So many candidates, so much time!
At a point in this election cycle when it should be possible for an American born smart toaster to defeat the current White House occupant, the Democratic Party appears to be poised to go full McGovern.
So in its hugely successful campaign to maintain minority rule and majority suppression, the Republican Party's ace-in-the-hole continues to be the Democratic Party.
2
Run Bernie, run! "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
10
Above all else, a candidate who can beat, trounce, trump, that’s what is important to me.
4
Having good control of this aspect of modern campaigning is one indicator of a candidate's organizational skills and ability to hire good staff. These are both essential components of an effective presidency. After getting elected, you have to govern. Our current president is hopelessly inept and oblivious on both counts. Completely aside from politics and ideology, we desperately need a chief executive who can keep the country running on a day-to-day basis.
2
You didn't mention Tulsi Gabbard. I sent Bernie money every month during the 2016 primary. I am giving now to two candidates: Tulsi running for President and Nomiki Konst running for Public Advocate here in NYC. The Times' coverage by the way of Tulsi has been dreadful.
1
Be careful about projecting support in the Presidential race by taking support numbers from other races. My reasons for giving are different depending on circumstances. I gave to several of these in the past, but this data can't predict which of them I will prefer when they run against each other for President. Candidates who appeared to be in "safe" Senate races might not even have received a donation from me, even though I might like them and might prefer them for President.
Who I gave money to in Senate races isn't a very good predictor of who I'll support to in the Presidential race.
27
The small donor trend prioritizes grassroots organizing and appeal. Simultaneously, big donors and think tanks associated with the neo-con militarists, Wall Street, and even the Koch brothers are migrating away from Trump toward the Democratic Party centrist establishment. The next two years will be a three-way battle between Trump, the PayGo status quo Democratic elite, and the Sanders/Warren/Ocasio-Cortez progressive wing calling for remediation of economic inequality. Most exciting and important race since Lincoln-Douglas in 1860, and who wins could determine the future for a generation.
27
@Bruce Shigeura I hope your right. But it does look like this could get derailed by a race/gender/establishment Dem like Harris or Booker or Gillibrand or Klobuchar, or God help us, Hillary.
4
@Stewart Winger
You forgot Biden and Bloomberg.
3
The amount of private money spent on campaigns is outrageous. It would finance universal health coverage for all Americans without raising taxes $1. It would convert our energy system to renewables to restrain climate change, finance free post-secondary education, and god knows what other important improvements to our lives. It also shows us how wealthy our country is and why all the conservative rhetoric against higher taxes is bogus. The public needs to know the candidates and where they stand on the issues and that can be done much more cheaply. We should have special election TV channels and websites that give each candidate equal time/space, require print media to devote equal space to all candidates to make their pitches, and ban all paid advertising, robocalls, etc. Parties can finance the campaign staffs, travel, venue and other expenses of candidates to make public appearances and that's all.
49
Please do some math. Suppose $10 billion was spent on the 2016 election cycle. This amounts to around $30/citizen. Can $30 per citizen provide universal health care and all the other items you mention? No.
3
@abigail49
Sorry Abigail but the most feared lobby in DC per 2 polls of the staffs of members of Congress will not allow a change in the election campaign funding laws that they game to control Congress ie AIPAC/Israel Lobby. eg.
1/ It was NOT the American people that voted to donate $4 billion/yr to Israel (the total is now $133 billion) or to create a special US tax loophole (~$2 billion/yr) for gifts to Israeli "charities" that build illegal settlements on land stolen from the indigenous people of Palestine.
2/ On July 18 2014 the US Senate voted to support Israeli actions in Gaza in which 2200 Gazans were killed & the US vetoed a UN an investigation plus it released a cache of US munitions to the IDF to continue Mowing The Grass in Gaza.
3/ A 2014 NYT`s article quoted B.Baird a Dem. congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money & you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that.” It also quoted J. Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: “We all took an oath of office & AIPAC is asking us to ignore it.”
It’s high time Democrats realize taking money from the rich comes with a price that we all have to pay: government for the rich.
In 2016 Sanders refused big donors because that’s who he is. For 2020 I expect most candidates to follow suit not necessarily because they are aligned with his beliefs, but because Sanders is now the center of gravity in the party no matter what the pundits say. They all espouse his policies, and embrace his populist campaign style. Rich democrats can donate to republicans if they want the status quo. The rest of us want changes.
87
Why is Tulsi Gabbard missing from this list? She is a Democrat who is officially running. Didn't she already 2 million dollars? Wouldn't that put her second only to Bernie? Is she getting the blackout treatment this time around?
At least Bernie is not being ignored this time, nor are his policy positions.
2
At the top of of the list again we find the same ole Bernie. To me he is an Another divisive old man this country definitely can not afford after the Trump years. Do I have an answer? No! As Democrats and some of the so called independents declares for 2020, most of us, sadly, find ourselves soul searching. Oof da!
1
Until we hear from the candidates during the debate process, I wouldn't count any one of them out or in for serving as good nominees. Who can say what kind of issues will come up, especially given Trump's increasing erratic behavior? Who knows where the Mueller and congressional investigations will go? At this point, I wouldn't bet on what will happen this coming week, with another government shutdown looming or Trump's deciding to declare a phony national emergency still hanging like a brass ring.
Let's wait and see who has the agility and eloquence to guide the country through these troubled times.
4
Hurray for small amount donors! Now if we can just eradicate a big root in the problem: the cost of TV advertising, the length of the campaigns, and having a different way of financing campaigns.
4
@Pat Boice
The biggest root in the problem is CITIZENS UNITED, which has reduced our democracy to a yard sale for the highest bidder.
6
@N. Smith Agree!
2
Are the number of donors taken from current contributors, or the list of those who donated in '16? I was a strong Bernie supporter in '16 but will not be supporting him this time around. I will be supporting a younger candidate. It's time for those over 70 to step aside.
The same goes for Beto. His list is based on who supported him for the senate seat; it doesn't represent those who would support him for president.
6
I don't know what Beto is about, and I know what Bernie is about. So much for those two.
1
Contributions to Bernie Sanders are not contributions to Democrats as he is an extremely selfish old man only concerned about white guys getting good jobs and keeping as many guns as they would like. in 2016, Sanders broke the contract he signed with Democrats to access their data by stealing Clinton's data in NH then refusing to turn over his email lists, I believe because it contained many Russians. And finally since Bern has already taken in $2 million, is he now one of the 3 home owning millionaires he so loudly and boorishly decries?
6
I would be interested in seeing an updated donor graph after the expected entrance of Senator Klobuchar for the Democratic nomination. I think she is just the woman the country needs after two years of utter madness and incompetence.
2
Those of you considering Beto as a candidate should compare what he says with what his actions have been in the past.
His actions belie what he speaks with his mouth and he is not a viable candidate. Don't waste your vote.
6
Bernie is a Democrat? I thought he was the socialist who helped Trump beat Hillary.
8
Nobody is going to be running against Donald Trump in 2020. He will surely be unavailable. The question will be — “Who can beat Nikki Haley?”
Trump vs Sanders....Canada, here I come...
5
Where is coverage of Tulsi Gabbard? Media has been completely ignoring her presence even though she is a United States Senator and an announced candidate. Beto O’ Rourke as an example is a private citizen who is not yet an official candidate. Could Gabbard’s anti-war policies that do not have a basis in anti-Assad, pro-Israel (at all costs) manias be the reason?
2
@David Dolgin
Tulsi Gabbard is a Congresswoman, not a Senator. As for her record, her anti-war policies are refreshing.
4
@David Dolgin
"...she is a United States Senator..."
She's a House rep, not a Senator.
3
I can understand how people can vote for Harris, Warren, Booker and Gillibrand, because they are now making all the right sounds even if none of them wholly mean it. In the meantime, any Democrat who thinks of himself, or herself, as a real progressive who votes for O'Rourke is just misinformed about him. I hope that people will read David Sirotas's article which shows O'Rourke voted more than any other Democrat in Congress to support the Trump/Republican agenda and has taken more money than anyone else (with one exception) from the oil and gas gang.
5
Bernie Sanders is about as good as it will ever get.
He understands the New Deal, he understands the green new deal. He understands where the nation can go, and where it will go if it does not tack a better course. He is also realistic, and he knows where the limits are.
The only question is -- can the US actually measure up to someone of the temperament and savoir faire of Bernie Sanders .. ie, are we sufficiently prepared to have a really high quality president?
Very ignorant and mean forces rose to impede and stop Obama -- 100% because the people who elected him shrank from the continued full support needed to keep a good Congress for him. The people are wise enough to elect Sanders (he's really good!) but I do not have confidence that they can maintain the effort to support anyone long enough to obtain the results we need. The populace gets bored very easy, saturated by the pressure to maintain focus on the vision someone like Sanders presents.
I doubt seriously that our people have the staying power to enable any leader to function much more than two years. Coupled to our tendency move on to the next dog & pony show, the short attention span and the disinterest in the details will prevent Americans from achieving anything but chance evolution.
7
It is still befuddles me that so many Democrats still turn a blind eye to Debbie Wasserman Schulz rigging the DNC nomination in favor of Hillary over Bernie in 2016. She had to resign in disgrace.
Honesty and integrity is vital to me and I won’t be voting simply because a candidate is perceived to have a stronger chance of beating Trump.
Vote values, not odds.
7
@Tell It Like It Is
Many have not forgotten, nor turned a blind eye, at what Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC did for Clinton, and against Sanders, in 2016. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out this time.
5
@Tell It Like It Is
Unlike yourself, I will vote for a candidate with the best chance of getting Trump out of the White House, where he has no business being in the first place.
And what "befuddles" me most is how many people still turn a blind eye to the fact that Sanders is not a registered Democrat, and he had no chance of winning.
Still -- what Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did was a no-no.
4
If Bernie runs, the Democrats will lose. Will he join the Democratic Party again and abandon it the second the election is over? He's an opportunist, an egotist, and a hypocrite of the first order.
But the most important thing is he'll guarantee us four more years of Trump.
8
This Tx grandma will knock on 2300 doors again for Beto. And contribute when I can. Having met him in person 4 times, gone to many town halls across Houston and put my feet to the hot pavement across south houston, I believe he is an outstanding Presidential Candidate......I wish all voters could meet him in person.
4
@artheathen
Sorry, not interested.
For what it’s worth, I think a Sanders / Abrams ticket would crush Trump in the general election.
It seemed to me that part of Trump’s appeal to his voters in 2016 was that he was “authentic”. I believe they were confusing his whining, his bragging, and his outsiderness as authenticity. That hunger for someone genuine clearly existed on the Democratic side as well. But the Clinton machine is hard to beat, especially when that machine has the infrastructure and relationships from a previous campaign.
My point is that voters are still looking for the real deal. I’m still looking for the real deal. Not someone who can just win a campaign, but someone who can lead with vision. And as far as I’m concerned, politicians like Sanders, Abrams, and Warren seem like they are the real deal. O’Rourke seems to have that quality too but he’s a little inexperienced in my opinion.
9
This morning, after a full day of comments here, I'm struck by one noticeable theme--call it a lively tension--between fervent Bernie Sanders donors and those who are plainly begging him to "not do it." Which, I presume, means not run at all. And so the terrible infighting begins--even before all candidates are declared. Our insanely costly and peculiarly elongated presidential electoral cycle only exacerbates this early season fussing, and, quite frankly, probably makes Trumpists and the RNC smile (assuming that anything makes them smile). So, I'd like to venture an observation, then, at this stage that the over four million aggregate small donor donations reported here--tallied six weeks ago--bodes well for a powerfully generative, surging if not yet synthetic, resistance both to Trump and to the lunacy of a 'democracy' dominated by Citizens United super pacs.
7
I'll state the obvious: donors, large or small, all made possible by the insane "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling, are destroying the election process.
The effect is to condemn all candidates to raising funds 24/7, then spend endlessly on advertising.
Unless this madness stops (public financing being a possible solution) we will always have officials OWNED by special interests.
7
I’m sorry but Bernie and Beto are exciting candidates - the rest are duds, except Warren, and unfortunately she has become sort of a joke, although, in my opinion, easily the smartest among all of them.
6
It is essential at this time to understand the difference between Sanders and ORourke and the meaning and reasons for small donor donations in the first place.
Sanders' fundamental drive is ending systemic corruption in our political system. He appealed to small donors because, out of principle, he is against the corruption inherent in big money donations. In Sanders' campaign, accepting Only small donations was itself a meaningful message.
ORourke is a New Democrat which is to say, a corporatist which is to say, corrupt. He fundamentally supports the corrupting influence of corporate power. He only resorted to small donors because the party establishment wouldn't support him because, Texas. The democratic party establishment wrote him off because he was campaigning in Texas. He had no choice and had to use the small donor model to raise money. He did Not do it for any principle other than: that is how Beto can get ahead.
On a very significant level the message and meaning of campaigning with small donations that Sanders made real has been made into a lie by ORourke. ORourke is using that message to present himself as something other than what he actually is. IE to trick voters with a lie.
The other candidates have latched onto that as well. At this point the only other candidate who is not a corporatist is Warren. So, bear in mind the original meaning of Sanders' approach as other candidates appeal for small donors. They will ultimately be supplementing PAC money.
9
I count about 15 major & substantial candidates for the Democratic nomination - all of them would easily defeat the inept Trump IF progressives, liberals, Democrats and anti-Trumps resist friendly fire and simply support the eventual nominee whoever it is. The only thing that can really prevent a massive rejection of Trump Republicanism in 2020 is a divided opposition. Argue positively, fight fairly, and accept the outcome with all the enthusiasm and energy you can muster.
The 15 include a great range of ages, geography, gender, ethnicity and positioning within the left of the political spectrum. All of them are infinitely better than Trump and/or your average Republican. I encourage everyone to choose 2 or 3 of your favorites, contribute and argue positively in favor of them for the next 12+ months. We don't know who the nominee will be, so vow to yourself that you will not attack and undermine anyone who might eventually be the standard bearer, because doing so only helps Trump & the Republicans. No matter who your candidate is, if Trump & the Republicans win, you lose.
2
@Frank Roseavelt
Why "two or three"? We have only one vote each. Support your favorite candidate, contribute to her/his campaign if you can, and if she/he does not get the nomination, make a final choice between the Republican and Democrat candidates after the primaries.
1
There are only two candidates who are worth the adjective "progressive", Sanders and Warren. I have already cast my vote for one of these two. Rest are turncoats.
9
Bernie Sanders will go down in history as the Father of Democratic Socialism in America, provided we actually take control of government and enact his ideas. It is true in politics just as it is in war, the winners write the history.
That said, I believe Sanders would be much more effective playing the role of king maker, using his large political and donor base to make sure we choose the best candidates up and down the ballot; and, that we choose a Presidential candidate who can stand up to and beat Donald Trump.
3
Ah I remember Bernie.
The man couldn’t win a Democratic primary but his supports said he “coulda, woulda, shoulda” won the Presidency.. right.
Remember the big speeches he’s delivered against Trump on the floor of the Senate? Me neither.
Given how silent he’s been since spoiling the 2016 election, I thought he retired. I’m honestly surprised to hear he’s still serving in Congress..
His era is over, time for a new generation of actual Democrats to take charge!
4
@Matt M
"Actual Democrats": do you mean the Clinton type?
2
Bernie is the only politician I have ever donated money to, and I know I am far from alone in this. Why? Because he is one of a kind.
11
I'm not surprised the none of the "New" Democrats are doing well, while Sanders is. What an incredible they were to the base. When Obama and Clinton became Cheney's fracking salespeople they betrayed all of humanity, but especially us, who voted for them not to make the climate crisis worse. It was as bad as when they went for globalism to thwart our plans to enjoy life more, work less and use less fossil fuel. The last fifty years have been tragic.
6
It looks to me that Trump is on to something with his socialist threat and the Democrats are courting trouble with Bernie and the new leftist congress members. They are unelectable in the Presidential race and will taint any Democratic nominees meeting Trump in again.
It remains to be seen if the Democrats and their supporters are mature enough to focus on beating Trump of week they indulge in gesture politics.
1
This metric serves as a pretty good straw vote.
2
If the idea is to get more average Americans involved in the electoral process by making it easier for them to donate to Democratic candidates, there should be an ad campaign on television, in newspapers and on the internet for ActBlue. Is there such a campaign?
ActBlue would also attract people wishing to make much larger donations to Democratic candidates, but reluctant to trust campaign fund raisers with their credit card numbers.
1
The only person who I know for sure will the destroy Trump at the polls is Sanders. I wish he wasn't so old, he should have made his move in 2008, lost to Obama, and then he would have been in Hillarys place with the superdelegates that ended up destroying his primary run in 2016. However, if he picks someone more to the center than him (Booker, Hickenlooper, ect) then he will definitely win in 2020.
The guy is the ONLY person I trust on the national stage. I trust him because he has had pretty much the same message since the 1970s, and I trust him because he has NEVER been caught up in any sort of major scandal or lied about anything major in his life. He is the ultimate public servant, and he has my vote if he decides to run.
10
No surprise .. the three best people have the most donors. What's really a surprise to me is why anyone who knows her history would give any money to Gillibrand. She's running cause she's a young mom you know.
5
@Doctor Woo
"...cause she's a young mom you know. "
Right? Take that, Lizzie, Kamala, and Tulsi. And every dude running as well.
1
@rtj***** I am being sarcastic. That was her reason for running when she announced on Colbert. .. beside that she is in my opinion the most power hungry of all the candidates. She was a corporate lawyer for RJ Renolds.
1
The worrisome thing for me is that Sanders' 2.1 million online donors is pretty much his whole voting bloc. Hearts in the right place. Just. Not. Enough. Numbers.
By potential candidates?! The graphs look ‘quirky’. Who are the potential candidates? They sound like ‘robots’ upon sign-in.
Elizabeth Warren lost most of her supporters when she pledged for Clinton. It was one of many horrible decisions the Ds made. They've been losing like that for decades, pretty much since becoming "New" Democrats. They work for the Davos set and not the people That's why independents have long outnumbered partisans in this country.
9
If Sanders runs - let him be the nominee.
Clinton lost because Sanders backers either didn’t vote or they voted “independent” which basically elected a Republican - Donald Trump.
I really believe Sanders would be the only candidate to beat a Republican, no matter who that Republican candidate might be.
We cannot make the same mistake twice. We just can’t.
6
I'm looking for a Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar ticket. They could win PA, MN, WI, MI and maybe OH, and thus win in 2020.
2
I intend to support almost everyone running in the Democratic primary, except for Bernie Sanders (that ship has sailed, and it would be ridiculous for it to come back to port).
Small donors are important, but that’s not a metric, it’s just a description of the size of a donation. I’m a small donor, but not as it is implied by the Media. I’m a large donor who contributes small amounts over a period of time. In one month, I can make 40 donations, of no more than $20 each, and be considered 40 small donors. Politicians know this, and they see the actual names and numbers of their small donors. They much rather tell you that they have one million small donors, when in truth they have 750,000.
10
@Estefan Gargost
I couldn't disagree more on 'the ship having sailed'. Sanders fought a primary that was slanted against him – as proven by leaks and Donna Brazile's revelations and much more – and despite 10 candidates having announced, not a single one can be trusted not to bow down to the influence of the wealthy when elected. And now you're asserting that a single unfair race is all he's allowed.
Newfangled 'progressives' like Gillibrand and Harris made phone calls to corporate executives to allay their fears before running – and as a consequence, billionaires are currently of the 'anyone but Bernie or Warren' mind. As such, those two are precisely the people I and my numerous peers trust the most.
14
40 x 20 is still a small donor
2
@Estefan Gargost I hate to break it to you, but people that have that kind of spare cash and can contribute this much, as per your example, aren't Bernie supporters.
5
How many donors they have at the start of a long series of events is important, but it is only one fact. It can change rapidly. It probably will change rapidly.
For example of change, see Bernie. He invented this sort of Presidential campaign, all during one campaign.
13
With promotions for other stories and a newsletter within the stories content, I felt I was reading the TV model for marketing--one of the joys of reading was it was once uninterrupted.
More importantly, while using the horse race model (who's ahead, leading by how much, how the field is doing), the story ignores why and how the trend toward small donors is affecting the national race, compared to small races for Congress and state officers. This shift in donors is a major sea change, one of the most explosive in politics in that it can impact how governance goes forward after the election. Campaign funding has always been a bridge to influence. How have the effects of small donors impacted corporate and lobbyists influence? What message are small donors funding--candidates themselves or their policy and positions?
Less horse race, more analysis, about regional trends, appeals and pitches, the tension between corporate party structure and small donor operations, and other issues of power and money would offer useful and wise insight.
22
On Sunday, Senator Klobuchar - the most productive U.S. senator getting legislation passed in 2016, who broke the barrier as the first woman senator from Minnesota, and earns the highest approval ratings of any politician in her state - will announce her candidacy for president.
She's brilliant, she's powerful and she's a great leader.
But whether Senator Klobuchar wins the nomination or not, all Democrats must run a clean race even when their platform differs from others. And then they, and we, must vote for the Democratic nominee to restore our country's decency. We must beat Trump!
35
@common sense advocate** she's brilliant? Ask her where she stands on Medicare or All. Ask about pot legalization, and the drug war in general. College tuition? The 715 billion and rising defense budget. Min wage ... Republican lite .. right down the line.
6
I will not support either of the highest funded candidates (to date) nor does this seem like any particular reason for supporting either one. It's a long time until the primary and then the election. Much may change before then.
8
@Rebecca Hogan- it seems really important to not split the Democratic vote and that when the final candidate is agreed to get behind them. They will be better than the republican and that is the choice. Wasting votes on people who can't win is what led to Trump.
1
@Geraldine Mitchell
Nope. I'm done with the corporate Dems. Especially after Trump, no way i'm voting for, oh, now we can just get back to the business as usual that got us here in the first place. I'm not a Democrat and you don't get my vote for free, it has to be earned. Trump or no Trump.
2
@rtj - so get Trump.
Most everyone I know who changed parties because of Trump didn’t vote for Bernie. In fact, Bernie should have full throttle thrown his support to Clinton when she won the nomination but he didn’t until it was too late. Most of his supporters voted for Stein instead of Hillary because they were so upset about his loss.
The Democrats need to get their act together and fast. Bernie will split the vote again.
The best ticket is Kamala Harris and Beto O’Rourke as running mate. Now that’s a for sure running ticket.
19
@Dan, the independents have long outnumbered both parties in this country, running consistently around 40% ever since the Ds became "New" Democrats, working for the Davos set. What people miss is that those were people who are not really Democrats, but would have been had Bernie been on the top of the ticket. They are people who have not felt represented by either party for a long time.
23
@Dan -- Bernie did not split that vote. Hillary did. She had the opportunity for outreach, and she slapped it away.
Her most devoted followers still slap away Bernie and his followers.
17
@Mark Battey Well, they call themselves independents but the pretty much align with either the Democrats or the GOP when they get to the voting booth. That's because there's no viable major third party and no one actually serious about founding one. Long-time independent Sanders ran as a Democrat in 2016 (A big reason why he was so resented by the DNC) and if he runs in 2020 it will be as a Democrat.
4
It's very early in a destructively long contest, more donors to extend their influence good or bad, but I fear I can see Democrats shooting themselves in the foot already. I don't understand the fascination with Beto -- the perfect boyish foil for Trump, who will need some undecided voters beyond his loyal base. Whoever is the eventual nominee, it's more crucial than ever that all the candidates put aside their differences when the time comes; anything less than unity will be a godsend to the worst President in history.
20
@Jesse Bond Hope fully a detailed understanding of the constitution, some experience of the political work environment, evidence they have managed to achieve something in that environment and a clean slate on transparently paying proper taxes would provide a safety net.
4
@Jesse Bond - I can't see Beto running as a successful presidential candidate, but I think he would make a fine VP on a ticket with someone like Sanders, Klobuchar or Brown. He has charisma and an ability to connect with people, essential qualities. He also would help to build support in another region of the country.
7
You're exactly right about Democrats needing to band together to vote for the Democratic nominee @Jesse Bond!
1
Bernie in 2020, Alexandria in 2024.
28
Bernie as nominee means Trump as president. Wake up or grow up.
2
@Martha Shelley No to Mr. Putin's other pony, Mr. Sanders. Not now, not ever.
1
Didn't Sanders just give up his driver's license?
12
@Blair -- This comment is a dirty trick, done in plain view.
Not only is it not true, it is done as calculated falsity, like other stories about how Bernie just bought a quarter million dollar car from his small donor donations.
14
@Mark Thomason It was a play on the situation with Prince Philip, with an obvious point about aging. Sanders would be 80 the year he took office. That should concern everyone.
I would like all the men who are running for president as Democrats to stop running and instead to support a woman for president. Period.
Time for men to do more than talk the talk. How about some support for women, many of whom are well qualified, to run for president, by getting out of the way.
Especially Bernie. He was a spoiler in the last election, and I have had enough of liberal spoilers, however good they think they are, however good their message is.
It is time for a younger generation female to represent America, which I believe will be best for the country.
9
@Thinking Voting for a candidate simply because of gender (or race, or age, etc.) seems corrosive. Position on issues of concern for the voter, or, ideally, for the nation, regardless of gender, race, national origin, age, etc., of the candidate serves democracy best. If we truly believe that 'only someone just like me can represent my interests', in a diverse nation, I doubt we can ever have a representative government that people will have faith in; perhaps if we greatly increase the size of our representative bodies to accommodate the increasing number of identifiable groups?
18
How about finding the best candidate, man or woman. We are all equal.
7
@Thinking - I couldn't more strongly disagree.
We need the candidate who is most likely to WIN, to BEAT Trump, regardless of that candidate's race, age or gender. To place race, age or gender above the ability to win would be to sacrifice the future of our country in (futile) pursuit of the interests of a select group of the electorate.
Give Trump another 4 years and he will have the courts so stacked with religious arch-conservative judges that American women will have to go to Canada for an abortion.
If that's what you want, then by all means advocate for a female candidate on the basis of her gender alone. Otherwise, support the candidate most likely to win.
4
We used to give money to our volunteer firefighters and rescue squads. We used to give money and food for our homeless shelters. Instead we are dumping our hard-earned money into bottomless pits to fuel opinion polls and create political advertisements that appeal only to the worst sides of our humanity.
30
@Jim Tokuhisa That is WHY we need to end systemic corruption. That is why we need to end money in politics and end corporate power in politics.
There are two candidates who have that as a priority. Every other candidate so far is a corporatist who will keep this system of corruption going for the benefit of the financial elite. Ending the corruption has to be job #1 before anything else positive can realistically happen.
6
@Jim Tokuhisa Unfortunately, once the Supreme Court recognized corporations as people and their excessive amounts of money as speech, we are left with no other way to effect change. If you can think of another way for the average citizen to push back please let me know. I have begun to donate both time and money and I am still not sure it will be enough to fight against the wealth and propaganda machines of the few .
4
Well, Sanders has been basically campaigning and collecting money since at least 2015.
10
Bernie's is the real deal. His integrity is incredible. He tells the truth. He is also the only one I feel absolutely certain will beat Trump. He would have beaten Trump easily in 2016 and he will do so easily in 2020. The mainstream news media and their corporate masters are absolutely terrified of him. The Times has been dissing him and ignoring him since 2015. I know Wall Street would rather see Trump re-elected than see Sanders become president and I fear that the corporate news media feels the same. This article article was published on a Saturday, for example. We need to make them listen.
65
Where has Bernie been the last two years? He’s been silent in the resistance against Trump.
Completely silent.
1
@Joe
Putting Beto and Bernie on the same page regarding fundraising is kind of misleading. I sent 27 dollars to Bernie as soon as I read this. And I will send 27 per month until he gets elected. Not a lot but if we all do it he just might make it. His race is not the presidential race because he will crush any republican......his race is against the democratic leadership and misleadership class......Buttigieg or Klobuchar would be good running mates as VP. They could do the next term. AOC could be the running mate in four years if she is 35 by then.....So we could have Klobuchar as president and AOC as vice. But the next election should be fought by Sanders who will crush Trump. No one else will. No one. Trust is really important......and Sanders is trustworthy......
6
@Joe Why didn't Mr. Sanders vote to preserve sanctions against Russia?
1
To all Bernie supporters - please battle cleanly through the primary process for your candidate and his platform, and leave David Sirota tactics to Trump's side of the fence. But then help our country recover from Donald Trump's poisoning our environment and our people with deregulated toxins, destroying our judicial system and civil rights for a generation, attacking women's reproductive rights, and integrating racists and neo-Nazis into society while locking immigrant children in cages. After the primaries, rally behind, and VOTE FOR, whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Because there are degrees of right and wrong - and we have to vote the man who's been so horribly wrong OUT.
19
@common sense advocate The Vast Majority of Sanders supporters voted for Clinton in the general. If the party establishment triangulates AGAIN with another corporatist candidate over a progressive candidate, that can be taken as a sign they Want To Lose. No democrat can win without progressive support, period. But just as significant, the candidate has to win over workers who understand in their bones that the financial elite have corrupted the party and our whole political system with big money. If you want to beat Trump, get the party behind a progressive. There are only two right now, Sanders and Warren. Every other candidate so far is a corporatist and won't be supported by progressives. Progressives want to restore democracy. Why anyone in the US doesn't have this as their first priority shows how effective the financial elite have been (right and "left") at disinformation. Sanders and Warren are the only candidates strongly against big money in politics and corporate power in politics.
So if you want to be practical and hard headed, get an anti-corporatist candidate nominated. Anyone else is going to lose.
4
@common sense advocate - I personally know only ONE Sanders supporter who did not vote for Clinton. He voted for Johnson and he told me he did so because he knew Clinton had Oregon in the bag. Otherwise he would have voted for her.
However to win the national election, candidates MUST win several of the swing states, in particular the swing voters in those states. It was these voters that Sanders appealed to and that Clinton failed to persuade. As swing voters, they are by definition UNALIGNED, and not members of either party. Clinton did not lose because of traitorous DEMs who supported Sanders. She lost because she was not able to get the swing voters in key states such as PA, OH, and WI.
Quinnipiac polling in Spring 2016 show how Sanders had much greater support in those areas and had a much better chance of winning those states and in consequence the national election.
https://poll.qu.edu/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?releaseid=2345
3
@common sense advocate,
Kettle's need to take their own advice. Instead of blaming the pot.
Is David Brock coming back?
Will we be name calling the Obama Boys and Bernie Bro's once again?
Yes, battle cleanly. Agree.
It isn't just one sided, as this comment section demonstratively demonstrates.
4
If I support Bernie it will be for the same reason Roger Stone supported Pat Buchanan.
5
So when is the individual vote going to be considered a legitimate currency. End Citizens United by Congressional Act to give credence to 'one (wo)man, one vote'
13
@Cathy
Congress would, but the members are enriched (in multiple ways) by Citizens United. You may hear them rant and rave against it, but they love it because it fills their coffers...and they get to point the dirty end fo the stick at the Supreme Court.
6
@Cathy Our change comes through the ballot box. Each voter shares equally, as he/she casts the ballot, in the results.
Yes, campaign finance (de)regulation favors money. But for one reason and one reason only: huge numbers of American voters turn their thinking and voting choices over to advertising.
2
Shouldn’t Bernie Sanders share the wealth with other candidates? Apparently, he’s a socialist in name only. The current crop of Democratic presidential wannabes has pushed this 55-year-old lifelong Democrat into the uncomfortable position of likely voting for the Republican candidate unless that person is Donald Trump. (And I’m really hoping he won’t be.) Waiting for Opera to enter the race with Katy Perry as her vice presidential nominee. That’s a Party I can back!
9
We should all thank Howard Dean for two things, small donors and a 50 State strategy. He collected $25 million in small donations during the 2004 campaign over the internet. Everyone took up on this strategy after that year.
Thank you Howard Dean.
20
Good to see Bernie's revolution is still strong. I'm one of his small contributors. Elizabeth Warren fits the bill as well as a true progressive that will not be taking corrupt money for her race. Bernie may be old but he is true to the American people. The only other honest person that would get my vote is Senator Merkley but he hasn't jumped in and probably will not do so due to the crowded field.
It is about time we have some non establishment DNC folks running. The corruption needs to stop now!
40
@Steven - You'll hear about Gabbard as the race moves forward and the propaganda gets exposed. She's a young progressive supported by Bernie. Warren won't pick up the independent vote because of integrity issues. That's a killer for independents and progressives. Gotta be clean and green.
@Steven
I'm keeping an eye on Senator Jeff Merkley, having noticed him when he came out early for Bernie.
4
Get ALL money out of politics ! It's way out of control ; whatever happened to voting for a candidate on their merits and record . Politics has become a personality cult , we may as well vote for Kim Kardashian or her mother , after all they have learned how to make money in that category . The shunning of sensible politicians (usually in the middle) with a plan to fix our broken dysfunctional government is derailed by pie in the sky (medicare for all) promises . Yes , medical care should be affordable to all but some of the so called socialist Democrats are not telling voters how they intend to pay for it . The piggy bank is broken and it will entail higher taxes . Are any of them laying out how they will address all these problems and their plans for solutions ??? That is who I will vote for without a donation , I will save my donation for charity and politicians are not it .
7
@sm
And when you have managed to "get ALL money out of politics", do the same with religion. There is far too much of it in politics.
2
@sm
What about taking some money out of the BLOATED military budget??
3
@sm - Easy to pay for. American Health care is insurance corporations refusing sick and dying people care while ripping off healthy people with fake insurance that covers little so ruthless Wall Street profiteering may occur.
Under cooperative capitalism, a Federal Health insurance corporation forms. No cost to low-cost premiums based on income are paid by everyone. The Federal health corporation may be set up as a no profit or limited profit for Wall Street investors.
Over time, a Federal Health corporation may provide enhanced premiums or services. For example, Doctor and nurse training or online drug wholesaling.
This idea terrifies Wall Street. There's no reason an insurance corporation can't function as a Federal Health program. Cooperative capitalism creates corporations for the masses by the masses. Federal corporations end ruthless profiteering by a handful of oligarchs. Health care should not be for profiteering but an exercise in science and compassion for fellow humans. This is the position of Cooperative capitalists sometimes incorrectly called socialists. The difference being one supports no-cost- low-cost profit margins in a capitalist system. The same may be done with prisons.
1
It's ironic to see even among Liberal Democratic Candidates for the President, the women candidates earn less than a half of what the two men have earned! Equality among the Liberals seem all talk-- furthest from what they'd practice!
(Why not Sanders and O'Rourke practice what they preach and share their wealth with their fellow women candidates?)
7
@ChandraPrince
"(Why not Sanders and O'Rourke practice what they preach and share their wealth with their fellow women candidates?)"
They can do it without my money. If i wanted my money to go to candidates other than the specific one i donated to, i'd donate to those other candidates. I had to laugh when the DNC got huffy and thought Beto should give some of his haul to the likes of Claire McCaskill. If the people wanted to donate to McCaskill, they would have.
3
@ChandraPrince
"Equality among the Liberals seem all talk-- furthest from what they'd practice! "
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Liberal position. Nobody is advocating for equality in outcomes. They are advocating for equal opportunity.
Everyone, regardless of class, color or creed, should have an equal opportunity to pursue education, maintain their health, and cast a vote in the political process. What people do with those opportunities is up to them, so long as they don't undermine other people's opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
2
I love to watch Bernie, love his passion. I do not like his continuous attack on upper income people. If people have worked hard, sacrificed, and all of a sudden they are making 500K a year, they should not be vilified. Be happy for them, they are redistributing most if not all of their income, either through taxes or buying stuff. Stuff like cars, homes, educations. Stuff that creates more jobs, more opportunities for everyone. His socialist policies are not for America. Maybe someplace else, but please, not America.
10
@DH Please try to keep up. The problem is they are NOT "re"-distributing it. There is a point beyond which a rich person can spend money only with difficulty. Multiple antique cars and vacation homes are actually investments.
So they invest and they contribute to campaigns. But since the low end has little spending power, there is little to invest in.
Poor people, on the other hand, spend their money. And by the way, the work as hard or harder. So ironically, spreading money downward actually creates further opportunities at the top!
Now, to the "re" in "redistribution." In fact wealth is not distributed currently according to some natural order. Just take for instance, the corporate tax rate, which is lower than the personal rate. Or the capital gains rate. The rich have "re"distributed the wealth upward.
It is not "redistribution" but rebalancing Bernie is talking about. There is no neutral state. And markets are not "natural." They are the creation of specific regulatory regimes that benefit some and not others. Basing public schooling on property taxes, for instance, is a gift to the already rich. etc. etc.
36
Stewart, your reply has been very thoughtful. Thanks. If Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, etc. wants to be successful, they need to stop the rhetoric of vilifying the top income earners. However, I know, this gets the attention of their base supporters. The top 10% of income earners provide 67% of the tax revenue, the lower 50% of income earners provide 3% of the tax revenue. Let’s focus on ways to increase the income of lower income earners so we have more tax revenue. Please stop the criticism of those that are supporting the cost of running our country. For people to think they need to empower our government to take away a valued piece of art, an antique car, or a vacation home from a top income earner, as if that is going to solve our problems. I don’t think so.
3
Those statistics are misleading. What percentage of the country's earnings do the top 10% earn (it's certainly more than 10%), and also what percentage of their incomes are they paying in taxes? (Everyone remembers warren buffet saying that he is taxed at a rate lower than his secretary is.) With a complete picture of the numbers we can more readily determine what the 'fair share' of taxes would be.
4
Sure campaign money is important. More important is a sensible agenda. The save the world Green New Deal is just giving the Reps another four years. The same applies to free college. Too extreme. Too many inexperienced candidates and too early, will waste money and energy. The Dems have to stop dreaming and be practical. Fix health care - - is a vote getter. Wages is important. People will soon turn you off. You guys can do better. You need to compete, not capitulate.
6
@JBonn Unless global warming is actually urgent.
The polls don't seem to support you. On the vast range of these issues, even Republican voters support Democratic proposals. Democratic proposals are only "radical" for the Republican base, and sometimes not even for the base.
6
@JBonn
I agree 100%, no capitulation but a sensible, not extreme, agenda that strongly appeals to the voter and has a chance for compromise with republicans.
Oh good god, not Sanders, not again. He's way too old, I'd never vote for him. Not ever. It's time for the next generation to take the reins. The old guys have had their chance and made a mess of it. Nobody over 70, please. Preferably nobody over 60.
21
@AMM You say Bernie had his chance?! When TV networks studiously ignored him early in the primaries? You've forgotten the infamous Bernie Blackout of 2016?
"The old guys have had their chance," you say? Bernie was blocked, pure and simple and never had a chance. This time he has. And this time he will win.
50
@AMM I'm guessing Sanders is more interested in advancing the change he thinks is necessary than in getting elected himself. No politician is without ego and personal ambition but Sanders strikes me as one of the few who got into politics to make a difference in the lives of ordinary people, not make himself rich, powerful and famous or amuse himself because he's already a billionaire. His last run for president changed the political landscape and gave voice to millions who haven't had one for decades. I respect him, whatever his age.
32
@Lawrence Rogers
No. If he runs he will not win...and there's also no such thing as Unicorns.
Face it.
As long as America is confined to a two-party political system, it will be a struggle for ANYONE to run as a third-party candidate. And yes, Sanders is a third-party candidate because he's not a Democrat.
5
Nothing against Bernie. I like the guy. Truly, I do. But the dems should think very carefully with their minds rather than their hearts. Far left with democratic majority in the house could scare off some independents. He would need to guarantee no taxes on anyone making less than $500,000 per year.
4
@Hugh Jorgen
Only if you say so! If you are right, or if you convince enough people you are right, what is the point of being a Democrat? Who go to you and convinced you, contrary to all polling, that the American people are inherently "conservative.' Only thinking makes it so!
3
@Hugh Jorgen - independents have no problem with Bernie. If you remember he never had a chance because the DNC rigged the vote for Clinton. Independents wanted a progressive, so they went with Trump. Candidates need independents to win and we want progressives. So give us a Progressive Democrat or suffer 6 more years of hell. Independents are an underground party and we control the swing vote.
2
It doesn't bode well that this is where the race starts does it?
Who's got more money, who will get more money, how much will they get, who's ahead? who's winning?
As if money and winning was what this was all about.
What about the vision of what America should be, could be and can be? What about our future and how each candidate would define it differently?
Is'nt that what matters?
If this paper intends to just give us horse race 202, then I'm out until election day. The voters need to learn from their mistakes, but so does the press.
21
I predict a Mitt Romney win. You won't be able to pin this on Hillary.
5
The GOP has already committed to not backing anyone but Donald. They will (successfully) block anyone who tries a primary challenge.
2
Its looking good for the Republican candidates if this is the line up on the Democrat side.
7
@Dixon Duval I assume that you are presuming that Trump will be in prison by 2020?
3
I hope Bernie runs! Hopefully he will choose a female VP, perhaps Warren or Harris.
24
@PM
If your hopes are realized then it will hand a good deal of independents to the GOP. and probably the election. Be careful what you wish for.
13
@Mark Shyres
Do you have any polling to back that up? Or is that just an internalized self-defeat, and own goal? On the issues, those suburban voters are actually with Bernie.
11
@PM-reply to you, mark, Stewart, A better idea, nominate the ticket male, female or other that will address the progressive needs of the country that a majority can agree upon like universal, affordable, quality health care as #1 and not run on identity obsessed politics.
5
All donations are still largely given to the Federal Television Industry and because of that, they win all elections and corrupt your minds with hate and anger. I won't be donating any money to anyone.
6
This is a false estimate. It is passed based. Sanders has 2.1 million from 2016. He won’t this year or next. Not even close as the contest emerges. Klobuchar has 38,000 because all she’s had to do is develop a small base in Minnesota where she is nigh unto invincible.
The story is misleading. E.g. I donated to O’Rourke for the Senate. No way I’d donate to him for president except he wins the nomination, which he won’t.
The story is a stupid distortion of what hasn’t even happened yet. Bad editorial planning and worse execution. That’s your business a my The Times. You make it ours by interfering with the contest in this way.
17
@Carl Zeitz: You beat me to it. I was goi ng to make the same point: I donated to Sanders in 2016 and Beto for his Senate run, but neither will see a dollar from me through the Democratic primaries. 2020 is its own race, and donations should not be expected to follow 2016 / 2018 patterns
11
@Carl Zeitz Lots of people gave money to O'Rourke because they wanted to defeat Ted Cruz and thought O'Rourke had a chance.
This reasoning didn't apply to others in safer races, such as Elizabeth Warren or Kirsten Gillibrand.
7
Your comment is spot on. I’m also a past Beto donor because he was running against Cruz.
1
All this money should be great when these two men, along with Biden, decide to go in the first female president of the United State's cabinet!!!
B-boys for cabinet, women and candidates of color for the next 24 years please?
Small donors, regular voters, are getting more astute about who are the genuine candidates.
6
Sanders really needs to back off and step away from the podium. He's absolutely not the right candidate for the Dems to beat 45 -- I don't know who is, yet, but Bernie is NOT that person.
Bernie -- have some integrity and get out. Please. Don't ruin another election for us.
36
Yes the two white guys--and the two least qualified--are way ahead. Go figure.
6
@KM
I'll give you Beto and unqualified. (Note of course that his money was for Senate and not for Pres as numerous commenters here have noted.) My favorite is Warren, but how do you figure Sanders is less qualified than the rest of the pack? I'm not tracking that thought.
7
where is Marianne Williamson..? in this list..Why is the media shutting her out...once people hear her speak they will know she is the one who can heal this political disease.
2
I'm betting most of those small donors were from their recent campaigns, and not for the 2020 race. I contributed to Beto for his Senate race, but I am now contributing to Kamala Harris for 2020. Different story. If the data were restricted to contributions made in 2019, the results might look very different.
8
Not that small donors matter much to Centrist Democrats when they have all those special interests waving money in their faces.
16
I wish to dispel the notion that Bernie Sanders supporters did not vote for Hillary. When Bernie stepped down, he endorsed Hillary, and I, along with many others, held their breath and did the most patriotic thing of all: we voted for Hillary.
57
@Dave you didn’t talk to your brethren did you? I met far too many Bernie Bros who didn’t vote at all.
13
@Dave I wish to dispell the notion that Hillary supporters did not vote for Obama, but I can't because I know at least three that didn't.
7
@Tedsams - I have not met a single one who did not vote, and all but one voted for Clinton.
As the DEM candidate it was Clinton's responsibility to persuade voters to choose her. In the key swing states that have decided every election in our lifetimes, she failed to do so. It's as simple as that. Voters are under no obligation to vote. Not to mention that the voters in question, the swing voters, are not aligned with the Democrats anyway. This is why campaigning in swing states is so much more important.
Sanders' message appealed to swing voters in swing states like PA. Clinton's did not. So they voted elsewhere.
Study these poll results from Spring 2016 and you will see:
https://poll.qu.edu/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?releaseid=2345
4
Is Bernie working for Trump? He kind of is, in that he could, once again, siphon enough votes to cause Trump’s second term, intentionally in my opinion because it keeps him relevant. Before 2016 he was obscure, and back to obscurity he does not want to go. He should take all the donations he has received and distribute the money among the other candidates, then go write a book.
19
@Pietro Allar Actually, it is Trumpian of you to suggest that Sen Sanders entering the race could bring us DT again. Because DT is completely illogical, and so is your comment. Any one of the other candidates could siphon off votes from each other and bring us DT. Since Bernie still has a huge following, it makes sense to back him. He also has some of the best policies.
19
@Pietro Allar siphon votes from whom? wonderful candidates like Beato!!!?? Ha or perhaps Warren?!!! Ha
4
His chance of winning is much much higher than any of the others.
27
There is one and only one question facing the Democratic party: who can most convincingly defeat the current president and retake The White House.
Unfortunately, it appears we are already forming a circular firing squad. As a result, the eventual nominee, whomever he or she may be, will be badly weakened.
For the sake of our country, our children and grandchildren, ourselves, and the planet, Democrats must come together around the most electable candidate and not turn our backs on that person because he/she is not ideologically pure or has -- god forbid -- given speeches to Wall Street.
The 2020 election is ours to win, but most definitely ours to lose, too. Get out and vote Democratic in 2020. There is almost nothing more important.
20
@RDR2009 This presumes that a vigorous contested primary field weakens the eventual nominee. Odd assumption. I seem to remember Trump had a lot of opponents. Why is a circular firing squad?
That said, I'd say the identity politics + new Dem combination is pretty overstuffed at the moment. The only economics minded possibilities are Warren and Sanders.
9
@Stewart Winger - I am FOR a vigorous and contested primary field ... so that we can figure out which candidate is most likely to win the national election, and not so that we can find out which one has the biggest fan club among the primary voters. I hope the decision makers will keep their priorities straight, especially the superdelegates, who fortunately have lost some influence due to rule changes.
4
Sanders isn't a Democrat. He had the chance to affiliate before the last election and refused to do so.
He should be barred from all Democratic primaries and caucuses unless/until he becomes a Democrat.
If he can be a part of the Democratic Party's nominating process, who's next - Donald Trump?
10
@Muleman If the dnc hadn't cheated Bernie, he would have had more incentive to stay a dem. His democratic supporters don't mind if he's an Indy running dem (after all, we're the party of inclusion), and neither should anyone else.
11
@Muleman
"He should be barred from all Democratic primaries and caucuses unless/until he becomes a Democrat. "
I'm cool with that. I'd actually prefer that he run as the Independent that he is. That's ok with you too, right?
13
@Muleman
Party over policy. What could go wrong?
11
bernie is ahead only because the debts form his last campaign were paid-off by HRC. This man is an egotist who has done little but craves the attention. I only wish he spent some time dealing with sexual harassment charges against his campaign staff.
10
Quite predictably, the men are outpacing the women in donations. Will that fact be lost on Democrats?
1
I'll be voting for Beto if he is the candidate, we all need to get our heads on straight after these trump years. We need someone with a vision, someone who can bring moral decency back into the White House and someone who cares.
3
And that's not Elizabeth Warren? What hasn't she got? She has everything. She is the full package. See her official launch speech in Lawrence, MA. Do your research. Go to the Guardian newspaper. Beto had one of the highest rates of a Democrat voting to support Trump policies in the House. Don't be misled. Too much is at stake.
10
@Sherry Moser steiker That's a vote for Trump for sure and for certain. YAY!
@ZA Agreed. Warren would be the ideal veep pick for Bernie. Go Bernie/Warren!!
5
Beto shouldn’t be in this list as he got donations because of Cruz.
I gave to both Bernie and Beto last time but this time its Warren for me. She is a proven and effective leader. I love Bernie, but his ship has sailed.
8
@Don peterson
Sadly, Warren is consumed with the Indian claim. She's a VP possibility, not POTUS.
6
One can't help but wonder how much Bernie Sanders has left from his last campaign, especially since he was so hush-hush about his and his wife's finances.
That said, the only thing one can hope for is that he doesn't run again as a spoiler -- as I doubt that this country can stand four more years under the current administration.
21
@N. Smith
A spoiler? Spoiling it for whom? Whose turn is it this time around?
16
@N. Smith,
Again, as a spoiler...?
He wasn't in the general. That was all Trump and Clinton.
You want to scapegoat and cast about for blame 'n shame, look no further than Trump voters, those that stayed home and HRC/DNC campaign.
It was their show.
14
@N. Smith what have you got against someone who is for the people?
13
I was a graduate student when Bernie ran for the Democratic nomination. I had no disposable income at that time, but I still donated small amounts throughout the primary season, as did many of my friends. If he decides to run again, I will again donate as much as I am able. Bernie's integrity as a politician has motivated me as no other candidate in my lifetime (including President Obama). Those so-called 'pragmatists' in the party had their shot with Hillary. Thank you, next!
87
@KS Kingsley Couldn't have said it better. YES.
18
In other words you made sure to help put Trump in office.
I challenge you to post an example of a major accomplishment by Sanders over his THIRTY YEARS in Congress. One that might come close to the CHIP Program that supplies insurance to millions of disadvantaged kids....which was pushed through by Hillary. Or one that comes close to ensuring medical care for 9/11 first responders...also accomplished by Hillary. He did the Right’s dirty work for them and now we’re all paying the price. Thanks for your misguided help...especially for making the Supreme Court ultra conservative for the next few decades.
12
The gun lobby likes him as much as you do!
5
Bernie divided the Democratic Party last time and he and his bros helped elect Trump. It's time for him to remain on the sidelines and give his campaign largess to younger candidates or to the eventual nominee. Bernie is not electable. He lost to Hillary by 3 million votes with Republicans (and the Russians)leaving him alone. If he were nominated, they would blow him out of the water with their propaganda machine. Now that we have a right-wing, activist USSC for the next 20 or 30 years, Citizens United will be with us for (at least) a long time, and limiting Democrats to small donations is not wise, especially in the general election.
Bernie's Medicare for all single payer plan from 2016 went far beyond current Medicare coverage, and indeed far beyond single payer systems found in other countries. Other single payer plans pay roughly 80% of a person's healthcare costs. The remaining 20% is paid by the patient and/or a supplemental insurance policy paid for by the patient or his employer. Traditional Medicare also covers roughly 80% of healthcare costs, with the rest paid by the patient and/or a supplemental plan, and it does not cover hearing, dental or eye care other than from accident. Bernie’s plan would pay 100% of medical care with no deductibles or co-pays, including vision, hearing and dental, which are not covered by Medicare, and long-term care is limited under Medicare. There are many voters who are happy with their employer based health insurance.
21
I will only vote for a candidate who supports Medicare for All. Why shouldn’t we invest in the health and education of citizens—like every other first world nation ?
49
All the democratic nominees as far as I know, support a single payer system of some sort.
5
@sarah
Unfortunately, it seems not Sherrod Brown (who hasn't declared as of yet.) I'd otherwise very much like to consider him. Oh well.
3
Bernie deserves all of our support. He was maligned by the DCCC in 2016, and look where it got us. Bernie has the popular appeal, the heart, the integrity, and gumption to take this all the way. His age is immaterial. The composer Giuseppe Verdi composed "Falstaff" at the age of 80, and that was before we had modern healthcare. Bernie will probably live into his late 90s, and I don't want to be kicking the can down the road in 2020, again in 2024, again in 2028 wondering why Bernie keeps getting sidelined. Let's give Bernie a chance to shine. Democratic Socialism works in Europe and it will work in the USA. Remember, Trump's base is not that big. We need a galvanizing candidate with a true American vision to shake things up. Trump is shaking in his Armani suit. Goodness will win over evil, if we just give it a chance. Bernie 2020.
110
@Dave "Bernie deserves all of our support. He was maligned by the DCCC in 2016, and look where it got us."
This silly complaint might be taken seriously if Sanders was actually a member of the Democratic Party. What a joke.
14
@Dave
Let's give women a chance at equality. Give money to women, vote for a female President. It is time. There is no excuse not to vote female democrat this time around.
Bernie for Vice President!!!
2
@mpound Pls take your blinders off. Principle is more important than party.
11
Caption on the photo: "Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has by far the largest number of low-dollar online donors of any current or likely 2020 Democratic presidential candidate'
Problem is Sanders is NOT a Democrat.
25
@Matthew
"...Sanders is NOT a Democrat."
And that's why he's the only one who gets my donations.
50
@Matthew
2nd problem, Sanders would give Trump just what he needs to be re-elected.
9
“Bernie is not a Democrat...”
There is some core of hardcore Democrats who still think this is an insult...
It rings hollow, and only the most blue-blooded Dems repeat it because they think they’ve found a real winning argument, a lot like “Hillary is the most qualified candidate to be President...”
When in reality it means very little to very few people.
45
Bernie is a registered Independent, not a Democrat.
Please, don't do it again Bernie. You couldn't even get your fans to support the Democrat on the ticket.
Thanks Maureen Dowd and Susan Sarandon; you helped elect trump.
37
@M I must disagree. I voted for Hillary in 2016 with tears in my eyes. My heart was broken when Bernie stepped down. Many other Sanders supporters did the same, because we love America.
24
@M And there are now more Independents / Unaffiliated than either Republicans or Democrats, not to mention all of the millions who are unregistered. Don't they get a say in the matter?
And Bernie always votes and caucuses with the Democrats, anyway.
22
@M
Interestingly, a higher percentage of Bernie supporters voted for Clinton (90%) than Hillary supporters voted for Obama (76%) back in 2008.
Src: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/?utm_term=.13cd37caeeb2
34
"Since 2012". i think it would be much more informative to restrict the period to after the 2018 election. I would guess that Clinton would be 2nd or 3rd if she were included since it reaches back so far.
2
If Bernie runs, we get Trump again.
Queue the self-righteous Bernie supporters, who like the Naderites before them, stubbornly, blindly explain why their candidate is the most likely to win.
35
Sanders polled consistently higher against trump in 2016 than the establishment centrist corporate candidates. If anything his stock has only risen since then. He’s the most popular politician in the country.
75
@Critical Rationalist We got Trump last time because Hillary ran, not because Bernie ran. Bernie is right on the issues that matter to the middle class.
102
Sen. Sanders is running within the two-party structure, while Nader was entirely outside of the established parties.
You’re making a red herring.
42
Hint to the three females running/thinking about 2020 behind Bernie and Beto?
Don't run as identity obsessed women, it is our time, vote for me because I am a woman.
Obama learned the lesson as a black man. Hillary did not.
He served two terms, she was exiled to the dust heap of history.
25
@Paul
Coming from a man this can be ignored.
11
@Matthew-
Thank you for your reply. Well if you insist on that, you are giving more ammo to get the ego maniac demagogue Trump re elected or a like minded republican.
Americans with exception of the extremes ie right wingers or identity obsessed Neo feminists hate identity politics.
4
How in the world does Beto O'Rourke get his name in the headline of this story? The phenomenon here is overwhelmingly Bernie.
88
@Steve Tillinghast Because the mass media for some reason doesn't like Bernie Sanders.
33
At least they ran the story.
9
@Steve Tillinghast Perhaps it's because Sanders ran a much larger-scale presidential campaign versus O'Rourke's smaller-scale Senate campaign. In that context, Beto's haul is quite impressive relative to that of Sanders, and everyone else except perhaps Stacey Abrams, who for some unknown reason is not included on this list at all. Whether either the Sanders or O'Rourke donor bases hold up in 2020 is anybody's guess, but clearly they both start with a demonstrated ability to attract large numbers of small contributions. Any candidate who catches fire during the campaign is likely to catch up rather quickly.
1
Excellent~!~!
Small donor Democratic's showing how it is done, and should be done.
A nice, big field of candidates to choose from and to make the winning candidate all that much stronger.
We've got 2yrs to get it right. No reason to blow every and anything out of proportion. Keep in mind that many of these candidates are aiming at a Vice Pres. seat too.
Play nice. Play hard. Play classy.
Way to go small donors.
14
Speaking only for myself: I want to put Elizabeth Warren in the White House, and I just signed up with ActBlue for a monthly $35 contribution, which I will continue at least until the next primaries.
I think she is the best of all candidates, and I don't care whether you call her "likeable" or not; she knows what needs to be done, and she is determined to do it. What more would you want?
11
Why does the whole thing reek of a social media popularity contest, with very little in the way of informed donating going on outside the obligatory "single payer" mantras?
Maybe it doesn't even matter anymore for 2020; as long as it ain't going to Trump.
7
None of these candidates is in the same economic class as the Average Americans, neither in terms of wealth nor income.
The vast bulk of these politicians are rich, and a couple are one percenters. When you look up their net worths, they don't look like us, the Average Americans.
They will claim that they are really seriously solemnly against economic inequality, but their programs will never achieve it. They know which side they are on, and its rather different than ours, the Average Americans.
I urge reporters to question every candidate as to how much deviation from equality they want -- what percentage?
Then, ask economists to examine their claims.
11
That’s not all that challenging of a question to answer.
All a candidate would need to say is look at the success of developed, Northern European states with many of the social programs that the Democratic field is beginning to get behind.
Then, the candidate could call for a reduction in the United States’ inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (HDI) to the levels that those Northern European (Norway, Sweden,
Denmark, Germany, etc) nation-states are at.
When you adjust for inequality the United States’ HDI declines from 13th (between Canada and the UK) to 38th (between Lithuania and Slovakia). Clearly, there’s a problem there that’s needs to be addressed.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/IHDI
5
As a frequent small donor via ActBlue, this is very misleading. You can give to any candidate and often even split your donations among candidates. The site is available to all these candidates so everyone is really starting even.
3
This is, respectfully, an odd argument. You can send checks to anyone you want as well.
But when someone has more checks/ActBlue contributors/individual donors than the entire rest of the field COMBINED, it does mean something. There is nothing misleading about it.
9
This is the problem with the corporate press: it's all about the horse race. Instead of seriously delving into the candidates' positions on the issues and their past votes on important legislation, almost all of what's presented to readers is fluff about opinion polls, fundraising, and nonsense about DNA and emails.
It's time for The Times to straighten up and give us important information, not who's ahead in the polls and who's leading with fundraising.
Enough already!
161
@Sean, I totally agree, and I also think that this campaign season will be about money in politics as much as the candidates positions, so articles like this are not so out of line. I want to see the others as well, and featured as prominently. There are a number of candidates whose ties to corporate money are worth watching, particularly when the position themselves as rejecting that kind of donation.
The NYT should definitely cover their positions deeply, and hopefully without the subtle editorial bias that sneaks into their coverage of many progressive issues. (See today's article titled: "Soak the Rich.")
15
Before we start throwing one Democrat against the other it is fantastic that so many candidates have so many small donors. Power to the people.
45
@Joe
You seem to forget that Bernie Sanders is NOT A DEMOCRAT.
5
@Joe Yes fantastically supportive of all the adults who run.
1
@N. Smith So what is your point?
5
I was on a monthly plan in support of Bernie Sanders in 2016. Now I'm sending small donations to Elizabeth Warren, who I also like.
I want their voices and ideas to be heard nationwide, and my small donations are how I can help ensure that. They are setting the benchmark for younger candidates, and helping set the agenda for 2020.
If you like what you hear from these candidates, send them a check, no matter what the size. Remember, other candidates will be owned by the powers that be. Let's help candidates succeed who represent us.
53
No mention of "Mayor Pete" Buttigieg? He competed for a major DNC seat and has received accolades (and encouragement) from both David Axelrod and former President Obama.
While the NYTimes is publishing a supposedly comprehensive 2020 campaign article that focused more on imaginary candidates than a legitimate one, the New Yorker published a full profile of him.
10
Very few things break a man faster than the cold.
For the love of God, Bernie, don't. Just don't.
42
@Paul Presnail oh yes Bernie please do
20
I’ll vote for him—and so will all the members of my family young and old.
19
First graph is misleading!
Show results SINCE (after) 2016!
7
“The particular power of Mr. Sanders’s list was on display in late December when he emailed supporters with the provocative subject line, “If I run.” That single email netted $299,000 from 11,000 donations, according to a senior Sanders official.
That is almost the exact amount that Ms. Warren raised on the day she announced she was entering the race, data shows.”
11
@JW
As a Bernie supporter in 2016, I sent Elizabeth Warren a contribution on the day she announced because I noticed how the press downplayed her candidacy. It seems like the media, including the NY Times, is going to go after her and/or dismiss her the same way they did Bernie Sanders.
And no matter what, they will not let the Native American controversy drop. I have always identified as Norwegian and Irish -- and would declare that on census and job application forms if asked -- because of the stories my family have told me over the years. Turns out my Irish grandfather must have been a lot more English than even he thought because DNA tests show I'm only 7% Irish. This is a non-story that the press is determined to beat into the ground. Warren must be perceived to be as big a threat as Sanders was in 2016.
I sent Warren another contribution today after listening to her speak in Massachusetts. She deserves our support.
18
She certainly does. I support her fully. The only person I’d support over her, however, is Bernie.
16
Warren could have been first, but she had reservations.
5
Making less than a living wage, I scraped together over $500 in small increments to send to Bernie the last time he was running. I knew I wasn't just backing him, I was helping to get the message of income inequality, a living wage, tuition free college, medicare for all etc. out to the masses. I felt a part of a social movement.
Four years later, all the Democratic candidates are talking the talk about what Bernie was talking back then.
I know he's old and not as pretty as some of the others. But he's the only one I really trust. Why weren't the others talking about what Bernie was talking about four years ago? They were all kowtowing to the Clinton machine. Even Elizabeth Warren - who could have backed Bernie - backed Clinton.
Bernie's the real deal. I'm still not making a living wage, but I'll send some of it Bernie's way if he decides to run. I owe him.
200
@Bravo, Siobhan
17
Me, too!
8
@Siobhan
If you make less than minimum wage and chose to spend your hard earned money on any presidential candidate rather than paying your bills and saving money, Bernie Sanders can't help you. You need to learn basic economics.
15
There are few charts as telling as this in terms of who has raw grassroots support. Comments and tweets can paint a skewed picture, but when people open up their pocketbooks, it talks.
The fact is that Bernie remains dominant in this field. The only one who comes close is Beto. Many of us knew that, and these are the hard numbers.
2016 Bernie was perhaps a little flummoxed at going from 0 to 100, real quick.
2020 Bernie is more comfortable and confident with the power we wields. He knows how to use it and control it. If there is a campaign, I suspect it will reflect that.
If Beto runs, he will win many of us over by making us feel calm and at ease again, in stark contrast to Trump. That may be what the nation wants and needs.
There are many women in this race who would make great Presidents. Elizabeth Warren would be FANTASTIC. But I don’t see her beating Bernie. And I’m sorry to say that Kamala lost many when we learned of her heading to Wall Street for support so early on. We cannot have that.
I think this will come down to Bernie and Beto. Do we want to continue fighting to structurally change our broken systems? Or are we too exhausted and just want someone to calm us down and tell us it will be alright?
Both are valid answers. That’s what the Democratic Party will have to decide.
4
@JW As someone who is not making a living wage, I've got to back Bernie. He's the one I trust. He'll continue to fight to structurally change our broken systems, including the massive income inequality.
Beto could as you write "calm us down" but it's not enough.
I also trust Bernie to take on Climate Change, which is what we need to do as well, and fast. No time to be lulled into complacency. As the teenaged Climate Justice activist from Sweden, Greta Thunberg said " Our house is on fire." No rest for the weary.
78
I agree 100%. That’s not enough. But I think that’s the emotional choice all of undecided voters will have to make.
2
@JW, I hope the Democratic party has less say this cycle than the voters themselves. The coming primary season should be interesting. I have two hopes.
1) I hope the candidates will not try to savage each other,but focus on presenting their positions, and why they should be supported.
2) No matter who emerges as the candidate, nobody stay home this year, or vote third party as protest. We cannot afford ideological purity at the cost of four more years of what we have now.
5
C’mon Bernie. Give your money to a younger candidate with a chance. Beside, Trump will have a field day with “Democratic Socialism”, a term you coined.
38
@HeyJoe run Bernie run
22
All the young cousins and grandchildren in my family want Bernie.
15
@HeyJoe - educate yourself. Bernie did not coin the term democratic socialism. Democratic socialism has been around since the 1800s and is a major part of the political structure in countries such as France, Germany, Ireland, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Italy. Just a sample.
15
Bernie is the guy. Even though he is the oldest potential candidate, he is hugely popular with young people. The Democrats fixed the game against Bernie. If they want to restore the trust of young voters they should try to make up for their mistake last time.
131
Just because he had name recognition doesn’t mean he’s the right guy for the job. Trump is a great example of the dangers of populism.
19
@Melba Toast Bernie is a champion of the ordinary people and their concerns. Trump is a grifter and a liar, a racist and a sexist. Not the same at all.
67
@JohnP
What mistake?
4
Newspapers TV, Twitter addicted to Trump. Reform politicians, who want to get the $ out of elections, desperate for -$ for elections. When does it stop?
1
Online donations are not important. They mean nothing.
All that's important is who takes corporate donations, and who does not. That's the litmus test. This article missed the real story of interest.
11
Online donations are a reflection of grassroots support. Of course they matter.
27
@Fourteen, I'm more interested in those who position themselves in both camps. The reek of opportunism is strong.
3
@JW
Nope, not if they take payoffs from corporations.
1