What is more important than money is behavior and how it's reflected in a deceptive smile or grin. Such inappropriate behavior is displayed in "gallow humor" which can distract an observant viewer and lead to distrust as opposed to confidence. Other factors such as excessive perspiration or self emulation display important factors to consider when trusting people to assume the highest office representing a world power.
In short, watch and listen carefully and cautiously before making a crucial choice for the Presidency of the United States. We are one Nation indivisible- before we were "under God." Making a crucial choice for all of us matters.
In short, watch and listen carefully and cautiously before making a crucial choice for the Presidency of the United States. We are one Nation indivisible- before we were "under God." Making a crucial choice for all of us matters.
1
Sanders has done pretty well getting money from small donors but he still faces an uphill battle with the corporate media worrying about the threat Sanders poses to Wall Street.
4
I say make Super PACs illegal, and limit campaign contributions, then we'll see how well they actually do.
3
What? You mean its getting harder for the monied class to simply "buy" a candidate and thereby hijack policy? What a shame! Poor babies... Perhaps we are reaching a tipping point where the 99% have finally awakened from their 30 year political stupor. Maybe...just maybe...like Rip Van Winkle...Americans are waking up to a world turned upside-down by the rapacious greed of the 0.1%, with any and all sense of financial security along with the safety net brutally ripped away.
It is said that we get the government we deserve. And perhaps many Americans do deserve the situation they are now in. This was not due to financial irresponsibility, but more simply political lassitude. Its just a pity that those of us who were wide awake and clanging alarm bells for at least 15 years face the same mess they do.
It is said that we get the government we deserve. And perhaps many Americans do deserve the situation they are now in. This was not due to financial irresponsibility, but more simply political lassitude. Its just a pity that those of us who were wide awake and clanging alarm bells for at least 15 years face the same mess they do.
4
OK, I understand the "band wagon effect," the desire to be part of a winning team and all that entails, but can someone explain WHY anyone with all or even most of their mental faculties would actually give money to the likes of Chris Christie or Rand Paul? I don;t care if you earned, inherited, or stole your money, what would possess anyone to simply flush it away on people whose only goal at this point would be to be labeled an "incredible long shot" as opposed to "dead meat?"
3
I hate to be nit picky...but the Times really needs to get their facts better checked. "... Hillary Rodham Clinton, who secured commitments from many of the party’s biggest donors before she even announced her candidacy, barely outraised Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-described socialist..."
There is a difference between being a "socialist" and a "democratic socialist."
There is a difference between being a "socialist" and a "democratic socialist."
5
The primary's are the pre-game show. Where the Super-PAC money will make a difference is in the actual game, Republican vs Democrat.
2
For me, the real takeaway here was how little Trump spends compared to everyone else, particularly for the amount of support he gets.
It looks like the illusion of endless PAC money (Politico ran a good article about how people misunderstand that lack of campaign money can kill a candidate even though PAC's are flush with cash) separated some candidates into a class of its own, which is rather telling. Back in 2008, and again - in 2012, Obama stood out by running an extremely competent and efficient operation. Looks like few "establishment" guys still manage to pull off something similar.
It looks like the illusion of endless PAC money (Politico ran a good article about how people misunderstand that lack of campaign money can kill a candidate even though PAC's are flush with cash) separated some candidates into a class of its own, which is rather telling. Back in 2008, and again - in 2012, Obama stood out by running an extremely competent and efficient operation. Looks like few "establishment" guys still manage to pull off something similar.
2
The story is not Carson. The story is Sanders. Wake up NY Times! Go Bernie!
9
The Times is correct to identify the advantage of 'outsider' status this election cycle, though it cites the wrong reason for its appeal. It's not (only) that these candidates are not part of the Washington establishment, it's that they have the rare opportunity of being able to say anything - offensive, shocking, blatantly untrue - without risk of losing a re-election.
On the Republican side, this unfiltered approach has energized the ugly base to tremendously lucrative effect over the past months. When Ben Carson suggests that a Muslim should not run for President or that the recent victims of a mass shooting shouldn't have just stood there and allowed themselves to get killed; when Carly Fiorina pontificates about Planned Parenthood videos which do not exist; when Donald Trump refers to Mexican immigrants as rapists - THIS is what electrifies the bigoted, xenophobic base of the right wing. The money has been pouring in at an accelerated rate with every shocking thing said by one of these three. This in turn encourages them to crank up the volume on the ugly rhetoric, while sitting politicians like Rubio and Paul need to be more coded in their intolerant messages.
What a sad, sad commentary on the American electorate.
On the Republican side, this unfiltered approach has energized the ugly base to tremendously lucrative effect over the past months. When Ben Carson suggests that a Muslim should not run for President or that the recent victims of a mass shooting shouldn't have just stood there and allowed themselves to get killed; when Carly Fiorina pontificates about Planned Parenthood videos which do not exist; when Donald Trump refers to Mexican immigrants as rapists - THIS is what electrifies the bigoted, xenophobic base of the right wing. The money has been pouring in at an accelerated rate with every shocking thing said by one of these three. This in turn encourages them to crank up the volume on the ugly rhetoric, while sitting politicians like Rubio and Paul need to be more coded in their intolerant messages.
What a sad, sad commentary on the American electorate.
4
With respect to Christopher Christie, it is encouraging to read that the big money donors have figured out what the people of New Jersey already know: he isn't doing the job of governor, his administration has been a dismal failure that he's lying about all over the country, and with that kind of a non-existent record to run on he would make a bad candidate for the presidency.
From the moment he took office in 2009, Christie has had a parasitical relationship to New Jersey, using his visibility to run for higher office and neglecting the job he was elected to. He says despite his absence most of this year from the state he's still in contact "by cellphone." Most New Jerseyans would laugh at this if they weren't hurting so bad.
The evidence is plain:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/15/new-jersey-voters...
http://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/rutgers-eagleton-christie-trump-nj-2016-...
http://www.app.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/09/25/christie-chris-re...
From the moment he took office in 2009, Christie has had a parasitical relationship to New Jersey, using his visibility to run for higher office and neglecting the job he was elected to. He says despite his absence most of this year from the state he's still in contact "by cellphone." Most New Jerseyans would laugh at this if they weren't hurting so bad.
The evidence is plain:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/15/new-jersey-voters...
http://eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu/rutgers-eagleton-christie-trump-nj-2016-...
http://www.app.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/09/25/christie-chris-re...
3
Characterizing the pathbreaking surgeon Dr. Ben Carson as"upstart Mr. Carson" is at best misplaced condescension and at worst slander.
Talk to the many urban students Dr. Carson invites to John's Hopkins. Those students leave in awe at the accomplishments achieved by Dr. Carson and indeed at awe in touring the magnificent Hopkins facilities. There were no reporters present on these occasions.
What Dr. Carson has is the ability to inspire. Nothing is more important than this in determining success in leading our country.
Talk to the many urban students Dr. Carson invites to John's Hopkins. Those students leave in awe at the accomplishments achieved by Dr. Carson and indeed at awe in touring the magnificent Hopkins facilities. There were no reporters present on these occasions.
What Dr. Carson has is the ability to inspire. Nothing is more important than this in determining success in leading our country.
2
Carson panders to the lie that God guides his scalpel. Some scientist he is.
1
Poll taxes are supposed to be illegal. But I feel this is what our democracy has devolved into, in the form of campaign donations. I give to Bernie Sander's campaign. And I buy his merchandise from his official store.
I do it because I know that my interest group, the middle-class workers who believe in science and reality, are competing against the Koch's, Time Warner, Citigroup, and those 158 families in the top 1% who are used to purchasing whatever candidates they want. And I know corporate media is doing their best to make Bernie invisible, so if we don't donate to his campaign, he has absolutely no chance of getting heard.
But I still feel it's disgusting that it's come to this. It's past time to get all money out of politics. Bernie will see to it that Citizen's United gets overturned by nominating moderates to the Supreme Court. Bernie will push to publicly fund all national elections.
So if we can give Bernie enough moderates in the House and Senate, this very well may be the last election that the workers have to go up against the billionaires on a dollar per dollar basis. I sure hope it is because if we get 8 more years of oligarchy, the middle class might not have enough funds to run another candidate.
I do it because I know that my interest group, the middle-class workers who believe in science and reality, are competing against the Koch's, Time Warner, Citigroup, and those 158 families in the top 1% who are used to purchasing whatever candidates they want. And I know corporate media is doing their best to make Bernie invisible, so if we don't donate to his campaign, he has absolutely no chance of getting heard.
But I still feel it's disgusting that it's come to this. It's past time to get all money out of politics. Bernie will see to it that Citizen's United gets overturned by nominating moderates to the Supreme Court. Bernie will push to publicly fund all national elections.
So if we can give Bernie enough moderates in the House and Senate, this very well may be the last election that the workers have to go up against the billionaires on a dollar per dollar basis. I sure hope it is because if we get 8 more years of oligarchy, the middle class might not have enough funds to run another candidate.
8
I don't know why people say that Sanders is an outsider. He is not.
He is a politician. He has been in the American congress for a long time.
During his time in congress, like many of his colleagues, he has been voting according to what gets him re-elected (case in point: guns).
And people give money to his campaign under the impression that he is an outsider. He is not! He is part of the political establishment.
He is a politician. He has been in the American congress for a long time.
During his time in congress, like many of his colleagues, he has been voting according to what gets him re-elected (case in point: guns).
And people give money to his campaign under the impression that he is an outsider. He is not! He is part of the political establishment.
1
The article is written in a very unclear fashion. It seems skewed to deny that Hillary Clinton continues to raise more money than Sanders. It is like the articles about the polls. If she leads in the polls, even by a wide margin, but Sanders has gained the headlines and the articles will all about Sanders gains. The Times seems to have a collective anti-Clinton bias.
For those who complain about money in politics the main fault is not the candidates or even Citizens United it is the Media companies. Most of the money gets spent on ads and the like. Let the Times, the Washington Post, CBS, NBC and ABC give free air time and space and the cost of campaigns will go down.
For those who complain about money in politics the main fault is not the candidates or even Citizens United it is the Media companies. Most of the money gets spent on ads and the like. Let the Times, the Washington Post, CBS, NBC and ABC give free air time and space and the cost of campaigns will go down.
1
I would much have preferred the Times using "traditional" and "non-traditional" rather than "insider" and "outsider," with all the connotations of such labels.
To call Bernie Sanders an outsider, having been a mayor, a representative and a senator, spanning a 25 year career in politics, is a total mislabeling. Furthermore, though he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, he is hardly that; not even close. He is a classic reformer-Progressive in the mold of Hiram Johnson or Robert LaFollette.
In a sense, as crazily as this election is developing, it certainly is about as entertaining as it gets to a political junkie like myself. Basically we have a national food fight on the Republican side and a guerrilla vs. redcoat battle on the Democratic side.
To call Bernie Sanders an outsider, having been a mayor, a representative and a senator, spanning a 25 year career in politics, is a total mislabeling. Furthermore, though he calls himself a Democratic Socialist, he is hardly that; not even close. He is a classic reformer-Progressive in the mold of Hiram Johnson or Robert LaFollette.
In a sense, as crazily as this election is developing, it certainly is about as entertaining as it gets to a political junkie like myself. Basically we have a national food fight on the Republican side and a guerrilla vs. redcoat battle on the Democratic side.
5
Who wins every election every time and gets all the money for all candidates?
The Television industry.
The Television industry.
2
It's really difficult for me to understand how Ben Carson commands donations into the tens of millions in a quarter-year's time. Who reaches into deep pockets to keep this candidacy alive? He speaks as if he performed a self-lobotomy. He has absolutely no credibility about any subject. The New York Times scurries to one side in its haste to grant him a forum. This fellow is an "outsider" in every definition of the word. Those who pay him serious heed are picking up a snake by its tail. I guess I'm depressed that so many people think so much of him so as to give him staying power. Bernie Sanders, a career politician, by contrast, and a New Yorker to boot, scarcely merits a mention in a story, and near the bottom at that. When are we going to wake up?
3
Campaign finance laws and a shorter election cycle, please. Wasn't it Winston Churchill who opined "the Americans will get it right ... once they've exhausted every other option."
5
One has to wonder, given this phenomenon, are the establishment candidates really waiting for Super Tuesday to break the piggy banks of the true 'outsiders'?
A friend of mine once suggested we elect the president by selling lottery tickets. We buy tickets with the name of a candidate. The candidate that sells the most tickets wins the election and some random person becomes a billionaire. We are pretty close to that except for the random new billionaire.
Liberals living and working on the east and west coasts of this country are underestimating the unrest and anger that exists in, all probability, a majority of the rest of the population. People are tired of the way our country is going and are seeking an "outsider" to turn things around. People are tired of " political correctness" which tries to limit our freedom of speech by telling us which words to use and not to use, out of fear of possibly offending some sensitive soul. They are tired of being called "haters" and "bigots" because they criticize behavior that was considereds deviant for centuries; they are tired of the dumbing down of our schools so we can pretend that everyone has equal abilities; they are tired of endless wars that kill our young people for no valid discernable reason, and the list goes on.....For the Democrats, Sanders is considered an outsider only because he is the only alternative to Clinton...For the Republicans, Carson will most likely prevail as Trump is seen as too extreme by most voters.
3
They look like they are idolating to be Raptured to me.
If you think that "liberals" on the coasts (and in between) don't share in that unrest and, yes, anger, you haven't been paying attention. Of course, they won't be angry about all the same things that anti-liberals fume over (and vice-versa), but hey, take heart--it's pretty likely that a majority of us, liberal to conservative, are sick of *some* of the same stuff!
4
"The steady fund-raising of outsider candidates, who have tapped into a network of smaller donors, suggests a financial paradigm shift in both parties, but particularly on the right, where candidates beloved by the Republicans’ socially conservative and evangelical base have sometimes struggled to muster the financial resources to sustain a long-term campaign for the nomination."
So, if I understand this right. the amazing amount of money being raised by Carson, for example, is coming from middle to lower class folks whose religion and social values are more important to them than the future of the country in terms of larger issues: climate change, income inequality, racial justice, immigration and the like. While I simply can't fathom the support for Carson--the strangest man who keeps closing his eyes while spewing distorted views of history and his own fixation on religion in America--I guess these "average" social conservatives are now feeling their weight.
I find it sad, however, that so many with so few means would give to politicians of the stripe of Carson. While everyone is free to spend their money as they choose, what we're witnessing is the battle of the bucks: big business donors trying to buy their leaders (establishment types, like Rubio and Bush) and this vast universe of evangelicals who are buying ideology.
What each type donor wants in return for their money is frightening, particularly if it should lead to outright perversion of the first amendment.
So, if I understand this right. the amazing amount of money being raised by Carson, for example, is coming from middle to lower class folks whose religion and social values are more important to them than the future of the country in terms of larger issues: climate change, income inequality, racial justice, immigration and the like. While I simply can't fathom the support for Carson--the strangest man who keeps closing his eyes while spewing distorted views of history and his own fixation on religion in America--I guess these "average" social conservatives are now feeling their weight.
I find it sad, however, that so many with so few means would give to politicians of the stripe of Carson. While everyone is free to spend their money as they choose, what we're witnessing is the battle of the bucks: big business donors trying to buy their leaders (establishment types, like Rubio and Bush) and this vast universe of evangelicals who are buying ideology.
What each type donor wants in return for their money is frightening, particularly if it should lead to outright perversion of the first amendment.
5
The Kochs are going to invest $800,000,000 in this election. Let's talk breathlessly about these numbers in six months, when Jeb! is annihilating Bernie with 24 / 7 negative ads.
Mr. Exclamation Point is done, finished, over, kaput. Feel free to use whatever term you like. When even Republicans aren't buying his warmed over "W's Third Term" arguments, not even all the Koch dollars will resurrect him. The Kochs may be narrow minded and mean spirited but they are not stupid and will not waste their money on a fool like Mr. Exclamation Point.
The Unites States Senate is the upper house of Congress with only 100 members representing over 340 million people. No member of the Senate or even the House of Representatives should be considered an outsider.
The defintion of an outsider should not be candidates without Super-Pacs nor oligarchy financial backing.
The defintion of an outsider should not be candidates without Super-Pacs nor oligarchy financial backing.
1
Money, money, money . . . . Why is it that anything having to do with money is sure to make a headline. We may as well all die and just leave a big lump of cash in the bank behind us, and the media and advertising world would continue to go on happily without us in a world devoid of listeners, because all that matters anymore is cash, and certainly not blood.
I find it interesting that the NYT, in its efforts to try to focus the evils of big money in politics on the Republicans, buries the amount of dollars raised by the Dem candidates in the 9th paragraph of this story and doesn't even mention it in the Daily Briefing. Hillary Clinton actually leads the latest month's fundraising list at $30 million, followed by Bernie Sanders at $26 million. After Ben Carson, the next 3 top Republican candidates fundraising efforts come in at less than $25 million combined.
One might argue that Democratic donations come in smaller amounts from greater numbers of people as opposed to the larger donations of fewer super PACs to Republican candidates. Since that's the case the NYT should rest easy that in a country where one person=one vote their beloved Dems should prevail.
I agree that campaign finance reform is absolutely necessary in this country. But it would be nice if, as one America's largest NEWS papers, the NYT could at least acknowledge that this is an issue of concern for BOTH parties.
One might argue that Democratic donations come in smaller amounts from greater numbers of people as opposed to the larger donations of fewer super PACs to Republican candidates. Since that's the case the NYT should rest easy that in a country where one person=one vote their beloved Dems should prevail.
I agree that campaign finance reform is absolutely necessary in this country. But it would be nice if, as one America's largest NEWS papers, the NYT could at least acknowledge that this is an issue of concern for BOTH parties.
4
I would like to see a list of the top ten donors for each candidate. This information is critical in determining who will benefit from a candidate's election.
10
100 years ago the New York Times would print entire several thousand word speeches from presidential candidates.
Now all the New York Times does is write pieces about how much money the candidates have raised and where they are in the polls.
Now all the New York Times does is write pieces about how much money the candidates have raised and where they are in the polls.
6
I love it. I've predicted for a few years with the rise of social media, people becoming more and more comfortable buying things online, and a smart phone in everyone's hand, being able to raise money from small donors like me and my parents, etc will allow someone to run without a Super PAC. Enter Mr Sanders!
9
A clarifying word about "outsiders": The appeal of anti-establishment "outsider" candidates is partly based on a fraud foisted on America by mere rhetorical trickery. The word most often employed by these "outsiders" to indicate their supposed separation from "politics as usual" is "Washington." "Washington," however, is many things. It is not just a Democrat in the White House, or government "regulations" -- the two things Republicans intend when they vilify the term "Washington." "Washington" is also the tens of thousands of lobbyists in Washington working for big business and the banking industry, and all of their money and influence. "Washington" is the Heritage Foundation, the Grover Norquist "pledge" that seems to trump any Congressman's oath of office, and thousands of daily back-room deals between Congressmen and "special interests" (BTW, pray tell what is so "special" about them?). All of these activities on the hidden side of "Washington" create legal freeways to purposely enrich the few at the cost of the many; in some cases they seek to destroy the ability of government to work at all so as to make it the target of further criticism. It is these hidden elements of "Washington" that are the real culprits behind the term "Washington" when used to vilify our government, or to attack the President when the President is a Democrat. But you can bet your last dollar that few people are more plugged into "Washington" than those who declaim it the loudest.
3
"special" in special interest means they have a single legislative agenda favoring a single interest. But you are right that they work together, such as tobacco supporting coal, into a grand alliance known now as Republicans-- and nothing special about them. Privileged monetary may be a better term to describe them. For example, we learn today that collecting capital gains taxes on estates at death would more than pay for tuition for all students at 4 year public colleges.
I am totally impressed by the American people. For the past decade or so, I've been blaming the ordinary citizens for sending those incompetent, self-centered politicians to the congress and white house. If I have to use an adjective for Bush, it won't be civil. As for Obama, while smart and good intentioned, is too inexperienced to take such a heavy-weight job. I didn't vote for either one. In fact, in 2012 I didn't vote for the first time in my voting life. The options were too dismal to cast my ballot. :(
This election cycle has proven that Americans see clearly what's going on in this nation's politics. They abandoned the "seasoned" established candidates and favor the outsiders who offer fresh ideas rather than the stock talking points - with the exception of Clinton. They put their money where their mouth is and give generously.
I see a ray of hope for this democracy. Of course, the game is far from over. Let's see how it all turn out.
This election cycle has proven that Americans see clearly what's going on in this nation's politics. They abandoned the "seasoned" established candidates and favor the outsiders who offer fresh ideas rather than the stock talking points - with the exception of Clinton. They put their money where their mouth is and give generously.
I see a ray of hope for this democracy. Of course, the game is far from over. Let's see how it all turn out.
2
Democratic forms of government, with those messy elections, often present us with a "Hobson's Choice" between sub-optimal alternatives. But, to opt out of making a choice and moving forward as best we can is to deny those values we purport to hold mst dear and has led to the current state of affairs. Sometimes you MUST choose what you believe is the lesser of evils. I, for one, thought that 2012 presented voters with a very clear choice; neither candidate was in any sense evil or incompetent, but one was clearly superior. I leave it to the reader to work out who I voted for.
In most quotes I have read or heard, including in the debate earlier this week, Senator Sanders is not a "self-described socialist"; he describes himself as a "democratic socialist", which is not the same thing, and I find it misleading to report otherwise.
22
What has Hillary Clinton spent $50 million on?
That's about the same as Trump, Bush, Cruz, and Rubio *combined*.
That's about the same as Trump, Bush, Cruz, and Rubio *combined*.
3
The majority of the money HILLARY's campaign has spent has been on *gasp*.... Fundraising!
All those posh, upscale gala events that she holds for her big donors cost A LOT of money. Much more money than Bernie needs to spend on renting out a colesium for a day to speak with 20,000 real Americans!
All those posh, upscale gala events that she holds for her big donors cost A LOT of money. Much more money than Bernie needs to spend on renting out a colesium for a day to speak with 20,000 real Americans!
Well, here we go folks. The media's "red-washing" campaign on Bernie Sanders' is about to go full-tilt. First, all the major media outlets proclaim Hillary as the overwhelming victor in a debate that essentially every single poll and focus group show Bernie as the favorite in (by 30-40 points over Hillary in most cases)
Now we have the NYT casting him as an "outsider" and burying him an article far below people such as Ben Carson, and describing simply as a "socialist". (Keep in mind, Bernie has been in politics for 30 years and held congressional office for many years.. The only thing different about his campaign is his choice not to use a Super PAC. How that even makes him an "outsider" is baffling. He's a career politician)
This is becoming more and more interesting by the day. You can look at the buzz around the Internet and even on the comments section of nearly every NYT article this week since the debate, to see that people are not blind, we see what's going on, and the days of the billionaires buying an election and framing it their way in the media are over!
The jig is up!
Now we have the NYT casting him as an "outsider" and burying him an article far below people such as Ben Carson, and describing simply as a "socialist". (Keep in mind, Bernie has been in politics for 30 years and held congressional office for many years.. The only thing different about his campaign is his choice not to use a Super PAC. How that even makes him an "outsider" is baffling. He's a career politician)
This is becoming more and more interesting by the day. You can look at the buzz around the Internet and even on the comments section of nearly every NYT article this week since the debate, to see that people are not blind, we see what's going on, and the days of the billionaires buying an election and framing it their way in the media are over!
The jig is up!
31
I completely agree. And it breaks my heart. I used to love the New York Times. Now, I am just thoroughly disappointed.
7
There's also a huge difference in the amount of time spent campaigning, versus the amount of time spent fundraising! I would LOVE to see those numbers. This is one of the fundamental causes for why Bernie is resonating with the people so heavily, because he is not spending 90% of his calendar days pandering to millionaires and billionaires in posh, back room fundraising events!
2
To borrow a campaign theme utterance from Bill Clinton "it is the economy stupid." Today let me propose that "it is the reelection stupid." The biggest inflection point where we loose good people in elected office to corruption, ethical amnesia and moral degradation is the point at which the newly elected offical is swept up in the euphoria of seeking reelection. For many multiform office holders, the power of the office becomes a form of addiction and the threat of loosing is intolerable. The effective methods of bribery and extortion exercised by lobbyists and special interest groups become the LBJ hail storm in southern Texas, producing a future of "nowhere to run and nowhere to hide." We need to elect people to offices with adjusted single terms. Once a person has occupied the office for a single term , that person will be be ineligible for reelection to that office.
If the anti-free speech Socialist Progressive Democrats had their way the only groups who could finance candidates would be the national parties and labor unions, ensuring that the establishment will always win. Remember that the next time you folks ignorantly trash Citizens United.
2
Money is not speech.
4
It depends on who's talking.
I make less than middle class earnings and my wife is a school teacher. When I heard the corporate media(establishment) chorus of heavily biased and premeditated judgement of Tuesday's debate, I immediately donated $50 to the Sanders campaign. That's not money I can easily afford to spend but doing so gave me a sense of freedom and fighting back against those who care not for working class people.
31
The point of your article is really part of a larger phenomenon; people donating money to candidates with little, or no, chance of winning in the long run. They are expressing their anger with their money - both at Mr. Obama and at moderate Republicans - knowing full well (though hoping to be wrong) that Ben Carson and even Donald Trump are not going anywhere. It makes them feel better to send money as they feel disenfranchised (read: Tea Partiers.) This is purely a Republican construct.
Bernie Sanders gets money for idealism and because he's a decent person, not an angry one.
All the Republican Tea Party donations to outsiders accomplish is to dilute the pool of money available to the eventual candidate. One day the Republicans will put it all together and learn that unity, not anger, elects Presidents.
Bernie Sanders gets money for idealism and because he's a decent person, not an angry one.
All the Republican Tea Party donations to outsiders accomplish is to dilute the pool of money available to the eventual candidate. One day the Republicans will put it all together and learn that unity, not anger, elects Presidents.
3
This is precisely a major reason that I support Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, while an admirable, intelligent and able candidate, is mired in the very moneyed interest machine that I and many detest. While asserting much of what we want to hear, behind the curtain is the same old.
She is irreversibly beholden to and tainted by super pacs.
Bernie is irreversibly ours.
She is irreversibly beholden to and tainted by super pacs.
Bernie is irreversibly ours.
13
It feels early to be drawing too many conclusions about the ultimate significance of "outsiders'" fund-raising. Caucuses and voting won't start until early 2016 and the debates are still ongoing (now Trump and Carson threaten not to participate until their demands are met). Stay tuned.
1
So let me see : NYT is conforming as a insider tool to the Super PAC system of Politics, and Ones who does not ask for Donation/bribe becomes 'Outsider'
5
Not a single one of those seeking election for the presidency is a leader (nor were any of their predecessors), and none should be elected. A REAL leader would have positive on-the-ground results proving he/she knows what to do to solve our most serious problems, and the public would know it. Anyone needing money to convince the public they can/will do what needs to be done dramatically magnifies their incompetence, inadequacies, and lack of leadership ability. We need REAL leaders in our most important leadership positions, not the tightly controlled, bought-and-paid-for puppets we have now, and have had in the past. Get up, get out, and get actively involved in the politics and governance of your country (reading/viewing/discussing the pathetic propaganda that is put out for your information, and decision-making, is foolish at best), find people who are REAL leaders, and elect them.
1
Funny- I don't recall any commentaries about the Lincoln-Douglas debates mentioning who was ahead in raising money. Then: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Now: "I'm not a scientist- I have no idea how old the world is." When money takes precedence over ideas, this is what you get.
11
As an independent, it becomes obvious from the slant of this story and others that the New York Times is as yellow (or more) as the Rupert Murdoch empire when it comes to "reporting" the "news". Instead of giving factual reporting the Times uses certain words and language in an attempt to brainwash the readers into taking a certain point of view. The bias toward Hillary Clinton is obvious, and the stronger it becomes the more many of us despise it. Her connections to Wall Street and "big money" make her arguments about reform ring hollow. She is polished and reads the script (tailored to the latest polls) well but so did Reagan, a B-grade actor controlled by Orange County Republicans. Those writing the script remain shadows in the background.
I want a candidate to vote FOR, not one that I hold my nose when I check the box in an effort to get the lesser of two evils. If Hillary is the candidate, I'll hope for a decent 3rd party name on the ballot because I cannot give her my support, no matter what the press has to say about her.
I want a candidate to vote FOR, not one that I hold my nose when I check the box in an effort to get the lesser of two evils. If Hillary is the candidate, I'll hope for a decent 3rd party name on the ballot because I cannot give her my support, no matter what the press has to say about her.
12
Just the fact that the NYT even thinks in terms of "outsider" and "insider" reveals the clique mentality that supports Hillary Clinton on these pages. For shame.
Democracy is not a clique. Democracy is, in fact, the anti-clique. As a Vermont town clerk who oversees elections, my primary goal is to make sure everyone who is eligible to vote knows this so that they can come to the polls confident that they are equals. This kind of journalism undermines these efforts.
How about this? The will of the people - real people, not corporations - cannot be suppressed by unfair campaign financing tactics that favor the super wealthy. We may not be rich, but we are many, and like the scrappy Minutemen scattered through the New England fields who took down the well-funded Red Coats, we will be victorious.
Democracy is not a clique. Democracy is, in fact, the anti-clique. As a Vermont town clerk who oversees elections, my primary goal is to make sure everyone who is eligible to vote knows this so that they can come to the polls confident that they are equals. This kind of journalism undermines these efforts.
How about this? The will of the people - real people, not corporations - cannot be suppressed by unfair campaign financing tactics that favor the super wealthy. We may not be rich, but we are many, and like the scrappy Minutemen scattered through the New England fields who took down the well-funded Red Coats, we will be victorious.
11
You have to pay extra for access to the insiders here.
Is this the US version of Arab Spring? Where we fund the ousting of our established leaders with campaign donations instead of bullets? As much as we dislike the status quo politicians who have been running the country (into the ground) for decades, will we regret their departure when we have a Carson, Trump, or Sanders leading us? The tea party and Obama have shown us what you get when leaders bent on change with no compromise are implanted in government. Lots of rhetoric and party bashing and month cooperation to get things done. Changing of the guard in the middle east led to chaos. What will it lead to here?
Clinton and Bush spend a vast amount of their campaign time at fundraisers. Bernie Sanders spends his time speaking to the American people about the reality of our situation. Accordingly, he reflects a more realistic and solution-based policy platform. He has no need to tiptoe around the feelings of mega-donors, and the strings attached to their donations.
The results are obvious.
The results are obvious.
23
What a difference! No more smoke-filled backroom big wigs anointing the next nominee carefully groomed to protect their interests, funnel governmental money their way.
It seems that the republican establishment is upset that Trump and Carson have pretty much co-opted the religious right in America. Cause for celebration.
I celebrate that more candidates are crowd-sourcing. I celebrate that Americans do not want anyone qualified (say Christie, Kasich), or the dauphin (Jeb). I celebrate that Sanders can say what is right (big business owns us), and embrace the label of 'socialism' - quite misapplied in his case.
That Ben Carson, without a single real policy cred, can make a presidential run as his vehicle for selling strong opinions (in a book) gives me hope. Authoring books was once a vehicle for making a presidential runs and not the other way around. No one got this much traction.
That Trump is bidding in an American auction - and not an election - gives me hope. He outbids on promises (eternal youth, no taxes, 10% growth, no more deficit, or crime), and love (he loves Blacks, Hispanics, foreign born more than you), and buildings (his wall will be taller, longer, and cheaper than yours - and free!). Once one had to sell oneself to the highest bidder to become president; no longer.
These are good things. When we embraced the view that people have not just different views, but that all views are equally meritorious - these outcomes were bound to occur.
It seems that the republican establishment is upset that Trump and Carson have pretty much co-opted the religious right in America. Cause for celebration.
I celebrate that more candidates are crowd-sourcing. I celebrate that Americans do not want anyone qualified (say Christie, Kasich), or the dauphin (Jeb). I celebrate that Sanders can say what is right (big business owns us), and embrace the label of 'socialism' - quite misapplied in his case.
That Ben Carson, without a single real policy cred, can make a presidential run as his vehicle for selling strong opinions (in a book) gives me hope. Authoring books was once a vehicle for making a presidential runs and not the other way around. No one got this much traction.
That Trump is bidding in an American auction - and not an election - gives me hope. He outbids on promises (eternal youth, no taxes, 10% growth, no more deficit, or crime), and love (he loves Blacks, Hispanics, foreign born more than you), and buildings (his wall will be taller, longer, and cheaper than yours - and free!). Once one had to sell oneself to the highest bidder to become president; no longer.
These are good things. When we embraced the view that people have not just different views, but that all views are equally meritorious - these outcomes were bound to occur.
1
The rhetoric continues to be shamefully irresponsible. Bernie Sanders is not an "outsider". He has been in the House and Senate for 25 total years and was the mayor of Burlington for 10 years before that. He just hasn't spent those years taking orders from the big-money interests that remain unidentified in this article; like Hillary has, for example. He can't be lumped in with Rubio, Cruz, Paul, Fiorina or Carson.
Secondly, here we go again with the "socialist" baloney. You include a completely unnecessary quote from a lobbyist for a corporate profit cabal calling itself the "Chamber" of Commerce, in which the label socialist is, once again, inaccurately applied. Bernie is a self-described social-Democrat. Social Democracy, believed in by FDR and JFK and Johnson, among other great U.S. Presidents, as well as by a majority of Americans who send their kids to free public elementary and high school and, later, collect social security and expect their street lights to work and pot holes to be filled, is very different from socialism, which is ignorantly believed to be the equivalent of the Red Menace of Communism.
Finally, the term "insurgent" has recently been regularly, consciously and irresponsibly used to describe the Sanders campaign and is now broadly used. It is a smear that must stop. "Insurgents" are currently beheading people and blowing civilians up in multiple wars, not running for President of the United States.
Secondly, here we go again with the "socialist" baloney. You include a completely unnecessary quote from a lobbyist for a corporate profit cabal calling itself the "Chamber" of Commerce, in which the label socialist is, once again, inaccurately applied. Bernie is a self-described social-Democrat. Social Democracy, believed in by FDR and JFK and Johnson, among other great U.S. Presidents, as well as by a majority of Americans who send their kids to free public elementary and high school and, later, collect social security and expect their street lights to work and pot holes to be filled, is very different from socialism, which is ignorantly believed to be the equivalent of the Red Menace of Communism.
Finally, the term "insurgent" has recently been regularly, consciously and irresponsibly used to describe the Sanders campaign and is now broadly used. It is a smear that must stop. "Insurgents" are currently beheading people and blowing civilians up in multiple wars, not running for President of the United States.
24
Bernie has done darned well. I myself give a small donation automatically each month. Multiply this by millions and you get enough money to be competitive. How can Hillary hope to change political financing when she herself is accepting funds from big donors? I feel the future of this country is hopeless. When you get someone like Carson raising so much money I question the intelligence of the electorate.
13
"A self-described Socialist"? That's really all you can say about Bernie Sanders?
Not even "a Progressive Democrat" or "a long-term progressive"?
I would also question the overall thesis of your article. Bernie Sanders' money has come in small donations averaging around $30/person from individual Americans, while the other major candidates, especially on the Republican side, have often-gigantic "super PAC's" with tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars, ready to start promotional blitzes for their candidates.
So it matters far less to those candidates how much they receive from average Americans, because they know that when they really need it, the billionaire class will be there with their super PAC's and seemingly-endless wads of cash, all they could hope for in the final days of a primary or in a general election.
Our campaign financing system is broken, and writing an article like this from a 1960's viewpoint presents campaign financing from a viewpoint that died with Citizens United.
Not even "a Progressive Democrat" or "a long-term progressive"?
I would also question the overall thesis of your article. Bernie Sanders' money has come in small donations averaging around $30/person from individual Americans, while the other major candidates, especially on the Republican side, have often-gigantic "super PAC's" with tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars, ready to start promotional blitzes for their candidates.
So it matters far less to those candidates how much they receive from average Americans, because they know that when they really need it, the billionaire class will be there with their super PAC's and seemingly-endless wads of cash, all they could hope for in the final days of a primary or in a general election.
Our campaign financing system is broken, and writing an article like this from a 1960's viewpoint presents campaign financing from a viewpoint that died with Citizens United.
17
They have to be bought! They're running for president, for crying out loud.
Those who contribute through super pacs, the wealthiest few among us who support the two party presidential candidates are American `insiders,` while those who campaign and contribute outside the super pacs are American `outsiders.` This article seems a piece of separatist propaganda intended to widen the gap between voting Americans. I am a voting American citizen and I do not consider myself an`outsider.` I contribute to Senator Sander's presidential campaign. Senator Sanders is an esteemed American statesman, and neither is he an `outsider.` I have heard this manipulative, separatist rumble all my life, and unfortunately, I read it in this article this morning. Lets get the `insider` money out of presidential campaigns so that the wealthiest few don't define American politics,
20
Not a mention of what this money could do for people, our economy, our infrastructure, research and development et al. It is all about the money and enriching the conglomerate media.
Shorten the election cycle and get the money out of politics is what the people want. They want a fair shake and opportunity for their children and a decent place to live where money and power has driven up the price of land all over the world making rents higher and higher. Disgusting.
Shorten the election cycle and get the money out of politics is what the people want. They want a fair shake and opportunity for their children and a decent place to live where money and power has driven up the price of land all over the world making rents higher and higher. Disgusting.
14
What is an "outsider?" The Republican establishment has made the pretension to "outsider" status one of the central tenets of its marketing strategy for decades. Everyone from Reagan to the "Tea Party" pose as outsiders anxious to join the establishment & destroy it. And no one in either party can become viable unless their ideology or their promises draw the cash to enter the game, so ultimately anyone who has access to the vast fortunes required for national campaigns is an "insider," to the political system if not to a particular political party establishment.
We might have wondered if Mr. Trump's inherited wealth qualified him as an "outsider," but his tax plans made clear that the rewarding of wealth was the guiding principle. Sanders is the only one in either party who is to an extent positioning himself outside of this system of organized bribery, both in his ideology and in his fundraising sources.
We might have wondered if Mr. Trump's inherited wealth qualified him as an "outsider," but his tax plans made clear that the rewarding of wealth was the guiding principle. Sanders is the only one in either party who is to an extent positioning himself outside of this system of organized bribery, both in his ideology and in his fundraising sources.
21
Amazing what can happen when millions of people find good candidates to support, all across the country, and send them a few dollars along with a commitment for their vote. BIG money loses because ALL they can buy is OUR votes. Good Job Good People of America! Let's keep it up and elect people at all levels of government who will restore democracy in America. By the way, Ben Carson is having a field day buying expensive meals, riding around in limos and wasting your hard-earned dollars. He, like DT, is only interested in promoting himself and could care less about us "lessers." Stop wasting your money.
15
“The narrative earlier this year about how money matters is being flushed,” said Scott W. Reed, the senior political strategist for the United States Chamber of Commerce.
Surprise, surprise. One of the largest pro-business, pro-corporate lobbying organizations in the United States wants us to believe that money doesn't matter in American politics, that it doesn't corrupt the democratic process.
Why in the world is Reed, senior strategist for the business group, the only individual chosen by reporters Confessore and Lichtblau to assess the over-all influence of money in politics in this piece? Should one really expect an objective opinion on the effect of money in elections from a Chamber official?
The Chamber is dominated by oil companies, pharmaceutical giants, automakers and other polluting industries," according to James Carter, executive director of the Green Chamber of Commerce, in a 2010 NY Times article.
These are the 1 percent interests that have been most successful in capturing the allegiances of Senators and Congressional Representatives by their lavish campaign contributions.
The sames Times article reported that "the Chamber's $140 million in contributions in 2008 came from just 45 big-money donors, many of whom enlisted the Chamber's help to fight political and public opinion battles on their behalf (such as opposing financial or healthcare reforms, or other regulations)."
What do representatives of Common Cause or Public Citizen think about this?
Surprise, surprise. One of the largest pro-business, pro-corporate lobbying organizations in the United States wants us to believe that money doesn't matter in American politics, that it doesn't corrupt the democratic process.
Why in the world is Reed, senior strategist for the business group, the only individual chosen by reporters Confessore and Lichtblau to assess the over-all influence of money in politics in this piece? Should one really expect an objective opinion on the effect of money in elections from a Chamber official?
The Chamber is dominated by oil companies, pharmaceutical giants, automakers and other polluting industries," according to James Carter, executive director of the Green Chamber of Commerce, in a 2010 NY Times article.
These are the 1 percent interests that have been most successful in capturing the allegiances of Senators and Congressional Representatives by their lavish campaign contributions.
The sames Times article reported that "the Chamber's $140 million in contributions in 2008 came from just 45 big-money donors, many of whom enlisted the Chamber's help to fight political and public opinion battles on their behalf (such as opposing financial or healthcare reforms, or other regulations)."
What do representatives of Common Cause or Public Citizen think about this?
54
A continuing idea in the comments section is that the NYTimes is subject to financial pressure that tilts its reporting. No doubt. But might I suggest that it may just be laziness on the reporters' parts that they quote publicists who make themselves easily available to the reporters, rather than taking the additional effort to seek out diverse opinions?
This is a sad commentary on the political system in this country. It's all about money. Not to mention the election cycle is way too long. We need to look at what the UK does during their elections. A short election "season" and money takes a back seat.
And last time I checked Bernie Sanders IS NOT an outsider. The press continues to be a shill for Hillary Clinton.
And last time I checked Bernie Sanders IS NOT an outsider. The press continues to be a shill for Hillary Clinton.
80
With the arrival of television insider, Trump, we finally see someone pointing at the media saying they are raising the commercial prices on the debates he is in. Why does this matter? Cuz the beneficiary of the enormous spending in American political campaigns is Big Media. All the rules about money apply to the candidates, do this-don't do that, but the beneficiary of the spending is unencumbered, to feature one candidate and ignore others, affecting polling, or to run defense the way it always seems they do what benefits the Clintons (many Clinton Administration former employees sitting in the best seats in Big Media news divisions. The candidates should all get equal minutes on the basic cable channels; a debate should not have commercials, it can be sponsored at cost. The media always joins in the rant about campaign funding/too much spending, but it is they who receive a lot of this cash in payment. And the establishment on both sides, takes money from lobbyists, it is only that people LIKE some of the lobbyists, and other people dislike them, Senator Warren feigns disdain in her speeches, winking at them. Mrs. Clinton collects money on Wall Street; her entire family makes their living from hedge funds, and she talks like she is going to tax them into oblivion, (just as soon as Marc, Chelsea and Charlotte have enough.) Mr. Trump is like the rest of the people, he makes money in real estate, borrows from banks; he knows first hand home equity is DEAD under Obama.
True. Constant campaigning pits individual legislators from devoting full attention to doing what they were elected to do. Why not extend Congressional terms and impose term limits?
Characterizing these candidates as "outsiders, insurgents, self-described socialist" shows how afraid the establishment institutions are. They are frightened that the entrenched capitalist-oligarchy is in danger of a populist revolution, which is another way of saying that the people have had enough of the gilded class running amok through our freedoms, rights and financial security.
We, the People, are speaking loudly. Change is coming.
We, the People, are speaking loudly. Change is coming.
43
As usual Sanders is downplayed by saying Carson's effort are the most striking. Bernie has raised more and by even smaller donors. Outside of Carson on the republican side, the moguls have found how easy it is to buy a candidate. For them it's a small investment with the potential of huge returns.
49
I'd point out that accepting cash from billionaires, spending $11 million on TV to raise $14 million in the classic fashion of a crooked TV preacher, and pandering to right-wing suckers so they all send you a hundred bucks, isn't exactly political fund-raising.
12
Re: Bernie Sanders. I guess non-believers are wondering how so many commies and socialists have such a whooping $20 or $30 with which to contribute.
24
Ralph Nader, for whom I have great respect, said that there is no democracy, only one hundred and thirty greedy corporations running the whole show. A very good example of this is what is happening in Red China. The CCP is the cruelest regime that has ever existed on this planet, having murdered eighty million of its own people since 1949, and still today, trying to eliminate tens of millions of innocent Falun Gong by the use of torture, slavery, organ harvesting and murder. Yet, the useless U.N. appointed China a seat on its Human Rights Council last year. Democracy is an illusion, human greed is a fact!
12
By the way, we do know who writes your checks, NY Times: and your sponsorship is becoming more and more apparent with each article.
53
Yet another reason why we need to get the money out of politics. Use taxpayer money and let's have a fair campaign based on the issues, not hidden agendas.
32
Forget taxpayer money. Take one look at Bernie Sanders' campaign. That's how it should be done.
Nobody is forced to contribute via taxes and nobody is donating millions for out-sized influence, but he has more than enough cash to pay the bills.
It proves that if a candidate runs an honest campaign with views that connect with millions of people across the nation, then that candidate can raise more than enough money from people willing to donate a twenty here and there.
It's amazing how well good old integrity can work. Sadly, it's rare these days.
Nobody is forced to contribute via taxes and nobody is donating millions for out-sized influence, but he has more than enough cash to pay the bills.
It proves that if a candidate runs an honest campaign with views that connect with millions of people across the nation, then that candidate can raise more than enough money from people willing to donate a twenty here and there.
It's amazing how well good old integrity can work. Sadly, it's rare these days.
2
As the ABBA song goes "Money, money, money, must be funny in a rich man's world."
It's not funny to think about the behind the scenes going after that money to become president of the United States. Not funny at all.
It's not funny to think about the behind the scenes going after that money to become president of the United States. Not funny at all.
12
Should an 'outsider' ultimately ascend to POTUS, despite party label, given their innate naiveté in actual governance, has consideration been given to potential bipartisanship comeuppance in Congress being reached for the sake of accomplishing goals for the betterment of the country?
Is NYT trying to downplay the Sanders phenomenon? He's raised more money than Carson but Carson gets the lead photo and more mentions in the article.
97
Well that's because they are trying to smear Carson as the candidate of big scary money while we all know Bernie is pure as the driven snow.
So from this is one to conclude that "citizens united" was a move toward greater democracy?
13
Perhaps.
It seems that the outrage over Citizens United awoke a sleeping giant. The people are beginning to fight back against big money the only way they can... a few bucks at a time.
Call it citizens united (all small letters).
It seems that the outrage over Citizens United awoke a sleeping giant. The people are beginning to fight back against big money the only way they can... a few bucks at a time.
Call it citizens united (all small letters).
“The narrative earlier this year about how money matters is being flushed."
***
Give the American people more credit than to be controlled by a few big wealthy players. Will we now get a break in the complaints about a "rigged" system and big money controlling the universe? (Big money can lose elections as well.)
The only real outsiders are Trump and Carson. All the others are politicians. Not taking PAC money doesn't make someone an outsider, especially after decades in office.
***
Give the American people more credit than to be controlled by a few big wealthy players. Will we now get a break in the complaints about a "rigged" system and big money controlling the universe? (Big money can lose elections as well.)
The only real outsiders are Trump and Carson. All the others are politicians. Not taking PAC money doesn't make someone an outsider, especially after decades in office.
11
Ted Cruz is a US Senator. How does that make him an 'outsider'?
42
Well, he was born in Canada, and he's pretty much nuts, if that helps explain.
27
In a NYT-elite-centric universe, Cruz is an outsider. Anyone not in The Club is suspect, especially Sanders, who doesn't hobnob with the rich and self-glorifying.
14
Somehow I don't think this is about an outsider candidate like Carson being adept at fundraising, rather I see it as the big donors being adept at reading the polls and buying influence.
25
Hillary Clinton is not an outsider.
14
Not yet. One can only hope . . .
With Bernie raising $25 million, socialism could become the new capitalism.
48
Perhaps the metric should be the "Average Contribution?" There is a difference between five donors giving $5 Million each, and 5,000,000 donors giving $5 each.
21
Bernie's form of socialism -- democratic socialism -- has almost nothing to do with the loaded word "socialism," as Bernie noted briefly in Tuesday's debate.
If the media would explain his positions and possibly provide some analysis instead of just show who is raising the most money then maybe the people would understand.
Also, it's a real shame that, in an article about Super PACs and political contributions, you have to go all the way to the last sentence to discover that the primary contender to Hillary's god-given presidential nomination on the Democratic side does not even have a Super PAC and runs his entire campaign on small donations from regular people -- not large chunks from corporations or the wealthy.
If the media would explain his positions and possibly provide some analysis instead of just show who is raising the most money then maybe the people would understand.
Also, it's a real shame that, in an article about Super PACs and political contributions, you have to go all the way to the last sentence to discover that the primary contender to Hillary's god-given presidential nomination on the Democratic side does not even have a Super PAC and runs his entire campaign on small donations from regular people -- not large chunks from corporations or the wealthy.
4
"Mr. Cruz is the only one of the candidates emphasizing their outsider status who has succeeded in the super PAC realm: Groups backing him have raised at least $38 million. (Of that, $15 million came from the Wilks family, who earned billions of dollars in the fracking boom . . ."
A Republican politician floated on oil money is an "outsider"?
A Republican politician floated on oil money is an "outsider"?
69
You might want to amend your comment, any politician be they republican or democrat taking money from any special interest group are not outsiders, and those on the democratic side are all lifelong politicians as well as most on the republican side. These lifelong hacks should be booted from office never to return again. No rise in social security for the elderly but those in the Capitol Dome never say no to THEIR annual raises.
1
"The establishment-backed candidates in both parties, facing stronger-than-expected challenges, are rapidly losing one of their few remaining advantages: MONEY."
Ah, but you don't seem to understand that those huge money donors are quickly becoming a liability. Ask a Bernie Sanders supporter.
Ah, but you don't seem to understand that those huge money donors are quickly becoming a liability. Ask a Bernie Sanders supporter.
38
This whole narrative about outsiders is getting a little tiresome. Bernie Sanders has not been running an ashram. He's a US Senator.
He's only an "outsider" if you define that as someone who doesn't have a super PAC--and what a modern and sick definition that is.
As to the rise of the small donor--this is individual voters responding to the aberrant power of a wealthy few to run the system. It is a return to some kind of sanity.
He's only an "outsider" if you define that as someone who doesn't have a super PAC--and what a modern and sick definition that is.
As to the rise of the small donor--this is individual voters responding to the aberrant power of a wealthy few to run the system. It is a return to some kind of sanity.
119
Ah, but Sanders is "a self-described socialist." I believe this is Times-speak for "impossible to elect."
23
He doesn't have a super loaded super PAC sluicing money from billionaires to his campaign. That's the definition of "outsider".
1
Sanders is an outsider by definition because he's a socialist. And America is a capitalist country.
Hillary Clinton led both parties, ending September with $33 million in the bank. But her chief rival, Bernie Sanders, was close behind with $27.1 million on hand, and he touted raising another $3.2 million since this week’s debate.
Of the 15-candidate Republican/Tea Party field, just 5 contenders have the kind of $10 million-plus treasury that most political operatives consider necessary to mount a serious national campaign: Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and, on the basis of his ability to tap into his much-bragged about personal wealth, Donald Trump. Only Carly Fiorina, with $5.5 million, had more than $3 million in campaign cash remaining.
Chris Christie and John Kasich, each of whom are basing their campaigns largely on winning New Hampshire, disclosed campaign fundraising figures for the first time, raising $4.2 million and $4.3 million respectively. Kasich spent less, ending with $2.6 million to Christie’s $1.4 million.
Others, more starved for cash, are staving off questions of collapse. They include the "walking dead": Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, Lindsay Graham, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee (not to mention George Pataki and Jim Gilmore).