This was one of the most insightful pieces on the 2020 campaign I have read. It is likely also prophetic. Bernies money will keep him a spoiler again, as long as he desires to stir the pot. But the real takeaway is this race will come down to a contest between Pete and Warren. When I can comfortably spell his last name, that will be the point he becomes the favorite. Pete and Stacey Abrams would be a compelling ticket.
29
@Attorney Johnson Are you kidding? A gay man and a black woman? I am a liberal but also a realist. The best Democratic nominee would be a white man under 60 with a young family. Sadly he hasn't appeared yet.
1
@Renaissance Man Bob Kruszyna
I was looking to Joe Kennedy III as that sleeper candidate -- but now that his first cousin has just died of an OD, he'll undoubtedly stick with Warren.
Hard to imagine anyone else on the horizon. Could have been Al Franken, before he got Gillibranded. Thanks a lot!
5
The Biden push by the MSM has stalled as was predicted. You gotta wonder how someone is tops in the pols for six months before even throwing his hat in the ring. I guess knowing his foibles the idea was to roll him out as a winner and hopefully no one would notice the obvious. Next comes the double down campaign and smear all the others running. Meanwhile, the already frustrated public get even more so. The rank and file democrats are peeved with the Democratic establishment and know Biden is their man. I think this is where "status quo" come in.
6
I'm voting for a recession. That's the only certain path to victory. Voters will correctly blame Trump for it, along with enough of his Flying Monkeys in Congress to, at long last, Make America Smart Again. It would be worth the price.
11
Yang is an interesting guy. I think people see this. I'd like to see him doing more interviews nationally.
4
In effect, Act Blue and CNN are running the Democratic primary. The outcome is not based on official votes of all eligible voters, only those - whoever they are - who pay to play.
And a pay to play threshold gates entry to future debates. Ergo, the next televised debate becomes the tail wagging the dog. This scheme was not well though out. Not well thought out at all.
5
A few big differences between Warren & Bernie:
Bernie
has been committed to Medicare for All from the beginning. Warren
only recently declared she is fully supportive of Medicare for all.
Unlike
Warren, Bernie is committed to small donor fundraising even in the
General election. Warren has said she would only do small donor
fundraising in the Primary, so Bernie won't feel any sort of pressure to
bend on his policy stances once elected.
She originally planned on voting for Ben Carson as Secretary of Housing, but then flip flopped when she was criticized.
Bernie
has also been one of the longest serving members of congress, he was a
mayor in Vermont, and has a lot of experience in governance compared
to Warren.
Warren's
plan to fund her policies through a wealth tax is potentially
unconstitutional, therefore harder to implement than Bernie's Wall
Street speculation tax and higher income taxes on wealthy entities.
Warren voted twice
to increase the Military budget brought forth under Pres. Trump,
which appropriated over $81Billion for purchase of Aircraft, Weapons,
Missiles, and Combat Vehicles. On top of that it appropriated several
Billion dollars toward other parts of the DoD.
campaign:
Justice Democrats
Brand New Congress
Our Revolution
8
It's also important to note that with Bernie as 1, Buttigieg as 2, and Warren as 3, Buttigieg is the only of the three taking large money contributions. A standout from Harris and Biden for sure. But that the two candidates with donation ceilings are in the top 3 of money raised is remarkable.
10
It's important to compare how much higher Buttigieg's donations are consistently compared to the other candidates. Compare the graphs. It shows that how much he keeps attracting supporters on a day-to-day basis.
4
Money is important for obvious reasons. One cannot run a national campaign living from hand-to-mouth. Financial pressures face all candidates because income is not level (as these charts attest).
1
Excuse an outsider, but isn't Bernie Sanders the most notable case here? He has the largest number of contributors giving the smallest amounts per capita, and he's still getting the biggest fund? Isn't that a primary in itself? (Wonder how DNC will fend him off - this time.)
Sander's policies are mainstream here in northern Europe, albeit somewhat right-leaning. So, again, excuse me for interfering.
30
Money greases the wheel. Got it. What is important to focus on here is that any single one of the candidates in this Democratic field would be infinitely better than the current occupant of the White House. The democrats pursuing the nomination of their party are all smart and principled. Each is compelling if taken one at a time. Odds makers may pick one over another . Fine.
As for me, the candidate who reassures me that they possess not only the brains but compassion needed to be president is Pete Buttigieg.
12
I’ve made sporadic donations to Biden, Harris and Buttigieg but I’m mostly holding out for the eventual nominee. I’ll let the process choose someone and then work to get that person elected with both my time and treasure.
7
I pray the next debate has all candidates on 1 stage, so we can compare and contrast all of them against all of them. May those who are not making the cut who could be Senators run for the Senate, please. We need the House, the Senate and the WH.
13
What a relief it would be if money were no longer "the mother's milk of politics" and there were sensible public funding and equitable free air and media time for candidates.
11
@Tom Miller
Absolutel. The administration and Congress are owned by corporations and the moneyed class. It's been this way for a very long time. Sanders wants to change that. We are in a desperate fight to have a real democracy of the people, by the people, for the people.
6
I trust your political team, and top editors, have thought long and hard about institutionalizing fund-raising ability as a qualification for the presidency.
The ability to raise money, to pay for campaign staff and ads among other things, is obviously important. But does the news media really want to make that a standard measure of candidates?
I suggest that's actually worse than the media's obsessive focus on imprecise polls long before any vote. I'd love to hear what The Times's political team has discussed about how to cover the race for readers, not for competing with other Beltway political reporters.
5
Coming from a country where campaign spending are strictly limited by law, and distributing goodies or making commercial ads to promote a candidate or a party is forbidden, I'm amazed by this article.
Where is the debate of ideas? Are you electing a president, or are you buying one? Don't you think there are higher values to defend than how much money a candidate can raise?
Frankly, that's disgusting to me; it's turning democratic principles into a summer sales event.
16
Mr. Buttigieg is the most impressive candidate I’ve seen in my lifetime. He is brilliant, unflappable, sincere and explains complex ideas that are interwoven in such clear terms. As more ppl hear about him (incl black ppl) he will rise in the polls and I see him duking it out with Warren. I’ve never donated to a campaign before nor have I actively participated in a candidate’s campaign until now. I will be voting for Pete in the primary and, just as I’m sure that Kyler Murray was a terrible draft pick, I believe you will be, too.
8
All the deadwood (i.e. the bottom 18) should drop out. It is ridiculous that so many remain in the race and don't recognize their unpopularity.
2
What is truly amazing is the Warren and Sanders are doing this without super-connected bundlers. What the NYT calls "plodding consistency" re: Sanders is real grassroots support.
11
I wonder if Americans realise how obscene this all seems to citizens of pretty much every other democracy on the planet.
12
@Jake
Most of us do understand this perversion. That's why Sanders has the most grassroots support. The administration and Congress are owned by corporations and the moneyed class. It's been this way for a very long time. Sanders wants to change that. We are in a desperate fight to have a real democracy of the people, by the people, for the people.
10
I think covering the money is important. But instead of horse race coverage of the money, how about more coverage of who the funders are, why they’re funding which candidate and thus what interests the various candidates are beholden to.
Thanks for telling us Pete has the most billionaire backers while Bernie has none. Kudos to Bernie in this regard, but I don’t think any of us are surprised billionaires don’t like him.
That 23 billionaires like Pete is news to me. Please tell us more. Please investigate why Pete is the billionaires’ choice. That would be really informative coverage of the money.
28
I get that donation patterns are important - especially the number of donors and there geographical distribution - but one thing I find extraordinarily discouraging is that money is such an important metric. That speaks to a problem, the problem that money is such a determining factor in the success or failure of what should be a conversation with the electorate.
110
@Nicholas - Andrew Yang has a really interesting proposal to help make money in politics more egalitarian. He calls it Democracy Dollars. Every American get's $100 dollars per election, use it or loose it, to donate to the politicians of their choosing. He claims that this would wash out lobbying money by a factor of 8 to 1.
64
@Nicholas
Money buys media time and pays for travel to make speeches. Literature has to be printed and mailed. Or printed and handed out.
In addition, the Democratic Party has made money-raising an explicit requirement of getting on the debate stage. At least today we all can participate in the process, instead of a few rich men making the decision to let us hear from only a couple of their hand-picked candidates.
12
@Nicholas
"money is such a determining factor in the success or failure of what should be a conversation with the electorate'
Amen. I couldn't agree more. If you haven't already I encourage you to check out some of Andrew Yang's long-form interviews on Youtube. There are many to choose from. This is a huge reason why I'm here in this comment section spreading the word. Because I've been waiting for a candidate that isn't afraid to use all of the technology we have today in order to reach the people.
I'm not talking about Facebook posts, emails, scripted town hall questions or 4-minute interviews on major news networks. I'm talking about 1-2 hour-long uncut interviews with people that may or may not agree with your ideas made freely available to the American people. Because I want to know how my candidate's ideas hold up to the criticism of their opponents.
To my knowledge, Andrew Yang is the only candidate who is providing this kind of information to the American people.
13
Here is my fantasy of the moment: after the September debate, the front runner is clear (Eliz. Warren is my fantasy candidate, even though I disagree with some of her policies, e.g., free education). The front runner goes bold and announces a running mate (Buttigieg) and an entire replacement administration: John Hickenlooper: Sec. of Interior; Bernie Sanders: Dept. of Labor; Harris: Attorney General; Eric Swalwell, Health & Public Safety, Marianne Williamson--spiritual advisor (I love that zany woman), etc. A place fore every one of the impressive Democratic candidates. Run as the well-educated, sane, responsible, science and fact-based team of leaders that we need to address the ruthless wreckage of Trump, McConnell, and the Republican enablers. Run big, run bold, stop fighting about the past. Run toward the future together.
166
@mecmec -
Presidential candidates typically announce their Vice Presidential candidates in the two weeks or so just before their party’s Convention, when they have already, individually, locked up their nomination.
This is just a norm, not the law, and not necessarily to the Dems advantage this cycle.
Trump, the Norm-Breaker-in-Chief, takes every possible advantage he can get away with. To beat him, Dems have to be similarly bold and creative. Here is an opportunity for one or more candidates to show that they are not the same old same old.
Why not announce combine forces way, way earlier? Why not announce a Warren/Buttigieg VP/Harris AG ticket in the next couple months? It would clear the the field, signify unity, and give Bernie and Biden supporters the time to lick their wounds and come back long before the general election. (Of course a Biden/Abrams response alliance, without the passion of the progressives, could tear the party apart, while not bringing in the states that are electorally critical... So how about Warren/Buttigieg/Abrams AG?)
Are any Dems willing to demonstrate that they are bold and creative enough to beat the Cheater-in-Chief by pre-announcing other major administration personnel?
My bet is no. Same old same old. And losers.
16
@mecmec None of these fantasies will go anywhere if Mitch McConnell remains the Leader of a Republican Senate. If the Senate remains Republican, there will be no democratic policy which will see the light of day. If the Democrats do not propose tax cuts for the wealthy, a Republican senate will not take it up and vote on it. Forget any liberal legislation or anti gun legislation. The Senate is crucial.
40
@mecmec I like this scenario and hope it's not too far from reality!
8
As an immigrant I am always amazed and saddened how much money is thrown at political candidates. This money could be used in such a better way. This campaigning for so long is very wearing, not only for the candidates, but it almost becomes boring to the public. We get tired of the flash of money and all the chat. Time to make important changes to length of time campaigning and monies involved.
I know, not going to happen, but always hopeful.
15
Trump was not very well funded and never well organized in 2016, but he won. It shows how desperate many Americans voters feel and how little faith they have in politicians. Democrats need someone who understands the cause and depths of the voters’ anxiety and has a solution. That person might just be Andrew Yang.
5
@Yan Yang Clinton had a huge war chest; Trump's was so minimal that he was forced at the last minute to loan (loan, not donate; the man is a cheapskate even with his own candidacy) his campaign $5 million, per Woodward -- which shows that a lot of the hand-wringing over money influencing elections may be misplaced.
@HKGuy Trump took advantage of political action committees and ended up raising and spending far, far more than Clinton, coordinating indirectly with these organizations, in order to break fundraising limits. It just happened to be hidden, where Clinton's was direct and upfront. The $5 million did not come from his own pocket but from these committees and other groups.
3
Any candidate that takes PAC/corporate monies will continue us down the same road we have been on for the last 40 years. If you want real change where everyday people are the focus of legislation and not big business, then the choice is clear: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
9
@Sue Salvesen among others, Buttigieg doesn’t take PAC/corporate money. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.
2
I have never seen anyone unite people so completely while also obliterating the insanely divisive red/blue dichotomy as Andrew Yang has. Scan the comments section of any Youtube, FB, or IG post featuring Yang and it is jaw-dropping to see how many conservatives want to vote for him.
I blame the media for focusing so much on the candidates in the top 5 right now. Mainstream journalism on all sides has become newstainment. I get it though that it is supply and demand. If we didn't crave it, it wouldn't exist. Identity politics has got to be the most destructive thing to focus on and will be constantly made an issue by media on both right and left on all platforms. This is what gets eyeballs and triggers people.
Yang is so obviously able to actually solve problems. He is discussing problems that are actually happening, not toxic blame-shifting and casting retributive justice. We need to focus on the things that unite us not divide us or there will be a collapse.
9
If I don't contribute money, it doesn't mean I'm not going to vote! It just means that I may not be in a position to donate. TV is free. Have good debates. Those willing to listen will make up their own mind. Those that don't probably will not contribute but may also vote for who gets nominated.
Fight fake news!
5
Bernie Sanders is the only authentic candidate with an actual plan to help the working class of this country. He is the only sane choice.
10
@Rachel And therein lies the problem with Sanders' supporters: ANY Democratic candidate is the only sane choice against Donald Trump.
1
@Rachel when asked at the first debate how he would get m4a passed, his answer was ppl marching in the streets. We don’t need him to do that. M4a is not going to get passed.
1
The real message of this article, though it is probably inadvertent, is how weird and sick the US election system is. The debates are anything but that. They are more like competitions for the best line, whether it is a takedown or some other zinger. They are run by and for the media, who bizarrely control the questions and the length of the answer. Heaven forbid someone running might actually have a response that was deeper than a sound bite. The polls are similarly a joke, based on tiny samples, partisan bias, and questionable methodology.
Dump both of them. Just let the candidates run, campaigning all over the country and actually talking to and listening to voters. Then let's all vote--on the same day, not in the wacko way we do now, with "super Tuesday" and all the rest of the nonsense that privileges some states and renders others irrelevant or moot.
None of this will ever happen, of course. The whole insane process generates way too much money for the media, pollsters, and all the assorted corporate players who will fight tooth and nail to keep it going. So what if it compromises democracy? None of these people care about that.
13
I seem to recall Nate Silver writing that money was a poor predictor of election results.
4
Your title is in the wrong tense. It hasn't happened yet! Here we go again with journalists and pundits getting ahead of voters.
2
Nice graph! Is there any way to interact with the whole thing, or are readers restricted to seeing these 5 candidates that the NYT is highlighting?
5
President Trump’s fundraising puts them all to shame.
@Dr. John It is early, once there is a candidate, the money will flow. The anti-trump vote is larger than the pro-trump vote, money will mean little.
This absurd, never ending circus.
We have to tolerate this for almost TWO years, UGH!
3
No mention of Gabbard.
5
@Matt Klein
Funny, for this comment, the "recommenced" button doesn't work.
1
The race is about money?
It's the money race that makes the NYT front page.
This is the way democracy ends, this is the way democracy ends, this is the way democracy ends, not with a bang but with a cop-out.
5
@Deborah Fink NYT's campaign coverage has hardly been limited to how much money candidates are raising.
The graphs are cute. It's the kind of thing the Times does so well.
Perhaps this level of effort could go to reporting on the anonymous dark money that has infected our political system? How big money has nationalized House and Senate elections? Or perhaps challenge the media's comfortable and convenient assumption that campaigns don't coordinate with big money super pacs? Maybe spend a little time on the micro-targeting of individuals through social media, and the kind of messages the campaigns and their dark money sponsors are pushing to suppress voter turnout misinformation?
I know, it doesn't fit with skill set of the handicappers writing horse race journalism, but it might help us better understand how we turned our politics into the current hellscape we have today.
7
@Bruce
I agree. And 'Hellscape' is apt. Many years ago I lionized journalism/ists. Though my admiration was always at least a touch naive, the transformation I've seen over the last few decades has been astonishing. In my opinion, media oligopoly -and the consolidation of approved narrative -fundamentally undermines any hope for a functioning democracy.
"In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by 50 companies; as of 2011, 90% was controlled by just 6 companies and in 2017 the number was 5."
1
Stop this suicidal irresponsible foolishness!
This is not a horserace. This reporting is suited only for Las Vegas bookies.
We are passing the point of no return, in destroying conditions for human life on Earth. We have triggered processes of change that will continue until we are gone.
But your political reporters and columnists keep diverting us to mis-focus on everything else. Other "responsible" media and the Dem candidates do too.
Therefore, our civilization and species are doomed.
Future historians, if any survive, will correctly identify us as The Worst Generation.
6
@Dick Purcell
"This is not a horserace. We are passing the point of no return, in destroying conditions for human life on Earth. But your political reporters and columnists keep diverting us to mis-focus on everything else."
What do you suggest? Declare a State of Emergency and suspend the election in favor of some sort of all-pervasive planetary dictatorship? If not, we might already be past the point of no return.
Might as well focus on the election -- in which climate change is sure to figure as a major issue -- for better or worse.
The money spikes go to show just how gullible folks are, if not entirely stupid, in giving money on such a whim.
4
My lengthier comment was meant to say that it is increasingly UNLIKELY the nominee will come from the present field of candidates.
2
And the NYT et al are abuzz with excitement that the next President is being nominated. Where is the fly in all this ointment - all the data are simply measuring the responses of the most active zealots in half the voting population. In the end, just like last election, if the Dems don't nominate a moderate that can draw the middle of the of voting population including the "new democrats", they will cry in their beer again. It's so easy to drink your own bathwater.
9
@Kent Kraus
They elected a moderate last election and that candidate was so bad she managed to lose to Trump.
6
@Yasha Also with a little help from his friends. The Russians and James Comey
1
@Yasha
I think you missed the part: “...that can draw the middle of the voting population...”
Clinton was unable to do that.
2
Sanders is the only candidate here, the rest is a DNC carnival. And as for money all Bernie has to do is ask, and his HUGE donor base will donate MORE that very day. What we should see is Bernie teaming up with Warren ad P/VP, locking up a progressive presidency for the next 16 years.
15
"The Five Days That Defined the 2020 Primary"
So I went to sleep on August 16, 2019, and woke up the NEXT MORNING to read.... the history of the 2020 primary??!! It's all over? God bless King Trump
Just call me Rip Van Reader.
10
I’d pay good money to watch Kamala Harris shred Trump in a debate. Pay per view!
2
The analysis here is persuasive in several cases, except for Warren. According to the Times, her call for impeachment hearings in mid-April was the turning point. It’s true that donations increased for several days thereafter, but then they settled back. But then in late May, the levels increased substantially and skyrocketed late in June. I would say that this is the story, not impeachment, which few people remember.
Overall, it is sad that the Times and candidates focus on these outsized donation (and polling) spikes. First, because they suggest that Americans don’t really examine candidates by comparing their positions, but only react to the periodic celebrity moments. Second, this kind of approach requires candidates to contrive those breakout moments that attract attention — the “I was that little girl” media and merchandising moment — to put themselves before voters. That produces a campaign that favors the best media star, the person who monopolizes the national attention, whether legitimately or because of some inane tweet. And the person who has done that most spectacularly is the least suited to being president, Donald J. Trump.
9
Voters have to stop obsessing about "electability" and focus on issues and leadership. Trump's supporters will stick with him regardless of his intolerance and stupidity -- because they're no different. This will be an election to decide whether we want to elect a leader who will restore, or continue to destroy, American values.
10
@Richard -- It's just that kind of remark about Trump supporters that will repel every one of them from voting for a Democrat.
1
Here, in this traditionally blue Seattle ─the enthusiasm is clearly dipping for the Democrats in their once strong hold. And in the national sphere, if there’s one word defines the Democratic Party’s 2020 campaign, it would have to be “fading.” I’m not referring to front runner Mr. Biden’s daily “gaffs” to the point they have become a collective embracement for the Democratic Party and to former President Barack Obama in particular. Or the damaging and polarizing political theatrics of the Squad. Here in conventionally ultra-liberal Seattle, Mr. Bernie Sanders who was very popular during the last election cycle is now seem struggling─ who had 8080 contributors in the last election and sent far-left Ms. Pramila Jayapal on his coattails to US Congress. But this time judging by the number of contributions Mr. Sanders is also floundering. In contrast, President Donald Trump who shockingly had only 6 contributors to speak of in 2016, now have already amassed 21,657 contributors to his national campaign. These are clear early indications that President Trump will make serious inroads even to traditionally Blue States. For example Mr. Trump will easily win states like Minnesota and New Hampshire. And he will make dramatic challenges elsewhere even in staunch Blue Democratic States. This will strongly impact local and state level legislatures. In Minnesota, for example, no Republican has won the State since 1972. That will change in 2020 thanks largely to Rep. Ms Illhan Omar.
4
@ChandraPrince You assume the economy on election day will be as strong as it is today. If we enter a recession later this year or next year as a consequence of Trump's tariff wars and tax cut, I think it's unlikely Trump would carry Minnesota or New Hampshire.
2
@ChandraPrince
Your kidding...right?
Nationwide, Sanders so far has accumulated 746,000 individual donations for a total of $36 million — both tops among the crowded Democratic field.
Lol...Have you looked at the NYT donor map?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/02/us/politics/2020-democratic-fundraising.html
One out of every three donors who have given to any presidential campaign have donated to Sen. Bernie Sanders.
After the 2nd debate Sanders raked in $2 million in the 24hrs afterwards.
The Joe Rogan/Sanders interview on Tues. was the top trending website on YouTube by Thur.
By the by...in '16 Sanders out polled Trump 53-37 in Minn., and 54-33 in New Hampshire.
So far in 2020, Sanders again is ahead in virtually all states against Trump.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/#
Lol...I think the demise of Sen. Sanders is wishful thinking amongst those with candidate preferences elsewhere.
10
@ChandraPrince You obviously did not read the article or do any deep dive into statistics regarding Sen. Sander's contributors. He has almost one million individual donors and over 2.5 million small donations. Narcissist Donnie takes corporate and PAC money. He, like most politicians, is beholden to the oligarchs. They get what they pay for and the rest of us are a mere afterthought.
7
In the age of Citizens United, this obsessive focus on money and its conflation with a campaign's viability is tantamount to legalized corruption and oligarchy. Andrew Yang's Democracy Dollars would level the playing field and give ordinary people a chance to be heard again. Please look up the very well-thought out concept on Yang's website.
17
Typical for the New York Times...this article is about the AMOUNT of money raised. By that metric, Joe Crowley should be the Congressperson from the Bronx. AOC was outspent 18 to 1. Yet she won handily, it wasn't close.
Even though Bernie is leading in the amount of money donated the really impressive figure is the number of donors. He has more donors by far than any other Democratic primary presidential candidate, almost equaling the total number of donorsof the next two, Elizabeth and Pete, combined.
Everyone of them is most likely a voter and probably a good percentage of them are willing to volunteer to go door to door for Bernie. I did in 2016 and I will again in 2020. Because Bernie will fight for what I need...because we, not big donors with big amounts of money, are his constituents.
22
Hmmmm. One candidate was benefiting from the Russian interference in 2016. Thousands of tweets and tens of thousands of retweets... documented in the Mueller report. Wonder how much that helped Mr. Sanders, even indirectly, in raising money.
That said, I agree with the other commenters that less should be made of the race for money.
Whomever is nominated by the Democrats will get my vote, no matter what Vlad tells me.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-russian-effort-to-target-sanders-supporters--and-help-elect-trump/2019/04/11/741d7308-5576-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html
5
What's the significance of these instantly forgettable "debates."
They are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Democrats are boring people from voting or caring which one is chosen.
2
This is disgusting. Why are Americans not outraged? Candidates for the highest office are being selected based on fundraising abilities rather than a track record of excellence and a vision for the future.
I hope the next generation, taking civics for the first time, are horrified at the botched mess we've made of our election process. Not only are we trashing our environment, we've also destroyed an important tool that might have been used to salvage it.
20
People love to back whoever they perceive to be winning, so whoever is getting the most campaign contributions influences people to get on their bandwagon, regardless of whether that person is the best person for the job or not.
The only measure of a candidate in this particular election should be: “Can they beat Trump?” For that, we need someone memorable, someone with a new face, and someone with a new message.
We need novelty and fascination—there, I’ve said it.
This is an election in the Internet age, and Trump was made for it. He’s a thrill a minute, albeit in a godawful way. The world's attention is riveted by his blathering.
We need more of same, but from a polar opposite persona.
To run someone who is less than that, you may as well just hand him another four years.
We need to look beyond the darlings of the moment and find someone who has the power to fascinate, because like it or not, THAT is who can beat Donald Trump.
9
@D. Wagner
It’s clear to me that the person who can both move our country forward in all the critical, right ways , and beat Trump, is Senator Sanders. I believed this in 2016 and now. I lived in Burlington, Vermont, in the 1970s and admired him then. He represents a rare opportunity for our nation to become a better place, but only if we all pitch in. As he says, it’s not just about him, it needs to be all of us.
2
Your heading reinforces of one of the biggest problems in American politics now. You clearly and decisively equate funding with the positioning of front runners, as if money were the most important measure. The truth is funding speaks to funding. Influence and votes matter much more, even if money creates some of the opportunity. It is interesting and it matters where it comes from, if it's a few billionaires or a billion individuals, but it can be analyzed and discussed without misrepresenting it as the tell all of success. Please be more accurate with your statements.
10
Biden is missing his oppotunity by failing to present some obvious big solutions:
1. Put Social Security and Medicare on a sound financial footing. That wins loyalty from all seniors and everybody younger who worries that the trust fund runs out of cash in next decade, leaving theri benefits at 79 cents on the dollar.
2. Challenge the others to show where they will actually find the money to pay for all their pipedreams. Harris is a sitting duck with her preposterous plan to give every household in US a $6000 check She will not only rob Peter to pay Paul, she will have to rob Paul to pay Paul.
3. Present a clear plan for what is actually do-able in health care. Explain that elimination of insurance company profits and overhead for those who enroll in Medicare at Cost will save each consumer about $450, but that won't give anybody free health care. Sanders' and Warren's $80 billion savings in a $4 trillion health care marketplace will cover 5 weeks of Medicare for All. Their math just doesn't add up and Trump would crush them in the general. It would be Nixon v McGovern all over again.
5
@GCM
I wonder if poor McGovern will ever get to rest in peace, or will instead forever be (preposterously and erroneously mis-)used as a cudgel to beat back pesky candidates who are even an inch to the economic left of today's very rightwing "moderates?" Poor George.
1
I don't expect to vote for a candidate based on where they got their money (assuming that it isn't obtained illegally). I'm much more interested in what they propose to do if elected and how they expect to win the election. If they have a platform plank on getting big money out of politics I will view that as a plus. But there are so many issues that are important and several that I believe are more important than that. Among those issues I would include (among others) healthcare, climate change, income inequality, race relations, and the preservation of democracy. I want to know what a candidates proposes to do about those.
13
@Stan Sutton I don't think taking PAC money (bribes) from corporations to do their bidding will help in the areas you see as important. They are the very people who want to keep the status quo. I believe where the money comes from is extremely important. When it's from everyday people and not multimillionaires and billionaires, you know that candidate will fight for all of us and not just the rich.
2
The most worrisome element here is that the assessment of any candidate's chances of winning is calculated strictly on his or her ability to amass huge amounts of campaign money.
Money, rather than proposals and ideas has become the criterion of success in politics. Citizens United, obscenely expensive commercials and sound bites - we have lost all reason.
17
It would be nice to know what are parameters of the ActBlue Poll. Many times they only collect/count donors who contribute over $200. As campaigns don't have to collect info from donors contributing less than the stated $200.
Thus the numbers shown could be wildly off for some the candidates shown.
3
Senator Sanders... All those consistent donations, all over America, the most donations....
If Senator Sanders was a corporate Democrat, his name and face would be plastered all over the newspapers and news media.
But, alas, he is a man of the people, a rare statesman. The FDR of our time.
16
In a democracy, issues would matter. We would look at our military posture in the world, spending priorities, welfare of our citizens, domestic health and safety issues, as well as moral and compassionate international relations. Clearly, it's about the money. Capitalism is a direct cause of environmental destruction, racism, military aggression, the end of democracy, and the end of prosperity. It's time to reject capitalism and create an ethical, equitable system.
7
It remains a sad commentary on our campaign financing laws (as well as the whole campaign "business" in this country) that money is the marker here for supposed support. Well, it's profoundly a money-based culture, so what else should I expect here? For once, as the Times has done so, I'll quote Trump: "Sad!"
2
I am supporting Bernie Sanders. This is an important piece of reporting . I read fast. Therefore, it is not clear to me from this article, despite much detail, who to date has raised the most money.
8
There seem to be very clear reasons for these numbers.
Biden may limp along and be the nominee, but his best days were at first. Harris is photogenic, but shallow and the second debate punctured her balloon. She will have a hard time. Those of us in San Francisco know how bad a DA and Calif. AG she was. Warren will keep the support of the angry, just-do-as-I-say crowd, but most will find her a lot like castor oil. It's interesting the article cites the SNL bit, which many will find spot-on.
Buttigieg benefits from the support of the lbgt community, which has a lot of disposable income, but he is handicapped by his performance in South Bend and his lack of experience.
Sanders has a kind of cult support. Who would have thought so many people liked to be yelled at?
Perhaps there will be an unheard of candidate who yet comes forward?
4
@sftaxpayer
Yes, the unheard of candidate is Steve Bullock! He's the only one who can win red states, and that's what matters most. And you really nailed it regarding Sanders. I also am completely amazed that so many people like to be yelled at.
1
Is there any other developed democracy in which fitness for office is measured by fund raising ability?
It costs money to run a campaign of course, but should that be the preeminent basis on which to judge a candidate's capacity to govern?
7
Very curious about something overlooked: I'll vote for the dankest dem over trump (I am not a Democrat), and at this point I don't see a reason to support one candidate over the others. . . but I *do* donate monthly to the Working Families Party, and often to ActBlue (I tip, thankful for the service). Yes, this very good article is about the candidates, but what do non-candidate/NO trump donations indicate? It might be a case of too many sources to account for. The dems have issues, most of which will be ironed out in the primaries and convention. The issues dems surface are mostly aligned with optimism. trump and his 87% of Republicans and their thoughts and deeds can be rightfully seen as an issue in their own right.
6
Elizabeth has spurned big money contributors in the primary, but recognizes that she will need their money in a general election, because she does not want to "unilaterally disarm."
However, if she does win the nomination and the general election, she has vowed to do away with big money in politics. IF she can do that, she will have found the key to getting many other things accomplished that the public overwhelmingly supports and that big money special interests have blocked.
I actually think that big money WILL support Elizabeth in the general election, despite her vow to remove big money in politics if she wins. Why? Because doing so will make the U.S. a far less dysfunctional country.
34
@Bobcb
How do you think the US became a "dysfunctional" country, if not for big money?
Even in the recent book about the Koch brothers political fundraising shows that the Third Way was actually a project funded by the Koch brothers in 2007 to promote "free" trade in the Democratic platform. https://theintercept.com/2019/08/13/koch-brothers-third-way/
Anyone who is not an ideologue is vulnerable to have their minds/policy changed by lobby money. See Obama.
5
@Bobcb
It is totally uncalled for to refer to E. Warren by her first name, this would never fly for a man.
3
@Bobcb
How can big money support her campaign without sending money to her campaign?
Form a PAC which acts independently of her campaign? i think she would disavow that. This comment makes no sense.
1
These fundraising efforts pale in comparison to the Trump campaign and RNC totals for the second quarter. Together they raised $105 million. Mostly small dollar donations.
5
@Melissa M. This is true...and one wonders if, once the primaries determine the Democratic candidate, if supporters of other candidates will fall in line and support the nominee. Sanders supporters, after 2016, REALLY want Bernie to be the Deem nominee this time - if it's Warren or Harris or Buttigieg or (shudder) Biden, will Sanders advocates work with others to defeat Trump?
4
@Jeff As a Sanders supporter, I can say unequivocally, yes. We will support whomever is the eventual nominee. Can the rest of the people supporting other candidates say the same?
1
@Sue Salvesen
Agreed Sue.
How about if Jeff?
Will other candidate supporters fall in line if Sanders is the Gen. nominee?
1
It's a shame that the only way we can show our support for a candidate is by giving them money. A democracy shouldn't have to rely on the generosity of the electorate. After all is said and done and the Democrats have selected their candidate, a lot of people are going to feel like they've wasted their money.
I'm glad that Sanders and Warren aren't taking money from corporations, but I do get tired of them always asking me for money. Democrats need to find a better way to select their candidates.
7
@Jack Edwards
You can also show your support by giving them your time. Any of the candidates would be happy to have you as a volunteer campaign worker, even if you only have a little bit of time for it. And of course you can also show your support by voting when the time comes.
2
@Jack Edwards
You can show your support in other ways. Volunteer to work on a campaign.
1
Tired of hearing about money, money, money in the election cycles. Can we get to adequate public funding of elections so the importance of money is reduced and we can actually focus on issues and not get “finger in the wind of money” politicians.
57
@Matt The answer to Matt's question is "No, we cannot get to publicly funded campaigns."
The Supreme Court has ruled that restricting money in campaigns violates the right to free speech in the Constitution. Remember the Supremes famous decision (which doomed democracy) that the right to spend unlimited money in elections from anonymous sources was "speech."
By definition, that twisted decision doomed American democracy but that has been happening in so many ways for so many years that the whole process has become a joke. Anyone can become president with enough money.
10
@BSmith That's true, but only until Congress passes a new law that a new President will sign into effect changing campaign practices. I hope it is still not too late to turn the ship around.
8
@Matt
It would be easier to get rid of rats in the NYC sewer system than getting rid of money in politics.
3
The primary is a year away. I guess the profits of the media are more important than our democracy.
18
Who raised the most money? That's not the only/best indicator, is it? Often the winner has been out-funded, no?
5
@RB
Not usually. You always hear about it when it does happen. Man bites dog and all that.
Any one article can provide limited information, and sometimes be misleading, and so can the comments, so I wanted to add a few things that might be worthy of consideration.
First, whether an individual making a contribution is a billionaire or of modest income, the highest contribution allowable per person in the primary is $2800.
The situation where billionaires or multimillionaires who self-fund their campaigns to a large extent could be of interest. I read that billionaire candidate Tom Steyer planned to donate as much as a hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) of his own money to his primary run. While some people may say that rich candidates self-funding their campaigns are not beholden to anyone, others think it creates a grossly uneven playing field.
It is interesting to look at the total number of donors or the average donation amount for each candidate.
The candidates’ own net worth may be of interest. Forbes just came out with a list about that. Of the candidates who provided financial information, only four candidates had net worth of less than a million dollars. There is also interesting information about HOW the candidates obtained their wealth (earned, inherited or gifted from relatives, etc.), and the transparency of each candidate’s financial information was scored and reported.
.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/08/14/heres-the-net-worth-of-every-2020-presidential-candidate/amp/
2
@Lark Yes, individuals can only donate $2,800 to a candidate's campaign. However, PACs and Super PACs are legally allowed to accept any amount of money in support of a candidate.
1
These data are useless for my decision as they are not broken down into small vs large donations
I will not vote for someone backed by large corporations or Wall Street.
7
I really like Pete Buttigieg but the fact that he is accepting money from bundlers and such is a real turn off. Because of that, I am supporting Elizabeth Warren.
5
@readalot19
Why?
Warren took from the same donors as Biden in the months before her announcement to run, and has stated she will again if she gets the nod.
Either the candidate is bought 'n paid, or their aren't.
Accepting huge donations doesn't mean they are beholden. (snicker...right...?!)
1
@readalot19
Bundlers can only collect the same maximum amount per person that you or I could give per person, so I don't see what the complaint is. Haven't you ever been invited by a friend or relative to attend a local fundraiser where there were auction items you were intend to bid on, or after dinner everyone was asked to take out their checkbooks? This is the same thing in my opinion.
Andrew Yang is the candidate to know and to support for U.S. president. Future generation digestions and studies of campaign footage and recordings (including longform podcast interviews) will show why. Old school media people used to bite sized articles and cable news clips probably aren't hunkering down for 2 hour long interviews with Andrew Yang, but they are missing out. The high quality of his messaging and responses is unparalleled in American politics. Watch his whole Joe Rogan interview and you tell us if you didn't then listen to every recording of every long interview with him available.
29
Ok, please work these graphs again, but take out the corporate and PAC money. JUST individual contributors... THEN let's see what we've got. I can't say 'it's not about the money'. I CAN say 'It shouldn't be about the money'.
Let's talk about the Planet PLEASE? Let's focus on who is intent on saving our environment... and I'm guessing here.. ?
it won't be the one with the most corporate sponsors.
13
Looks like a five-way race for last place.
But there is still hope for Ms. Warren.
Go Elizabeth!!!!
3
This is an utterly foolish waste of reportorial time
It is increasingly likely the nominee is going to be someone who is presently in the field of candidates.
This contest is not going to be settled in the primaries and caucuses.
It is going to a third, even a fourth ballot at the convention, the first time either party will have gone beyond a first ballot since Adlai Stevenson, who ran in no primaries, was nominated on the 3rd ballot.
Been writing about this for 8 months and neither The Times or any other media outlet covering national politics has even touched the surface of the real dynamic in this contest, which is not the money, not the field, not Biden vs. everyone else and everyone else vs. themselves.
No there is another factor that juxtaposed with what we do know clearly points to this going to a multi-ballot convention.
11
@Carl Zeitz
Exactly as planned.
Super-delegates get to thumb the scale in the second ballot.
3
@Dobbys sock You are so right, Dobby and when that happens, all hell is going to break loose. I hope someone gets 50% of the delegates, so we don't have to go through a civil war.
1
As long as the "field" insists on buttressing the trauma of internecine strife the outcome becomes more dangerous. Get over it, please.
NYT -- wake up. We have the worst president and republican senators we have seen in 50 years. And they may indeed hold the reigns of power for another 4 years, if not much more. On the other hand, we have very capable, and caring, Democratic candidates with good ideas for the common man/woman on hand. Use your platform to constantly clarify that massive difference, and forget useless talk about the horse race... any one of these people would be good for America.
75
I'm a 20 year old college student and this article tells me exactly why so many people my age are exasperated with elections. One person, one vote just simply isn't the whole formula anymore - even with smaller donations, the primaries especially are 99.9% about money. Voting with your wallet is now a terrifyingly crucial part of democratic voting: frankly, I don't have the disposable income to make my voice heard, and I'm far from the poorest person in America. The fact that we as a nation accept that without question is telling. If people of older generations are so quick to bemoan the lack of engagement of young voters... perhaps it's worth considering why. We can't afford to! How did we get to the point where money is such a crucial element of a democratic election? It scares and disheartens me.
144
@Abigail
Money has always been crucial. The difference is that today you can see it and today everybody can play. No more decisions in smoke-filled back rooms where party bosses did the will of the rich businessmen who financed the campaigns of their hand-picked candidates.
Thanks, Bernie, for showing that a campaign can be financed by ordinary people. It's up to the voters to show whether they can make informed decisions after investing enough time to learn the positions of all the candidates. It was easier back when rich businessmen picked one or maybe two candidates. But that way wasn't fair. This way is not fair, but it is better.
19
@Abigail, I am 39 and money has honestly been far more important than votes in every election cycle since I was born--months before Reagan was nominated. Bernie Sanders changed all this by heavily critiquing the billions of corporate money poured into our "democratic" election process. Warren has followed, and they are both far ahead of the pack as such--and not beholden to stockholders, but individual donors instead. I've never donated to a candidate until this year--to Warren and Sanders. Considering Walmart workers and the teacher unions are making 27 dollar donations to the Sanders campaign speaks volumes. The NYTimes definitely favors the voice of the "haves" as opposed to the "have nots". It's actually wonderful Democrats are finally having this discussion in the public. Trust this is actually major progress.
39
@Abigail This is our system right now. If you want to change it then vote for pretty much any Democratic candidate because they all (I believe) want to get big money out of politics.
I must apologize, but I don't think you really comprehended the article even as you read it. Folks like Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg aren't flush with big money (Yes Pete accepts it while the other two do not, but look at the numbers of folks donating, the bulk of the money comes from very small donors), they are building their campaigns with $5, $10 and $25 contributions. That is democracy. I am sure that any candidate whom you believe in will be glad to accept $5 or even $1 (Yes they will ask you again later for more).
Besides money though another important thing that affects think that affects elections is enthusiasm and volunteering. Get out there and volunteer to organize a debate watch party for the candidate you most support.
I'm an old guy now having hit 60 a few months ago, but I started volunteering when I was 15 years old. I didn't have money. By the time I was sixteen I had registered over 100 new voters in my community
That may not make even an insignificant difference in a presidential election, but Abigail, it matters, it really does and when not one, but 1,000 like minded people do the same it creates CHANGE. No excuses Abigail.
Or I guess you could sit back and watch Donald Trump get elected again on his quest to be Emperor for Life,
22
Wealth continues to drive our elections (and consequently our policies). It's little wonder that the economy is structured in such a way that the top 1% have taken 99% of all new income since 2008, or that since 1990 the top 1% have gained $20 trillion in net wealth while the bottom 50% have lost $1 trillion, as Sanders points out.
Democracy Dollars, whereby every citizen is allocated $100 to send to their candidate(s) of choice, would do much to level the playing field against the elite economic interests that currently control our system, particularly for the most economically-disenfranchised communities in our society. It allows normal people to compete against the fifty-three (53!) billionaires backing corporate-friendly centrists like Buttigieg (23), Harris (17), and Biden (13).
Another way to reduce the influence of money would be to adopt ranked-choice voting, whereby voters are allowed to list their candidates in order of preference, so that if/when your first choice candidate(s) don't get enough votes, your vote trickles down to your second/third choice candidate. Imagine it: all those votes for Nader/Stein/Johnson would have trickled down to Gore/Clinton, and we would never have had Bush/Trump. It's long past time we joined the rest of the modern world in adopting RC/IR voting.
For these critically-important policies and dozens more, I will be supporting Andrew Yang for President. I strongly encourage you to do the same. We can still save this democracy.
44
@Peter Lewis I like it.
Now how about abolishing private contributions altogether?* Our elected officials will never be truly accountable to the voting public until our elections are 100% publicly funded, on the taxpayer dime—with oversight, of course. A strict accounting for every penny spent.
*Attn. Supreme Court: cold hard cash is not equivalent to free speech! Speak til you're blue in the face, just don't bribe my elected officials.
5
@Peter Lewis Maine's March primary may be decided by ranked choice voting. Stay tuned.
2
I am not exactly certain, but Elizabeth is one of the few, if not the only candidate who has spurned big money contributions for the primary contest. Considering that, she has done extremely well.
49
@Bobcb
Unfortunately, she has also said she is open to taking corporate PAC money if she wins the nomination. Sanders is the only candidate who has flatly rejected corporate money in the primary and has declared he won't take it in the general if he's the nominee.
23
@Bobcb Pete and Bernie do not take money from PACS, corporations, or lobbyists. But Pete does take flack in some quarters from having billionaires donate to him - at the same limit as everyone else - which hardly seems fair.
12
@Bobcb
Sorry bobch. Warren jump started her campaign with $10 million from her senatorial carryover. Made from the same big donors/PAC's/Corp./Wall Street donors that she harangued Biden for taking. Earned in the months before she announced her run; after she'd already won her 2nd senatorial term.
Her campaign treasure is known as Mr. Personal PAC.
She'll take any and every $$$ thrown her way in the general.
To me that seems like the "small donor" is just a campaign schtick. Not an actual populous candidate.
Just another pol working an angle.
8
We are fortunate to have so many really good candidates.
I hope the next debate is substantive.
34
@memosyne
I have donated to my candidate of choice, but I’m sending a HUGE thank you to all the candidates for running. We need you all.
1
I respect all these candidates. But Andrew Yang is the only sensible way forward. UBI is a sensible libertarian solution to wage gap and income inequality. And every policy proposal I've read of his seems well thought out and non partisan.
Yang 2020!
45
Well thought out? Maybe from a theoretical prospective but certainly not from a real-world one. Can’t get (or want) a job? Have a child (or maybe seven or eight). Great for the drug trade too! Watch OD’s spike the day after checks are cashed. The second order effects really aren’t very hard to predict.
@Frank I would disagree with this. For one, I think Yang has some great ideas on how to address the opioid epidemic in American right now that have nothing to do with his UBI proposal.
Also, I would argue that a lot of drug use/addiction that leads to OD is fueled by a sense of hopelessness. This is why we find more drug use amongst the poor in our country compared to other socioeconomic classes. Providing individuals with $1000 every month gives them more options. Some options are good and some are bad. But there is no doubt they would have more options and more options can easily lead to more hope for the future. When people have a better outlook on their future they are more likely to make positive choices in their day to day lives.
17
@JJ77
We are creating a new class of laborers that are relieving us from much drudgery, from working on assembly lines to adding up columns of numbers. Our ordinary banking interactions are now with an ATM (a robot or a piece of a robotic system) rather than a teller.
The profits these new laborers make possible now belong to their private owners (ultimately, investors), and those who do not share in their ownership compete with them and/or are displaced by them.
For the stability of our economic system (that depends on consumers to drive demand and production to satisfy this demand and generate profits), our new slave laborers need to be owned by everyone. If they are owned by investors, then everyone needs to be an investor as well as a worker.
Yang's proposal is simply a way to implement this.
We are finally inventing a race of schmoos, and as Al Capp saw, scnmoos destroy our present economic system and the customs and ethics based on it. If we do not allow and enable a different economic system with different customs and ethics, the destruction of our present system will destroy us.
7
Great story, unfortunately we can only have one candidate, however we are going to get the best progressive candidate who will not give a different statement every day. Who are offering policies that can not survive sunlight. We have a candidate in the report who feels entitled and entitlement is not an option for candidates this election cycle. We all realize that specific names in this report are supported by corporate money. This time I dont believe that is going to fly, its about saving democracy and the American people not "want to be" public servants of corporate America.
We have seen enough of the GOP and we are not nominating a democrat with GOP values hidden behind democrat fancy words
17
@Tony
You have a choice Tony a middle of the road Democrat or 4 more years...your choice...America has never been a socialist/progressive bastion...Obama quickly lost his Senate/Congress and gotten little accomplished except for a weak healthcare bill. Even FDR dumped his vice president a true progressive Henry Wallace when the Southern Dixiecrats balked. Lets be smart about it and first get the Senate and the Presidency. Then work on a leftward business friendly policies.
5
@bzg1
FDR dumped Henry Wallace for his fourth term -- after implementing the New Deal. We could stand another FDR.
The corporate press need to stop focusing on these campaigns as if they were horse races. It is not about the money, it's about the support of the voters. Those leading the "money race" are getting the funds because the voters increasingly back them. And the voters increasingly back them because, in the Democratic Party, it is voters and their support for the candidate's positions on the issues that is important.
New York Times, spend your time and column inches going into the candidates positions and backgrounds. Stop with this inane focus on campaign funds.
We don't appreciate it.
145
@Sean I agree with you that the focus on campaign funds is getting out of hand.
As for covering candidates positions and backgrounds, what is the NYT going to tell you that you couldn't easily find on your own? Candidates all have their own websites and youtube channels. If there is a lack of information on a certain candidate in the year 2019, that is the candidate's fault.
This is one of the many reasons I'm in this comment section supporting Andrew Yang. He is the most transparent presidential candidate I've ever seen. Not everyone is going to like him or support him. But at least he is providing the electorate with more than enough information to make an informed choice.
9
@Sean " It is not about the money, it's about the support of the voters. "
Yes, it *should* be! But there are supporters and there are SUPPORTERS. Is the corporate press simply acknowledging or enthusiastically encouraging SUPPORT to the detriment of support?
1
@Sean
Thank you Sean, nor do we like the amount of dollars thrown at candidates....
1
Following a nationally televised climate crisis discussion, I would love to see charts that display the spikes and plunges of 23 candidates' plan to reduce the burning of fossil fuels 50% by 2030. Voters deserve to know whose plan is the best; the plan that is aligned with the IPCC goal, the Paris Climate Agreement and so many other local, state, and national initiatives. Most all of the candidates have talked about the climate crisis we are suffering; very few have generated solutions.
24
@aries Absolutely right, Aries. If we do not solve the Climate Crisis, in 10-15 years time none of these other things will matter in the least.
I would be most interested in any candidate who has the foresight and intestinal fortitude to promote fourth-generation advanced reactors as a solution to the Climate Crisis. Truly, it is the only solution capable of producing the massive amounts of steady, affordable, carbon-free electricity our country and world will ever need.
Best of all, advanced reactors are a waste-to energy solution to Climate Change. Skeptical? Google PRISM reactor and look around the web site for GE-Hitachi's 4 minute promotional video.
5
@Bobcb This is news to me. I will check it out. Thanks!
1
@Bobcb Excellent suggestion. Watched it and learned something new. Thanks
1
Fundraising is important, but different campaigns have different budgetary needs. Harris and Buttigieg need millions to advertise who they are to a country totally in the dark about them. Biden on the other hand will benefit the most from earned media and name recognition. He can put all his money into campaign staffing, and events, while others have to pour it into ads. Consequently he can do it on relatively cheaper terms than rivals. Money is good, but money needs context.
24
@Evan Buttigieg has the second lowest burn rate. Making the money should not be mistaken for spending it for attention. He’s in it for the marathon, not a sprint.
12
@Kim Murphy I'll believe that when he promises to return the money he doesn't spend when if he is not nominated.
1
Interesting, but incomplete. The article neglects to provide information on average size of donations, and the median donation per candidate. If grassroots support is an important metric—and it is—then these statistics should have been reported. Voters should be informed on who is getting donations from big PACs and billionaires and who is not. Also, who has the most recurrent small dollar donations. The fact that Pete Buttigieg has received support from 23 billionaires and Bernie Sanders has no billionaire support is an important statistic for readers and voters.
112
@Chris thank you, I entirely agree. This article tells me who is going to be on the ballot more than why. I come to the NYT for the why.
46
@Chris G
Why is that important? Pete’s average donation was $47 from 400,000 people. Even billionaires have a $2800 limit.
It’s a meaningless purity test.
26
@Chris G - If you are in to grass roots support, I recommend checking out Andrew Yang. This article mentions his jump in grassroots support after his JRE podcast (highly recommended) but does not mention the fact that he has a rapidly growing grassroots support base.
In my opinion, it seems like Yang is the only candidate addressing Americas biggest problems in a way that might help alleviate them.
He also has cross aisle appeal because his message has not been galvanized into a war cry by the opposition yet.
I think that Andrew Yang is not only the most sure fire way to unseat Trump but I also think he has the best chance of solving our nation's horrific economic problems and, in turn, bringing this country back together.
19
Good analysis and overview. I will continue to hope Buttigieg finds his way into the top two but, of course, that remains to be seen.
50