is already starting to float some ominous signs around her campaign and questioning whether or not she'll go the distance.

Regardless, Bernie doesn't have quite the cult of personality that Obama did.

It's so hard to tell this time.

Last time, using CNN as one example, the media really didn't have a favorite...they liked Obama but Hillary had a lot of traction. This time CNN is blantanlty pro Hillary.

So the media isn't reporting real numbers or who's ahead. Unless all the voting machines are rigged, which is a real possibility, I think Sanders is going to hit Hillary like a Mack Truck in the first couple of primaries and CNN and Huff post will either blantanly lie or be as shocked as everyone except us on ATS.

I'm still not sure how FOX and Right wing media are playing the democrats. Yeah they hate Hillary, but they don't seem to be giving Sanders any solid coverage either.

CNN is mainly the news I look at first, though ATS is second (sometimes first due to the speed) and some smaller sources second. I have not seen CNN really push Hillary and I have been surprised. I see more interviews with Cruz on CNN, oddly.

originally posted by: Chickensalad
Quick question, since Bernie isn't actually a Democrat, and therefore most likely won't be issuing campaign funds to the DNC, where exactly will all of this money go when he loses....

I understand that Obama gave Hillary money to help pay some of her debt after the 2008 elections, and that they can, in fact, use some of their funds to reimburse themselves after the fact, so honestly I want to know where all of these poor peoples money is going after he loses out.

I say this only because Ron Paul gained quite a bit of support as well from the average person in small amounts just like Bernie is doing, not near as much, but still, most of his was grassroots too. He on the other used his to support his own groups and further his own persona, which really kind of rubbed some people the wrong way....will Bernie do the same...or...

Sanders is a Democrat for all intents of the presidential campaign. I am not following.

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
Sounds like the same ponsey scheme done by Barack Obama in 2012...

Group Warns of Foreign, Fraudulent Donors to Obama Campaign
abcnews.go.com...

The report's focus is President Obama's re-election campaign, which has collected historic sums from online fundraising, relying predominantly on donors who give in small-dollar increments.

Obama and Democrats announced last week that they raised $181 million in September - more than any incumbent president has raised for his re-election in a single month. The funds poured in through more than 1.8 million transactions, 98 percent of which were in increments of $250 or less, officials said.

Under U.S. federal election law, contributions from foreign nationals to presidential campaigns are forbidden.

"People around the world are being asked for donations by the campaigns themselves, simply because they signed up for information on campaign websites," Schweizer and Boyer write. "The problem: candidate webpages don't ask visitors from foreign IP addresses to enter a military ID or passport number. Instead, the websites use auto-responder email systems that simply gather up email addresses and automatically spit out solicitations."

The authors claim the current system is also subject to "robo-donoations"- computer-driven giving to a campaign through various aliases to evade contribution limits and avoid detection. The Federal Election Commission conducts little to no oversight of internet fundraising practices, leaving each campaign to police itself, the report claims.

Sounds to me like the campaigners are looking for foreign investors to sponsor their campaigns to develop international networks to making money and dirty deals.

No. I gave to the Obama campaign maybe 8x the first time and 4x the second time, in small amounts. I would imagine most of the small donations weren't foreign. In past elections I normally gave a small amount once.

originally posted by: madenusa

It actually does matter. That meme is what doesn't matter. Unless you are saying the illuminati controls the winner, then your meme is geared toward the right people. If you are talking about the electoral vote, it does depend somewhat on the popular vote or we would not all go out and vote.

I am of the idea that there is some nefarious influence, but it is not fully in control.


I can't prove even my idea on this. Do you have any proof?

a reply to: reldrawww.paddypower.com... this could be the only way I see getting anything out of my vote

originally posted by: madenusa
a reply to: reldrawww.paddypower.com... this could be the only way I see getting anything out of my vote

www.paddypower.com...

originally posted by: Chickensalad
a reply to: amazing

It just seems like a get-rich-quick scheme to me, and for some, it just may be a quick lesson in socialistic strategies that most don't seem to understand.

This is something I have a hard time believing. I would imagine he will not have much $$ left at the end of his campaign (like most campaigns). But we'll have to see I guess.