Now that Sanders has become too popular to ignore, the Establishment Media will switch tactics and intensify the negative coverage. It's easily predictable.
They've been hoping that ignoring him will be enough, but he has been successful at bypassing their channels of public access and remains in the race anyway.
It is an oligarch's nightmare. There are some in the major media who don't want to be caught flatfooted with a Sanders victory as they were with a Trump victory, but their coverage of this possibility still falls into the category of cautionary warnings for the Establishment, not sincere discussion of Sanders' systemic criticism and policies.
To paraphrase FDR: "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 Bernie--and we welcome their hatred."
But the internet has changed the political playing field. Progressive candidates used to flame out early on, running out of cash. But via the Net Bernie has raised the most $$$ via his 4 million small donors.
The capitalists had a system set up where the voters only got to choose between two pro-business politicians to rule over them.
Now democracy threatens their oligarchy.
Obama the neoliberal imperialist has said Sanders must be stopped and is working with Warren.
Warren is also working with Hillary Clinton.
Don’t be fooled (again).
74
We are engaged in the futile exercise to find the perfect candidate that will defeat Trump.
The only thing that will put a Democrat in the White House is if the democratic voters grow up. Even if your favorite candidate does not get the nomination, whoever is nominated vote for that candidate in droves, in massive number holding your nose if that's what is needed. There is no other way.
22
Sanders haul of pocket change and whom is giving such is an unprecedented occurrence in American politics.
The fact that it isn't being covered as such makes the whisper a roar.
Whether Bern's revolution will carry the day or fall short, what he/we have accomplished has never been done on such a scale.
We the People are yelling with the only tool the Establishment understands...MONEY~!
Do you hear us NOW??!!
NotMeUs
73
While a horse raise analysis can be useful, it doesn't provide the same clarity that a chart would. The Times' analysis often focus in on the writer's evaluation of the typically two top/leading/most prominent candidates/groups/issues. However, there may actually be other stories or trends that the writer has missed or doesn't have the space to address. I love the way the Times is using visual storytelling to allow readers see the settings for stories directly. By the same token, readers could be shown the data for some stories directly; in this case with an interactive (sortable) chart with the total numbers of donors and total amount donated by candidate for the last two quarters.
4
It's so odd to me that this whole article seems to be about money and its importance for winning the nomination, and yet this one sentence is quietly buried halfway down in the article:
"Former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York also entered the race and began to spend some of his multibillion-dollar personal fortune on an enormous nationwide television ad campaign, reshaping the financial landscape beyond the early-voting states where another billionaire, Tom Steyer, has been flooding the airwaves."
Hmmmm. Yes, it's interesting to debate who has raised the most money from small donors and who has raised it from large donors. But who has the most money right now, period?
8
This is NOT a story about the Dem candidates (if it were it would lead with Senator Sanders’ success). Instead the article represents the corruption of the liberal media and its ongoing distortions and misrepresentations of the Sanders campaign as marginal.
The popularity of Sanders’ positions are unequivocal and if he loses the primary as in 2016 it will be due (again) to the MSM, the DNC and the Democratic elite.
Biden will lose to Trump.
57
The mistake we are all making is basing the best candidate to lead the country in the future on how much money he or she can raise. Seems like doing that alone ensures a victory for Donald Trump. Depressing and potentially disastrous!
15
None of the candidates listed in this article can raise the amount of money needed to beat trump. Bloomberg is the Democrats best bet!!
5
I view the current level of fundraising as ludicrous. I would happily vote for any of the current Democratic candidates in a head to head with Trump. Why should I give them money to attack one another now. I will donate in the summer to fund ads attacking Trump.
10
@John Stroughair
I agree! I'll vote for any of them, and save my cash until after the primary.
4
@John Stroughair then you must view the vast differences in their policies as ludicrous as well as the likelihood of one rather than other being more likely to best DT in November. That is ludicrous. There are enormous differences in policy and enormous difference in ability to win over DT. Most of the candidates don't represent the needs of the vast majority of the people.
8
The Times lack of positive attention to Bernie Sanders is appalling. He leads not only in fundraising, but in many surveys of preferred nominees AND candidates who can defeat the orange man. He appeals to young people and to those older than 40 who are tired of "business as usual." He appeals to all who appreciate his consistent stances, his morality that favors ALL people...not just the rich and white... I see bankrupt farmers headed his way, Jewish voters, women and a host of other groups. Cover him. Give him the attention he deserves!!
65
This feels like it's slipping into Bernie Blackout territory. He is the "financial pacesetter" in the Democratic race, yet in a story dedicated to fundraising, in its first iteration, he was not mentioned in the headline and only makes an appearance in the dek, then in a set off lumping-in with Buttgieg in the third graf. (I believe NYT should state, like a correction, when a headline is changed.) When we finally see his picture, he's third in line behind Biden and Warren, looking like he's barely emerging from the shadows of some dank underground Harry Potter stair closet with half of his head showing. I get that you're basing all of this on polling, but I would love to see him treated fairly in an article based on an endeavor in which he is clearly the frontrunner: grassroots fundraising. For the record, I am against all campaign financing and would do away with it if I could, so you wouldn't have to report on such nonsense.
44
Go Bernie!
45
The obsession w donations is a misguided obsession and dumbing down of our presidency. Sad. Shameful. Depressing.
4
@Louise You are right in that we shouldn't obsess over donations, but the amount and the origins of those donations do matter.
No matter the party, a candidate needs enough funding to support them to the finish line and to beat the opposition.
It's also, in my opinion, incredibly important to be aware of where those donations are coming from. I would imagine that most entities aren't making donations out the goodness of their hearts - they're being made in the hopes that the candidate will advance their interests.
If it's your belief that we should get money out of politics, we need a clear start - and that definitely involves supporting a candidate that refuses to take money from entities that don't represent the interests of the common folk of America.
11
@Louise the amount of individuals donating to a single candidate is a better representation of preference than polls that can be skewed, the number of people and the amount of each donation speaks very loudly about actual support of actual individual voters. I believe it is still one person one vote, in spite of the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United, which says the richest man has the loudest voice. This is why obsession with fundraising is not misguided, in a climate where M Bloomberg or Steyer can spend more in a week than the highest other fundraiser can raise in one year.
7
@Louise
Sanders haul of pocket change and whom is giving such is an unprecedented occurrence in American politics.
The fact that it isn't being covered as such makes the whisper a roar.
Whether Bern's revolution will carry the day or fall short, what he/we have accomplished has never been done on such a scale.
Rather than "Sad", it is glorious.
"Shameful"...? NO it is AWESOME~!
"Depressing"; hardly. It is invigorating and igniting a brush fire that will change the landscape; $5 at a time.
We the People are yelling with the only tool the Establishment understands...MONEY~!
Do you hear us NOW??!!
NotMeUs
20
Individual citizens are putting their money (what little they have) behind the person they think represents them best. Guess who that is?
The Times' own data shows how strong Bernie's support is:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/02/us/politics/2020-democratic-fundraising.html
36
Biden is the Jeb! of 2020.
21
Well. The choise is easy !
Support Mr. Sanders or Mr.Putin...
14
So a handful of billionaire bundlers pushed Biden back ahead of Elizabeth Warren (who is "slowing" slipping" and "lagging" despite her $20MM in exclusively small donations) in the money raising race. So what?
Meanwhile we have to reach PARAGRAPH FOUR to find out Bernie Sanders is doing WAY better than Biden, even w/o the billionaires.
Whose side are you on, Times? On the same day you print a toothless article on how the tax cuts were gamed to funnel cash to the wealthy, an article that provided ZERO names of politicians we can try to unseat for their troubles, here you are cheerleading (again) for the candidate of big money.
37
@Green Tea I agree, I find myself applauding many Times articles and scorning others, mostly to do with the Sisyphean task of getting Bernie fair coverage.
However, I would also fear the opposite, where Bernie is getting unfettered coverage and other candidates are ignored.
Ultimately, though, the media is not a replacement for real conversations. Head to map.berniesanders.com to find events in your area and support your candidate!
8
The title should read: "Sanders leads, Biden Rebounds, Warren slows: The Latest on the 2020 Money Race".
Keep enforcing that media bias, Times.
46
Getting very tired of the anti-Bernie bias at the NYT. He raised the most money, has the most to spend but this is buried in the story. The constant pumping of Biden and Buttigieg shows the NYT has a corporate bias against candidates who would challenge corporations and the wealthy. The facts are on the side of Bernie, the NYT is on the wrong side of history.
43
Gee, the corprocratic candidate is "rebounding" - what a surprise.
Hillary 2.0, here we come!
19
Dear New York Times, do you think that when Bernie wins the Presidency, you might mention his name in the related article? Just a thought.
36
Sanders is blowing everyone out of the water with an overwhelming amount of contributions in dollars and number of individuals contributing, yet The NY Times all but consigns this news to its obituary pages. Shame on you.
39
Biden is an honest, ethical man who genuinely cares about others. He is older and slower yes but still aware and capable. He will regain respect from world leaders, he will bring back a decent way of human interaction, he will bring back morality and ethics and respect for each other.
Yes, we do need to change our policies and the Dems have shown lots of good ideas, Biden will be the one to coordinate all of this .
The main thing he can beat Trump and thats the overriding necessary thing to save our democracy.
4
@Richard Head Biden is Hillary Redux. No more Status Quo. Incremental change is passe.
13
@Richard Head I don't doubt Biden's honesty and ethics, but he represents the status quo - we need a candidate that can look beyond just beating the current president and aggressively handle climate change (the most poignant threat to us at the moment) and economic inequality.
What are Biden's plans for moving away from fossil fuels, rebuilding our infrastructure, providing medicare for all, and fighting for debt-free education in the richest country in the world?
14
@Richard Head
Great slogan for Biden - “ He is older and slower yes but still aware and capable”
5
I see a double standard here and no small degree of favoritism. There is a significant difference in Mr. Biden's and Mr. Buttigieg's fundraising. Mr. Buttigieg doesn't take any money from federal lobbyists, corporate PACs, or the fossil fuel industry. Mr. Biden does. Yet, Buttigieg has been the recipient of most of the criticism for the way he is raising money. Perhaps it's because Mr. Biden is expected to, or maybe it's that the powers that be are feeling a little threatened by Mayor Pete's front runner status in early primary states.
2
@Robert Adams
Reminder that while Biden has the most billionaires donating to his campaign, Buttigieg is in a close second. Biden and Buttigieg are both willing to sell themselves to the highest bidder at the expense of working-class Americans. You can't trust either of them as far as you can spit them.
17
Haven't given a dollar and won't. Not one of the candidates has said anything I find appealing or helpful to any of the issues in which I have an interest. Waste of money.
1
@duckshots No, anyone that can replace Trump is worth al the $$ you can give. The Dems will need all the others to join in to pass any policy and we know that will be very difficult. However we can have a decent and respectful man representing us to the world.
3
@Richard Head Many will, disagree that a bad Democratic choice is better than an evil Trump.
Bernie is just FDR+M4A (FDR/Truman advocated for).
In 1933 Germany & US face the same crisis. Germ selected a protofascist, America a quasi-socialist. W/in 2 years Germany was a fascist dictatorship. There was some economic zenith due to war keynesianism but ultimately Germany came w/in a wisker of imposing a very barbaric dark age upon the world. In the end it was left a smoldering ruin, divided & occupied by its enemies. Germany's elite backed the proto-fascist because they feared socialism.
From 1940 to 80 FDR bequeathed us demand side Keynesian mixed-economic system. Indeed Keynes was the architect of the post war system. From 1945 to 1972 GNP (global & U.S) doubled & median (meaning everyone's) wages in lock step w/ it, creating the greatest golden age in human history culminating in man landing on the moon. Over a billion people, everywhere American troops stood in 1945, enjoyed a middle class existence for the 1st time in history. This is what "It's a Wonderful Life" celebrates. All this made FDR history's greatest person.
Since 81 Reagan bequeathed us a supply side increasingly market fundamentalist capitalist system which NeoLib Dems helped perpetuate. The median wage has remained flat since 72 (graph #2 at: bit.ly/EPI-stud7). This has brought us back to brink of proto-fascism, opioid crisis & Trump. Biden perpetuates that trend.
Bernie is FDR+M4A & that's not a bad thing, even for the rich. Biden-Bros please rethink where you stand on Bernie.
19
@Tim Kane
Typo: See graph #2 at: bit.ly/EPI-study
The flat median wage actually makes things look better than they really are. Some worker's wages have gone up (health/tech) & some in decent trade unions have floated (7%). That means the broad majority of workers have faced 48 years of declining expectations in a system that otherwise has grown 150%.
Other sources I've read show that the wage for the top 1% has risen only 10% since 1980. That means nearly all the gains since 1972 have flowed to the <1%.
What would 150% increase in your income do for you & your family, if it had not flowed to the <1%?
Might 1 parent had stayed home during child rearing years?
Maybe have a wage only 100% higher but for a 4 day week?
Or 2 parents work but 20 hours each during child rearing?
A long term trend like this is not sustainable w/out complicity from elites in both parties.
As the Senator from Delaware, the corporate HQ & Credit Card state, this has been Biden's life's work.
His only cred w/ workers is his working class background. It's ice thin & made thinner by his son mooching off influence peddling to gain $50k month job as board member of Ukrainian co - essentially negating corruption as a critique of Trump in a general election.
If you are not progressive please rethink your policy positions w/ this in mind: a better life for all, not some w/ opioids for the rest.
9
@Tim Kane It was American industry capitalizing on the Rebuilding of war devastated Europe that brought that gilded era. When it was rebuilt the golden Castle vanished into thin air. Should we perpetrate another World War hoping that we will be the ones to once again rebuild everything? Is it worth the gamble that maybe it will be us who are the devastated this time and need the rebuilding? And what friends will do so when we have alienated so many?
4
It's actually becoming sad how relentlessly and compulsively biased The Times is against Sanders. They publish an article about 4th quarter fund-raising and do everything they can to bury the biggest news regarding that topic, which is that Bernie Sanders is dramatically leading the field both in number of contributors, 4th quarter donation total, overall total and cash on hand. Not highlighting that makes this article the definition of fake news.
32
I assume this pole was taken before Biden announced he would never respond to a Congressional subpoena to testify - which is exactly the charge that Democrats are making about Trump and why they impeached him. He has spent the last 4 days trying to explain that to voters which continue to look at him quizzically.
11
I am very disappointed in the NYT! They continually try to downplay Senator Sanders' popularity. I believe this article does say that Senator Sanders has raised more money from donations in the 4th quarter of 2019, but it isn't even mentioned until well into this article; please correct me if I'm in error.
So casual readers that only glance at the ledes and maybe scan the first few sentences would never know about how well Bernie is doing.
Shame on you, NYT, for being apparent shills for corporations and big money interests, instead of giving your readers more honest and forthright coverage of Senator Sanders. And one more thing, most of the time you omit even including pictures of Senator Sanders, so voter recognition of him is potentially decreased.
Yes, obviously, I support Senator Sanders, however, it does seem to me that this newspaper and many other mainstream news outlets are doing their best to decrease voter awareness of him. Can't help but wonder where the motivation for this willful neglect is coming from, I do have my suspicions.
35
@Susan being apparent shills for corporations and big money interests
The Guardian is NOT so prejudicial in being a party to the Status Quo. It's best NOT to take the NYT as being on the side of the oppressed minority who are too poor to subscribe to their philandering articles.
10
Hilarious the pathetic attempt to minimize Bernard Sanders as he closes in on victory.
25
@Michael They and the Democratic Party have done it before and gave us Trump. History will repeat itself.
9
You might want to pay more attention to the numbers of donations.
Seems to me that the number of voters donating to a candidate has the more effect when the election comes around than the total dollars. Especially when those voters are making small donations - because they don't have the pockets deep enough to make large ones.
But they still have one vote each.
16
Sanders deserves the lede, as he is consistently the leading fundraiser and does it with only small donations from real citizens, not PACs and corporations.
26
Where's the love for Yang? He was easily the smartest, most relate-able person the on the debate stage in December. He actually answers questions with a solution-oriented mindset, rather than falling back on campaign slogan talking points.
The DNC is robbing him and the American people by not re-polling the public as per their own criteria for entrance to the January debates. They've learned nothing from 2016.
5
John Connolly. Huge fundraising and how did it end again?
The focus on fundraising does not help informing people, much as the media love it.
1
This is the best America can do ? An election between 2 candidates in their 70's ? Pretty depressing....
2
Please let us not dwell of the past of Obama and Biden.Let us move forward. Otherwise, the Democratic Party will be like the dinosaurs doomed to extinction.
9
Sanders raised the most money from the largest donor group, and yet the article is primarily about Joe Biden. Par for the course.
And, naturally, the comments follow the lead of the Times--"Biden is a great guy," "Biden wants to heal the country, " "Biden is a moderate...."
And this one: "Bernie's fanatical followers...."
Really? We're the fanatics? The million and half of us who sent in our $18 bucks? We're the ones who are "fanatical"? My friends the elementary school teachers, my niece the nurse, my brother the fireman? We're fanatics?
Perhaps the real fanatics are those of you who, despite the comparative records of Sanders and Biden, despite the consistency of Sanders' defense of the middle and poorer classes, despite Biden's atrocious record--the crime bill, the war in Iraq, his support for DOMA, despite his involvement in Obama's "kill lists" and drone strikes, despite his shameful treatment of Anita Hill, and, most of all, despite the fact that Trump will mop the floor with him...still, he's the one? Like Hillary was the one?
Well, I hope you self-styled moderates know what you're about, because Biden has about as much chance of defeating Trump as Pete Buttgieg, which is to say--none.
38
Sadly, Senator Warren has been marginalized. She is a well-organized, smart, energetic woman who cares deeply about the lives of ordinary Americans. I have donated to her campaign, and I hope that others will follow suit.
20
@Sage
Elizabeth Warren is the president we need, her or Sanders or (why not?) both.
Warren/Sanders or Sanders/Warren: the winning ticket.
19
Time to get out party back! The dream ticket for all? Sanders and Warren! If Hillary had put Bernie on her ticket, she would be President today. Bernie will be a great President and Elizabeth Warren the first woman President when he retires during his second term. She will them be re-elected and we’ll have our party and our country back.
28
@Mountain Mama
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride...
2
There is no greater threat to Trump than Joe Biden. He was obsessed enough with his candidacy to launch his Ukranian scheme to dig up dirt to discredit him. Bloomberg and Steyer should drop out and finance the Biden campaign. The former vice president with his moderate agenda is the only one who can possibly defeat Trump who happily welcomes any of the other non threatening "losers" win the nomination.
3
@HMP No, Biden has been effectively "Hilaried" over Ukraine. Facts do not matter to low information voters and Trump will secure them with his attacks on Biden that sadly ring of the "crooked Hilary" mantra that insure her defeat.
6
@HMP
You are mistaken. Nominating Biden, or even young Buttigieg, would ensure Trump's re-election.
13
@HMP
Is this the same Joe Biden who talks about "record players" and challenges old men to push-up contests?
10
I’m counting on the Corporate Democrats to nominate the person least likely to win the election. Right now the odds are that loser will be Joe Biden.
28
Imagine when all this money could go to charitable purposes instead of political operatives and media companies for hire.
As long as this money doesn't turn into funding for a circular firing squad I guess its OK. Truly, the purists out there just don't see the hypocrisy they wish to ignore in their candidates' past. They all have it. They are in politics, afterall.
In the end, its about voting Trump out and for us voters that's about resolve, not money. I'll vote for the Democratic primary winner, no matter who. They are all better than Impotus. Anyone who says otherwise should go visit the southern border and explain their vote to the kids locked up there in squalor. Or explain it to RBG...
1
@MIPHIMO
If we are allowed to "imagine", I would say: imagine if all this money went to pay more reasonable (i.e. higher) taxes: imagine all the roads, bridges, schools, etc. we could fix with that money.
Imagine how respected the United States would be if we managed to get money and religion out of politics.
Let no one worry, though: it won't happen, at least not any time soon.
6
Sadly, money continues to be the mother's milk of politics. At least Bernie is showing that the 99%, together, can defeat Wall Street.
41
This field needs to narrow, and fast. Trump will destroy the Dems the longer we stay divided
4
If Bernie gets the nomination, he can beat Trump if his running mate is an experienced moderate.
12
I think we should be less interested in money and more in strategy. The reason that candidates used to need so much money was to pay for saturation bombing with TV ads, the most inefficient means to reach your voters. Trump and his Russian collaborators simply let Hillary dominate national TV and focused on more targeted, more effective and less expensive methods to reach their angry white racist voter base, including local TV, Facebook ads, and bots to fill up comment sections. I would prefer to know what the money is being spent on. It is too early for get out the vote. I want to know who is paying for their own bot army to push their candidate, paying Instagram influencers, creating viral videos, or deploying other 21st Century tools. Not sarcasm, by the way. You have to be ready to counter what happened in 2016, but now amplified 10 fold and spread over even more platforms!
13
@Steve
I agree. All the att'n on money is an old worn out 20th C perspective while the not-so-easily-detected tech world surges on ahead, basically unexamined. Mueller's final words in his testimony were regarding Russia's activity interfering in the elections. How are they doing that today? What other countries are interfering? Who are the online influencers? Are they legit sources of journalism? The money is no longer the engine behind what's influencing voters.
6
What we know about Biden and Warren is that neither will ever be President of the United States. I hope no one here is getting their hopes up.
13
@RS
You want to bet? Warren is our next president.
2
Biden deeply cares about uniting and healing our nation, more so than any other candidate except Buttigieg. This, and getting rid of Trump are my #1 goals for my vote.
4
@Dolly Patterson .. LOL. Biden has a 39% approval rating in the newest CNN Poll, including a 47% disapproval nationally, and a 52% disapproval rating in swing states... Bernie Sanders is about net 7% more popular in both. Lol
21
@Dolly Patterson
Biden thinks it is 1987 and that he can work across the aisle--naive and dangerous assumption in 2020. While many Americans might see this as a 'noble gesture' on Biden's part--were he to win and try--the GOP would play him like the fool that he appears to be. Let's face reality folks--the current GOP is America's Taliban. They don't play nice and there is zero incentive for them to do so.
10
Bernie is doing well financially. He is a multi-millionaire. Warren is worth 12 million.
He is helping to finance Amazon by buying hundreds of thousands of dollars of his supplies from them while denouncing them.
The man has such a long history of lying and deceit that it is hard to know where to begin.
So far he hasn't been directly attacked.
Now that Warren is running on fumes it will be Bernie's turn to face the fire.
His fanatical followers will cry foul but they will only be getting a tiny taste of what they have dished out to others who have a far better chance of winning the mid west and a national election.
6
@Simon Sez .. Lol. Aww. You're mad that Bernie made money from writing a book, despite the fact he still wants to tax himself more... And you're mad his campaign bought stuff off Amazon that they needed? The horror! and you said Bernie has not been attacked? He's literally attacked everyday by the corporate media, for 5 straight years. Still standing and much more popular than joe biden both among democrats & independents & moderates. Joe Biden now polls at 39% approval and 47% disapproval nationally, and 39% approval & 52% disapproval in battleground states, according to CNN's latest polls. There's no honest attacks on Bernie to be had. Everything he's attacked for, is 1000x worse for Biden who has the worst record I've ever seen from someone running for President. Bernie is so much more popular... also does not have a Corruption/Cronyism taint which joe biden reeks of.
35
@Simon Sez Re the Amazon purchases:
It's not so simple a criticism, as this article shows.
The alternatives are no saints either, and many of the sources are 3rd party sellers on Amazon:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/bernie-sanders-staffers-complained-about-the-campaign-s-use-of-amazon-a-frequent-sanders-target/ar-BBYrtbk?pfr=1
6
@Simon Sez A long history of lying and deceit? Seems unfounded - not even the mainstream media disputes Sanders' consistency in his message and voting record.
Sanders' campaign buys print materials from union shops ONLY.
27
All this talk about money when what the democrats need is somebody that has a program that is in step with the American public. Right now we don’t and we know it.
3
@John .. Biden has a 39% approval rating in the new CNN Polls, so there's that.
4
@John .. Biden has a 39% approval rating in the new CNN Polls, so there's that. Oh, and a 47% disapproval nationally, and 52% disapproval in swing states... that's compared to Bernie at 44/45 and 42/46.
12
@John
Bernie has millions of enthusiastic and steadfast supporters.
21
"With an average donation of $18 for the year, and slightly less than that now, the numbers suggest (Sanders) has already raised about $26 million in the fourth quarter — more than any Democratic candidate has raised in any quarter this year."
You wait until the 4th paragraph to reveal that?
At least in the headline - Rebounds, Warren Slows, Sanders Rolls: The Latest on the 2020 Money Race -
you put Bernie's accomplishment of having the support of the people as merely the third most important thing.
40
@Branch Curry
A Socialist candidate will not be treated fairly by a Capitalist media system which is itself composed of giant corporations. It is unrealistic to expect fairness.
17
@Branch Curry ... Sanders was not even included in the original headline. NYT totally left him out. They had to be shamed to include him at all. Lol
8
I fully support Warren in part because she has refused to rely on billionaires, is not afraid to stand up to billionaires, AND is not buying her way into the WH.
4
@Louise She has taken billionaire money in this primary, and transferred $10m in private fundraiser cash from her senate campaign. If the reasons you list are why you support Warren, then why not Bernie?
16
@Jesse Newman she has the expertise to help get us away from the huge cuts in taxes that have been afforded corporations under Trump.
3
@Louise
But none of what you say is true. She did rely on millionaires and billionaires when she was building up her Senate war chest, which she is using in her Presidential campaign. Now, after her pockets are full, she is pulling up the ladder and saying Dems shouldn't solicit money from the rich. What a hypocrite!
And she IS trying to buy her way into the White House. But unlike Bloomberg, who is using his own money, she is trying to buy her way in with taxpayer money, making ridiculous promises about MFA, free college, slavery reparations, student loan forgiveness, etc.
4
I don't understand this fascination with Bernie Sanders. He's in poor health. His ideas are wildly impractical. He is not even a Democrat. He's a hardcore socialist, just like Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Most importantly, at almost 80, Bernie Sanders has shown no ability to get things done.
I thought most voters in this country had the common sense to see through talk and waving hands to judge candidates by more perceptive measures. Guess I was wrong.
6
@John Smithson .. Lol. He's in great health. And what idea is impractical? His every idea is already being used in a first world capitalist country.. Also, Bernie passed a major bipartisan Veterans Bill with John McCain in 2013... Republicans said it wouldn't have gotten done without Bernie... Bernie is also known as the Amendment King for all the pro-working-class legislation he got both parties to sign on to in passing bills. Sanders gets more done than anyone, and that's despite being isolated by the corrupt parties.
30
You don't understand the fascination because the home you grew up in only cost $16k. Get some perspective, there are a lot of people poorer than you in this country and would choose a 90 year old Sanders if it meant tangible change in our society.
22
@John Smithson .. Lol. He's in great health. And what idea is impractical? His every idea is already being used in a first world capitalist country..
10
Why is Buttigieg referred to here as being in the "top tier"? Isn't he polling way down at around 7-9%, just a couple of points above Bloomberg? Why does Biden get twice as many mentions here as his closest challengers, who actually are in the top tier? Why do the DNC and media seem to be skimming past Sanders, as if hoping/pretending he isn't a serious contender? Am I imagining this? When's the last time a moderate Dem won a presidential election? Just thinking out loud here....
38
@Julie
Buttigieg is in the "top tier" because someone enlarged that tier to make sure Buttigieg would be in it. Buttigieg is just a younger version of Biden and, if Biden is nominated, do not be surprised if his running mate is Buttigieg. (It would be interesting to compare their donors' lists.)
12
Who even cares about anyone other than Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren? They don't have a chance.
Pete Buttigieg. Amy Klobuchar. Cory Booker. Tom Steyer. Michael Bloomberg. Those people are also rans who are footnotes in history.
My money is on Joe Biden for the nomination, and Donald Trump for the presidency. Any takers?
1
@John Smithson .. considering that the newest CNN Poll has Biden at a 39% approval, and 47% disapproval, he won't beat Trump.... heck, biden is 39% approval, 52% disapproval in swing states in the same CNN Poll.... Bernie is 44/45 nationally, and 42/46 in swing states. Heck of a lot better than joe biden. And true, biden just lets Trump campaign as anti-establishment against the elites, again.
10
The internet has changed politics more than anything since the printing press. Millions of small donors can now fund political campaigns, not just a handful of billionaires. The phony "democratic" electoral system of two capitalist parties has been busted wide open . . . . Social media = Socialism.
8
Sanders recently had a heart attack and he's 78 years old. Biden is 77 and he's not as sharp as he once was. Seriously, these are the favored candidates of Democratic donators?
4
@Bob G.
Right. Why? What do they have that will beat Trump?
1
@Bob G.
Sadly, Biden IS as sharp as he ever was, which is to say "not at all."
11
@Bob G. ... technically, Biden is just funded by billionaires, corporations, multi-millionaire bundlers, and former lobbyists..... Sanders is healthier than before given the stints.
12
well that was nice of the DNC to play like they were entertaining the idea of anything other than an old white man for the ticket. I guess now they're getting serious, we may as well just cut to Buttigieg, Biden, and Sanders- I guess maybe Booker will get to stay in to the final round as a nod to how enlightened we've become. Seriously, Biden is the best we can come up with after this diverse field? I'm disgusted with the DNC and repulsed by Republicans. Where are the leaders?
6
I will vote for Mayor Pete and will vote for him because I think he is the most intelligent, articulate candidate whose moderate views represent me best.
6
Joseph B, I don't care about who is most intelligent or articulate. History shows that those qualities matter little. Nor does the candidate's political views. What matters most is the ability to get things done.
Pete Buttigieg has shown no ability to get things done. He is just finishing up an undistinguished two terms as mayor of a small city where he won each election with fewer than 12,000 votes. He does have a distinguished academic record, but that doesn't make an effective president.
I've spent a career in Silicon Valley being pitched by intelligent, articulate entrepreneurs with brilliant ideas. How to tell which ones will succeed? Look at their track record. That is the most accurate indicator.
By that test, Pete Buttigieg is a failure.
14
@Joseph B. Yes, voting for the "most intelligent" and "moderate" nominee helped elect Presidents Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Hillary Clinton. Clearly that's what the voters want, and a winning strategy for Democrats.
18
@Joseph B Seriously, the mayor of a city of 100,000 and his work wasn't impressive. He has little experience and look where that got us with Trump. And he comes across as disingenuous. He will not win in a general election. The only one who can beat Trump is Mayor Bloomberg with Amy Klobuchar as his running mate. It likely won't happen but that is the reality. Though my first choice continues to be Elizabeth Warren who has the expertise to get us out of this mess with the corporations paying so little in taxes.
3
People who like their current health plans want to keep them. Unions and their members fought hard and gave up salary increases for better health plans.
The Sanders and Warrens don't care about that. Both cannot see that the selection of either one of them as the Democratic nominee means four more years of Trump.
A conservative Democratic or left leaning Republican will not agree to give up their healthcare plan for the right to wait in a 6-18 month queue waiting for a hip or knee replacement, as in the UK and Canada.
5
@slime2 Bernie's Medicare for All gives union members the value of their current health plans as added salary. Bernie does care.
21
@slime2
I like my current health plan, but it could go away at any time if my firm has layoffs or decides to go with a different provider, or I became sick or disabled and coukd no linger work there. So I would be more than happy to give it uo in exchange for government insurance that could never be taken away and would cover everyone birth to death. Who wouldn't??
25
@slime2
I hate to break it to you, but people wait in lines in this country as well, but are then billed for the pleasure. And that's when they're not outright refused treatment because they aren't wealthy enough.
8
The Times claims, "The money chase shows not only which candidates are most viable for a potentially long and contested primary battle but also who has a diverse and well-built financial foundation for a potential general election matchup against President Trump..."
Actually, it's not a "money chase," but an election. Many of us voters are disgusted by the candidates who swallow billionaires' cash, while giving the common man the cold shoulder.
That's why, no matter how much or how little Senator Sanders and Senator Warren receive, we will not vote for corporate Democrats. And I suspect that a lot of people who thought Trump was with them will express their outrage at his shoveling cash to corporations and vote against him.
The Times needs to understand that this is not a "money chase." We care about who will stand up for us.
26
Your headline should say that once again Bernie Sanders leads all other candidates in fundraising and that he gets it from millions of individual donors. If money raised is the template for whose winning, then Bernie is clearly in the lead.
50
Seniors for Sanders! The folks of my age around here prefer the voting record of a sensible public servant who remains true to his platforms instead of the uber-rich, back room deal makers and their PACS and so on.
54
Sadly, it's a lot about money as this article demonstrates. We'll see what these differences in fund raising mean both in where the money comes from and the effect spending more has, but only with 20-20 hindsight. I think Michael Bloomberg's commitment of his huge personal fortune to his candidacy might be helping the democratic effort in general because he seems more focused on anti-Trump messages than trying to diminish his opponents.
I just hope money doesn't cloud the issues. There is so much at stake for our democracy.
15
@AGoldstein
I agree. Also Bloomberg will split up the NeoLib Dem vote.
Bernie is just FDR + M4A. (FDR & Truman were for universal health insurance, had FDR lived another 4 years, we would be on year 72 of M4A instead of -2).
FDR solved the pre-war Econ crisis with a mixed econ system. From FDR's stand point he saved capitalism because the alternative was communism. Germany reacted to the crisis by choosing Fascism out of fear of socialism/communism.
I think any clear thinking billionaire would take a look at that past and the current situation and realize 1) the current situation is unsustainable (since 72 GNP is up 150% but median wage has been flat, before 72 under the system FDR left us the median wage went up with GNP) and the system that FDR left us was not so bad, for workers especially but for the rich as well. It got us a stable society that hit new heights in every form of human endeavor culminating in a man landing on the moon.
Long term, as long as Trump doesn't win, Bloomberg's situation is improved. Sanders is just FDR + M4A and that is not a bad situation for anyone, including the rich.
I could see Bernie followed by Warren and Yang for a span that last 20 years just like the FDR/Truman tenure did. And again, that created history's greatest golden age.
4
Bernie plummets hard again to top of the donor list, backed by little money multi-racial working class voters.
114
If money is going to determine the nominee in the primary, every adult citizen should be sent a tax-financed voucher worth $100 to contribute to the candidate of their choice so that all of us are represented equally in the primary competition. If money equals free speech, all voices need to be heard.
32
@abigail49 It works in Seattle. Vouchers for local elections is a reality there.
4
@abigail49
60 million people voted for Trump. You want to give them $6 billion dollars to donate to the Trump campaign?
2
@abigail49
Andrew Yang also advocates for this.
1
My great concern is that Warren and most of the other Democratic presidential candidates are competing to see who can make the most woke and socialist promises:
Free college tuition. Medicare for all, including illegal immigrants. College loan forgiveness. Reparations for blacks and gays. Guaranteed basic income. Federal job guarantees. Federally mandated school busing to achieve integration. Green New Deal (eco-socialism). Voting and early release for prisoners. Open borders.
All the fabulously wealthy US individuals and corporations together do not have the many trillions of dollars needed to pay for these goodies year after year, and even Bernie Sanders has admitted that taxes would have to be raised on the middle class to pay for Medicare for All, not to mention the additional trillions needed for the other items. (For perspective, the current US budget is about $4.4 trillion, with a deficit of about $1 trillion.)
As Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
Don’t forget that our goal in 2020 is to elect a Democratic president, and that will require appealing to the independents, undecideds and others whom the Democrats failed to reach in 2016.
If all of these progressive (socialist) promises, or even a few, are planks in the 2020 Democratic platform we are doomed to a second term of Trump as president.
24
@Mon Ray "Don’t forget that our goal in 2020 is to elect a Democratic president, and that will require appealing to the independents, undecideds and others whom the Democrats failed to reach in 2016."
Sure, but we nominated a candidate of the sort you wanted, someone who was moderate, and we got Trump. So why do you think a repeat of that will work?
The question is why 2016 failed for Ds. Was it due to Clinton herself, or was it due to her platform? On top of it, it was a close election so you may be right. But the other option could also be right (and it shouldn't be close).
But I think whoever wins the primary will win the general. That's what primaries are for. It doesn't matter what the Ds promise - they still have to get it through Congress and a Senate.
10
@Mon Ray This sort of fear-mongering may have worked in the past but it won't any longer. We tried it the corporate dem's way in 2015 and we lost, why would we try that again? Voters aren't in the mood for more corporate policies that safeguard the power of banks, insurance companies, and Wall Street. Sanders has far more donations than any candidate and polls well in swing States and among independents for a reason: he's the best candidate against Trump and he actually has plans to address the massive problems in this country that led to voters rejecting the Democratic party and handing Trump the presidency in 2016.
28
@Mon Ray If all of those "socialist" ideas in fact turn off the majority of Americans and Trump wins another four years, at least we will know that the working and middle classes are happy with what they've got and don't mind paying more and more for their private health insurance, deductibles and co-pays, going into debt to get higher education, facing retirement without a pension or enough savings to last, and taking whatever hits them from climate change. May as well know it now than later.
18
Extraordinary the lengths the mainstream media gets to, and goes to, to try and sideline and minimize Bernie Sanders at every opportunity; the fear in the boardrooms of corporate America is palpable.
I've yet to figure out their plan to "try" and deny him the nomination, but it will be their best play yet, requiring the most sophisticated perception management techniques ever deployed.
If nothing else, at least Bernies' platform will force the hand of the Republican-Lite Pelosi Schumer Democrats, and the Biden camp, and perhaps we will see slightly larger breadcrumbs being spread here and there as they continue their efforts to obfuscate and bamboozle the poor and the middle-class.
96
@Mel Farrell What, exactly, are the “lengths” the media are taking to derail Bernie? This article, for one, very comprehensively outlines his large number of individual donors and his large month-after-month takes.
And Biden as “GOP lite”? I kinda doubt his agenda will be anything like Trump’s, from judicial appointments to foreign policy to Obamacare to environmental stewardship to tax legislation to consumer protection, ...
Back in 04, I saw a t-shirt made in response to the 2000 disaster. It said! “I bet you'll vote this year, hippee.”
Similarly, I hope you’ll vote this year.
@Rodd Tundgren
Biden is GOP-lite because that's what his entire record indicates. Voted for the illegal war in Iraq, voted for the PATRIOT Act, accelerated the War on Drugs, forgave the debt of credit card companies but not students, eulogized segregationists, etc. Biden's entire record is incredibly conservative and he's stood on the wrong side of almost every issue over the past 35 years.
9
Joe Biden is well-positioned to beat Trump in November if he wins the nomination, as Biden leads Trump on personal likability ratings by at least 15 points. The left won't be pleased with having Biden as the nominee, but they also know that Biden probably won't run for a 2nd term, and they'll get another crack at the Democratic primary in '024.
14
@Richard Ralph Richard, as a very liberal Democrat I would be very happy with Biden. I think he has the best chance to beat Trump because he doesn't come off as a "socialist". The term the Republican will use to beat up Warren or Sanders, and they'd both lose because of it.
Biden is a comfortable choice and I think most people want exactly that, someone who will respect the office and restore sanity to the office of President.
4
@Richard Ralph Nominating Biden would be a disaster. The only reason his polling looks okay vs. Trump right now is because most voters aren't paying much attention yet. He won't survive the intense focus and debates in a general and corporate Democrats will hand the presidency to Trump a second time, all because they're too afraid of what Bernie Sanders' progressive vision for this country would mean for their stranglehold on power (not to mention their pocketbooks).
This isn't about the left vs. the center, it's about people who still see a future for this country in the face of historic income inequality and the climate catastrophe vs. those who mistakenly think business as usual will win back the presidency.
If Biden is the nominee, he will lose, and not because of the left, but because the establishment would rather lose to Trump than nominate a candidate who threatens the status quo in any way.
19
@Richard Ralph
Cannot handle another primary starting in two years. What a nightmare.
4
These article headlines are meaningless. Biden rebounds today but what will the headline be next week? The same for Warren and Sanders. These campaigns draw the life out of the process becoming a contest of fund-raising and poll numbers.
The two year campaign process is much too long. Campaigning over a nine month period would benefit candidates and the public, and should be publicly funded.
20
2016 demonstrated that money has its limitations as in, “It’s no longer about the money.”.
Too many voters are willing to “take the cure” -Trump - because “taking the crack” is no longer viewed as a viable option.
Biden couldn’t win if he mustered “Clinton Cash” and neither could any of the others.
6
Here's the thing: money is not going to determine who wins this primary.
Joe Biden (not my preferred candidate) is likely to prevail even though he has the least cash on hand and the least developed small and medium sized donor network.
Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren (the last is my strong choice), have raised tons of money but each is moving into the February/March primaries with asterisks next to their name.
It's all about demographics. Black voters are the most comfortable with Biden. Working class white voters are most comfortable with Biden. Iowa and NH voters are frantic to choose whomever is the most electable and at the moment that looks like Biden.
In a way, this is a good thing. I'm not going to be pleased with Biden as president, but it will be good that money won't be the difference. Trump has raised tons of money, and just as it didn't get Hillary elected, it won't get him over the finish line either.
56
@Cousy Historically, on both a national and state level, money is actually a fairly reliable metric of predicting who will win an election. It's a more important factor than you think.
29
@Cousy
Please specify: black voters are not a monolith. Older black voters are more likely to support Biden. This is not true of younger black voters. I'm a middle-age black voter who is supporting Warren or if not her, then Sanders.
83
@Philly Skeptic And how depressing is that . . .
6
The association of candidates' fundraising success (or failure) with their rise (or decline) in popularity speaks volumes about the success (or failure) of American democracy to maintain its nominal independence from American capitalism.
77
@Dr.Ofnothing
Both Sanders and Warren are't buying votes with money but impossible dreams.
6
@Peter Taylor Their "dreams" have been reality in most civilized countries for decades ....
62
Why would anyone think American democracy is independent from American capitalism?
13
I happen to think donations are a much better metric than polls to for support, reach and enthusiasm among candidates. And Bernie’s numbers are a clear signal for his popularity.
222
@Imanuel
My great concern is that Warren and most of the other Democratic presidential candidates are competing to see who can make the most woke and socialist promises:
Free college tuition. Medicare for all, including illegal immigrants. College loan forgiveness. Reparations for blacks and gays. Guaranteed basic income. Federal job guarantees. Federally mandated school busing to achieve integration. Green New Deal (eco-socialism). Voting and early release for prisoners. Open borders.
All the fabulously wealthy US individuals and corporations together do not have the many trillions of dollars needed to pay for these goodies year after year, and even Bernie Sanders has admitted that taxes would have to be raised on the middle class to pay for Medicare for All, not to mention the additional trillions needed for the other items. (For perspective, the current US budget is about $4.4 trillion, with a deficit of about $1 trillion.)
As Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
Don’t forget that our goal in 2020 is to elect a Democratic president, and that will require appealing to the independents, undecideds and others whom the Democrats failed to reach in 2016.
If all of these progressive (socialist) promises, or even a few, are planks in the 2020 Democratic platform we are doomed to a second term of Trump as president.
3
@Mon Ray this is precisely why I think individual contributions are better metrics for measuring that appeal especially to non-democratic voters whose support often doesn’t register in polls. As recently pointed out, we seem to always have money to pay for endless wars, tax breaks for the wealthy, Space Force, etc. but never for healthcare, education, or housing programs. You referenced Thatcher but even conservatives in UK firmly did and do support programs public healthcare (NHS) Which in the US we are still struggling to convince our fellow Democrats to support. The main issue in this elections, in my opinion, are priorities—economic, social and even moral. Let’s also not forget 2016...
13
@Imanuel
Money is certainly enthusiasm for the candidate. I am donating that way myself.
On the other hand, as the field is clarifed I will certainly put more emphasis on who is very most likely beat Donald Trump. In fact, at that time, I will put all my emphasis on that outcome.
3
We as Democrats cannot continue to put party and partisanship over country. George soros has been leading us down this path for 20+ years, fighting for things like pedophilia, absolute truth, absolute science, and only partially being detected and very adroitly hiding behind a misperception and misanalysis of those who would package their views up into a comprehensive understanding that can be deemed a conspiracy theory. Although this methodology for grouping together perceptions and observations in order to create a deduction that must be true is tempting, in trying to have a theory- and explain a conclusion that is not quite justified- theorists have risked the entire corpus of their legitimate observations being debunked on the basis of a single deduction that is faulty. However, our society’s handling of conspiracies that are not 100% correct has both hidden kernels of truth in those theories and enabled a man like George soros to hide around against an unrealistic standard of absolute truth, which he has been teaching us to believe in, and whose standards are almost impossible for any individual who is in relation to a data set to come to, without more data. Hypothesis testing- popular with ai- is a good way of finding these kernels of truth and is scientific insofar as it is a recursive analysis that is constantly considering a greater and more understood data set
The deep state, the pedophile conspiracies, they all have truths outside their conclusions. George Soros
1
So here we have a story about political contributions, and not until the fourth paragraph does it deal with the candidate who got the most. What gives?
67
@John Williams
You know the answer; they are still doing their damndest to ignore Bernie; the establishment is absolutely terrified of him getting the nomination.
The tens of billions, no, tens of trillions of dollars they stand to lose is giving them major insomnia.
58
@John Williams it’s because Bernie will make all those American billionaires into millionaires. But we’ll all have universal healthcare.
18
@John Williams It's absurd. They say Bernie is on a role in the tagline--then why is the article about Biden and not him. Transparent.
8
At this point, I am thinking it would be interesting to see Biden and Trump go head-to-head on the important issue of which one's child or child-in-law was the least qualified for any position(s) obtained on its father's resume.
23
I have no problem with large bundlers which Warren or Sanders would need during a campaign against Trump. I just want Biden and Pete and their bundlers to say right now they will take no ambassadorships or have any special access to either candidate if they are elected president.
7
BIden is open to having a Republican on the ticket with him. It doesn't matter how much money he raises, and from whom. If he's the nominee, he loses to Trump. Centrism was tried in 2106 and look at what it got us. Sanders or Warren are the only answers. Bi-partisanship, consensus and all the rest of the kumbaya slogans are meaningless in today's environment. Democrats have the uncanny ability of extracting defeat from the jaws of victory. It's quite possible that they're going to do it again. The winning of the next election will be to turn out the vote that stayed home for the uninspiring Hillary, not the "white working class vote. Joe could have left the stage with his dignity intact- seems like the opposite is the greater possibility.
43
@Stew
It's quite possible "Centrism" failed for Dems in 2016 because Centrism was carrying a very large piece of baggage with Bill inside.
3
Two thoughts. Firstly, how much will the candidates have in the bank. Pete Buttigieg, in the past reporting periods, showed that he knows how to spend wisely? Will that continue.
Secondly, if Biden is doing so well why is about 75% of those supporting someone else or no one at all.
11
All these numbers are peanuts compared with what Trump will have at his disposal. That is why Dems need Bloomberg to carpet bomb Trump with advertisments.etc...and then a 1 billion dollar turn out the vote effort. Bernie would be named ahead of time Secretary of Labor. That may win it for Dems.
4
Progressives are all over the place. The fact that they would support an inexperienced mayor for the presidency demonstrates they learned nothing from Obama's presidency. Buttigieg would be an even weaker match for McConnell and Congress.
11
@AACNY in no way is Buttigieg a progressive. Pete is overwhelmingly supported by older, centrist democrats, while the “true” progressive vote has rallied around Sanders. The people who’s support Pete think that the only thing wrong with Obama was that he didn’t get a third term. “We had a POC who changed nothing, now let’s get some token LGBTQ+ support too!”
30
@AACNY As Trump is for Pelosi. But either way the country will go in the right direction (with Obama or Buttigieg).
@AACNY And the the right wing supports a man that lies, has no experience in any type of government, and only knows how to con people. I would take President Obama over the man in the Whitehouse now. This administration has been a disaster from day one.
4
'Why count votes when all that matters is dollars? That's the American Way. And to try to end that, I'm voting for Warren instead of the GOP-loving Biden (where do you believe that money comes from--he's their candidate of choice).
8
Our Democratic Party's task, first and foremost, is to pick the candidate who most likely will defeat Trump, whom I consider our first fascist American president. Although I would prefer Sen. Warren as president, I think Biden has the better chance of taking out Trump. So I'm going with Biden unless someone can convince me otherwise.
17
@Jim Steinber..Biden would lose for the same reason Hillary lost: Young voters and Black voters won't be suffiently motivated to vote for a candidate who promises restoration, not change.
9
The fact that money makes a candidate is preposterous. We need to find a way to end this absurdity.
11
Ana, but for Ralph Nader's candidacy, we would not have to deal with Citizens United as Bush made 2 picks supporting the 5-4 majority. We have to either win and get new justices on the Supreme Court, get a constitutional amendment passed or fashion some legislation that can bypass the case's holding.
3
While I agree in principle that big money donors should not have outsize influence, I have come to resent the constant (but necessary) begging from all of the candidates, including some whom I've never supported. I care greatly as to who gets the nomination, and will monetarily support them, and I will likely donate to the opponents of Graham, McConnell, and others as well. But, asking the general public, many or most of whom cannot afford to give, is not the right way to run an election. Elections should be completely government funded with explicit caps on how much can be spent, and on what.
21
@Susan Sanders The only way I can give small donations multiple times over the too-long course of a presidential campaign is to cut small spending elsewhere, like eating out (even fast food), entertainment (including online streaming), subscriptions, impulse purchases, personal gifts,and charitable giving. And, yes, I resent the constant email appeals. But I guess it's a matter of priorities and the price of participating in a democracy.
12
So many articles about the candidates and so little information about their policies and ideas... and it's almost 2020.
38
@Studioroom
Americans have proven that they couldn’t care less about policy proposals. Americans have to decide to care about those things. They just simply do NOT care.
An example of this is Colorado’s transportation problem. Colorado’s population has exploded over the last decade due to a very strong local economy. Our infrastructure is crippled and our freeways are parking lots. People HATE driving in our city, and there’s a severe lack of public transportation.
So there were two measures on the 2018 ballot designed to improve transportation along the front range. One of them had a very small tax increase. The other simply asked to re-allocate funds from one place to transportation, it didn’t even raise taxes. Both measures failed by a very large margin.
To put it another way: the voters who complain every single day about how terrible transportation is voted to kill the only 2 measures that could have alleviated the transportation problems.
Voters don’t care about policy. At all. And that’s why the media focuses on personality and politics as sports. Americans don’t care if a tax cut for the wealthy will pay for itself or not. They care about seeing Biden and Trump yell at each other through social media. And that’s all they care about. It’s an indictment on our society.
18
@Studioroom Exactly my frustration and one I have complained about here many times. to no avail. If we want to know something about their policies, we have to go to their websites. I still think it's the constitutional duty of the news media to inform the electorate but I guess that's asking too much.
11
In an article about campaign finance, the NYT gives the headline to Warren and Biden, even though Bernie is outpacing them both by far. Bernie isn’t even mentioned until four or five paragraphs into the article. Everyone reading this comment should google, “Bernie Blindness,” as it appears to this reader that it is alive and well with most major media outlets.
Large corporations do not want Bernie to win the nomination because he plans on changing the tax structure to their detriment. Don’t let that agenda skew the importance of his campaign and the momentum it is building.
211
@SM Bernie is one of a few Dems that would lose to Trump in an electoral landslide, but also in the popular vote.
16
@SM Bernie's support is a mile deep and a foot wide. His supporters love him and shower him with cash, but there aren't enough of them to win the general election, and worse, his younger voters have a poor record of showing up on Election Day. Bernie will make a good run in the primaries, as in 2016, but at the end of the process, it will probably be Biden who takes on Trump.
11
Right.
I mean, St. Bernie’s in the headline, the subtitle, and has the whole third para to hisself....but he’s not mentioned until the fourth para.
Which planet is this stuff happening on?
12
Bernie is crushing it. Nice job burying the lead.
201
not that it matters to me personally, but why is the clear and away leader in donations, Bernie, not in the headline or even mentioned until the third paragraph?
180
Interesting that the headline skips over Bernie's rebound and solid second place position. Is that how we typically report on races? Here's the top candidate, and here's the candidate in third?
80
Really? "Biden Rebounds", "Sanders Rolls" and then two paragraphs that do not even mention the leading Democratic fundraising candidate, Bernie Sanders.
122
@A they changed from the initial headline.
3
What we know is that Sanders is crushing it.* What a terribly disingenuous headline for this story...
Sanders is near to topping 5m individual donors and dominates the small money raise AND totals earned during this period and for the race.
82
The headline mentions Biden and Warren. Leaves Sanders name out, even though he is the "pace setter."
88
The millions upon millions upon millions wasted on political campaigns in the United States is staggering! It exemplifies just how corrupted our elective system has become and why we need to pass hard core reform– beginning with passing HR1 and an amendment to overturn Citizens United. Exhausting doesn't even begin to describe the mess that is the American primary season and election cycle: a perpetual juggernaut that turns so many Americans off to politics in general and is why our elected officials spend 90% of their time raising money for campaigns.
19
@Twg , Nothing bernie wants will be accomplished without the Senate.
4
@Marylee Sen. Sanders will be able to make some immediate improvements for Us through the president's power of Executive Order. These will be actions for the good of our nation--not the kinds of orders Trump has issued. Bernie's presidency will also assist the success of other progressives in the too-soon mid-term races. His diverse government experience in the House & Senate, along with four consecutive elections as mayor of Vermont's largest city, are a huge asset toward making an educated fast start for Us. There will be no empty program promises like Trump made re health care, infrastructure, etc.
5
@Marylee But Biden's imaginary GOP friends will pass Biden's legislation like they did under Obama? We have to win the Senate no matter who is president.
1
It says a lot about our election process that it comes down to money raised. Elected politicians spend more time fundraising then they do legislating. "Thanks" SCOTUS.
22
I like Bernie and have donated, but I wish we would all stop grasping at signs of what other people think, like polling numbers or even donation amounts. Vote your conscience, people! Everything else is hype, and a whole lot of good this prognosticating did in 2016.
39
If the electorate can't nominate and elect a real progressive Democrat, we deserve another round of Trumpism. How far does the pendulum have to swing before we get wise? With Biden, we are sure to get more of the same old same old.
43
@kozarrj
That might be the best Russian propaganda since "Ukraine meddled in 2016 election." Divide and distract.
This election is about exactly one thing: SCOTUS. Biden, Warren, Peter Rabbit, King Kong, whatever.
Do NOT make the same mistake as 2016. Do NOT get divided or distracted. You can be absolutely sure the religious fruitcakes and grifters will not allow themselves to be.
3
Bernie will be the Democratic nominee by sweeping the early primaries. Then the bandwagon effect kicks in. That is good because He's the only one who can beat Trump.
If the status quo Dems cheat like 2016 and Bernie isn't the nominee, the Bernie or bust effect kicks in. If you don't know what a Bernie or bust person is look it up. Their are around a million of people who will vote for the Green Party candidate if Bernie is not the nominee.
It comes down to Bernie or Trump. My vote is on Bernie or a Green Party nominee. Along with many other Bernie or Bust folks.
37
@Hugh Stoner
Sorry, not believable.
Also completely against what Mr. Sanders espouses.
Why cause divisiveness?
Be better.
20
@Dobbys sock better like the DNC's fairness to Bernie in 16? Like Wasserman-Shultz and Donna Brazille? No Bernie or busters are not going to capitulate. Bernie or Trump.
5
That's how we need to have our elections -- who can raise the most money within a set period of time. So that poor people can also have a chance, there can be no self-funded campaigns.
Since the horse race has apparently changed from polls to pocketbooks, let's cut out the middle (um...) middle-person and just base it all on how rich your supporters are.
4
Prediction. Warren continues to slide, Biden holds, Pete rises, and Bernie continues to be an outlier, no matter how many mountains of cash he sits on. You heard it here first.
24
@raven55
In other words, no one is nominating a socialist or a completely inexperienced kid.
6
Anyone that can beat Trump would a godsend.
Every indication argues that Bernie would be able to beat Trump. All our candidates would make great presidents. Bernie would be a fabulous one.
In any case, never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
44
Warren has been hammered on by the media and Republicans with incessant messaging that keeps telling us what she can't get done. Sanders has been given a pass since Warren is this elections Sanders. Until Warren can find a way to beat back the onslaught against her she will continue to remain stuck in the middle, not gaining but not entirely falling by the wayside either. I hope she can survive.
12
@Magan , agree, all the Wall Streeters and corporations are terrified of Liz. She has the plans we need to get rid of the influence of $. Best for the future and I will still vote for her in the primaries. Pete and Joe are disgustingly middle of the road with corporate love behind them. I will vote for the democrat, but these two will not change the dangerous trajectory of our Nation's finances. People's needs are not being met.
6
This is absurd that the viability of a candidate is judged by their ability raise money. Will that also be the barometer to judge them whether they would be successful in the general election?
That is why we need public financing of all elections.
11
The headline should be “Sanders continues to dominate donations” and it is shameful that it is not. (For the record I am reading on mobile which only includes Biden’s and Warren’s names in the headline)
By ignoring even putting his name in the primary headline, you are continuing to passively push the narrative of Sanders as a marginal candidate. The cumulative effect that headlines have on the public perception of candidates is immeasurably large. Perhaps Biden is polling at the top currently, but maybe that would change if Sanders was actually included in headlines.
It’s pathetic that the candidate with by far the strongest showing in donations (individual contributors, contributions, and donation totals) would not be included in a headline about candidate’s donation totals.
110
@Sam Mulcahy
For the record, the headline on my mac included Sanders' name, and also included him in a sub-paragraph just below headline. Same on my iPhone.
So it is a mystery that you and several other commenters don't have the complete headline on whatever devices you are using.
1
The primary race should not be about who can raise the most money, particularly who can raise the most from Wall Street, super PACs, and others who want to have a say in the next administration.
I think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have demonstrated that if you are running a campaign that a large number of Americans support, then you can count on them to send in their $5, $10, or $20 donations. And ask nothing in return other than for the candidate to look out for the rest of America, not just those with the big bucks.
My hope is that the next president will focus on the corruption inherent in our political system and work to end these big money fundraisers in wine caves and private backrooms. There's so much "swampiness" in DC right now to tackle, but I hope fighting corruption and advocating for public funding of campaigns will be at the top of the next president's list.
52
arda- On the contrary, the small donors of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren do want something in return. They want the "free eats" that those candidates are promising.
2
@Joan Senator
No, we want a sane society. If you call healthcare or civil rights or education "free eats" you are on the side of the oligarchs, who have it all.
8
No he isn't. He might be raising some money. But the smart people give money to everyone.
I have not heard one person say "Hey, I kinda changed my mind about Biden, I think he would make a good president, I'm going to vote for him." Yeah, that hasn't happened. That isn't GOING to happen. No matter how hard the editorial board wants it.
36
I haven't heard much from Bloomberg, despite NY Times reporting in November that he would be spending more than 30 million on TV ads. He could be the one, or not. We'll see. I wonder if he'll be in the next debate. Could be interesting to see how he takes on Biden.
1
@Mike don’t think he qualifies since he isn’t taking civilian money directly
5
Bernie Sanders proves once again that you don't have to sell yourself to corporations to get funding for your campaign, and you don't disarm yourself by doing so. So if you do it,it is because you decided to. Credit Card Joe and Wall Street Pete are taking money from corporations because they are fully ok with doing their bidding. Biden getting a super PAC is clear evidence of that. And if you ever wonder how we got Trump in White House it is precisely because Democrats like this two are selling themselves to corporations. And if Biden (or Buttigieg) is the nominee he will lose to Trump in worst case scenario or we will get another Trump-like president after he will leave the office in best case scenario.
125
I appreciate how nice the zealous purity must feel, but we don’t yet live in a country with public campaign financing. Until we do, I don’t mind progressive candidates raising money from the wealthy. Honestly, I get tired of them hitting average people up for cash. There isn’t one shred of evidence that such fundraising has actually “corrupted” Warren, Biden, or Buttigieg. I desperately want to live in a world where our campaigns are much cheaper and candidates don’t have to beg the wealthy for cash. Until we do, Trump is going to be gathering as much cash from wealthy donors as possible with zero scruples, so I am totally fine with our Dem candidates fundraising as much as they can to defeat him.
78
I clearly see corruption of big money on Biden and Buttigieg. Just look what they advocate - use the public (Government) money. to shore private companies that what subsidies all about. Biden should know that he supported Obamacare that made the healthcare insurances richer, while the rest has to deal with increase cost of healthcare.
26
@IntentReader
You said:
"...I don’t mind progressive candidates raising money from the wealthy."
A complete and total oxymoron.
And if you are referring to Biden or Buttigieg as progressive candidates then you either don't know what a progressive candidate really means, or you have been fooled the carefully constructed Democratic Party packaging/ merchandising of candidates like them.
In 2016, millions of us cringed whenever Hillary was called a "progressive". Progressives don't get paid $200K + fees for speeches to Wall Street big shots.
Progressives don't make lame excuses for raking in big campaign bucks from special interest wealthy "bundlers" and Super Pacs.
As for you being:
"... totally fine with our Dem candidates fundraising as much as they can to defeat him." (Trump).
They are not running against Trump at the moment. They are running against each other, and their lists of contributors should tell you who they will be beholden to.
Don't you have to wonder why these big buck donors are contributing? Do you think they expect nothing in return?
It is just so maddening how people keep complaining about how our elections and candidates are so corrupted by big bucks influence. Then a real progressive comes along who is not taking big bucks and who is not corrupted, and he (or she) is vilified.
Wake up people.
Millions of people and families are contributing to Sanders because they are inspired and know that he owes no favors.
51
Add it all up and it is pocket-change for Mike Bloomberg. Keep in mind that Trump has already raised over $300,000. Bloomberg can outspend Trump 10:1 without breaking a sweat.
5
You can follow the money, but in the case of this political campaign, this is not the indicator of future success or underlying trends.
If what we are seeing in New Hampshire is any guide, the number of contributors or the size of donation say little about how the vote will go.
What we hear is this:
1/ Warren gained adherents with her message: Corruption is the problem. We need to be fearless and go for big change. Then she blew it with MFA and refusing to explain why Medicare for all who want it would not do.
2/ Biden started with a lead, but he appeared feeble and incapable of going the distance.
3/ Bernie has his hard core fans and each will contribute small repetitive amounts.
None of these folks, unfortunately, will beat Trump.
Gavin Newsom, where are you?
4
I used to like Bernie but someone seeking the nomination of a political party should BELONG to that political party. If he joined the party the party machinery might just have more incentive to work with him, Don't you think? Just maybe? Okay, because I feel deja Vu coming on- Bernie and his fans claiming the nomination was stolen, followed by pouting and sitting on hands, followed by four more years of Trump. And yes, I will blame sore losers Bernie and Bros.
68
@Haynannu Bernie’s independence and keeping the city Dems at arm’s length is key to winning in purple States.
48
@Haynannu Trump wasn't a Republican Party regular either. He just signed up to run for president. Before that, he gave money to candidates from both parties, as businessmen do, to hedge their bets on getting something in return from the winner. If you don't like Bernie's policies, fine but stop blaming him and his supporters for Hillary's weak message and campaign mistakes.
63
That would be great if independent candidates weren’t reviled as “spoilers” and their supporters told they were “wasting their votes;” but until we bust up the two-party stranglehold we’ve been subjected to for decades, any candidate who wants to stand a chance has to align themself with one of said parties. How to fix this: RANKED CHOICE VOTING
38
I see big hauls with very different fundraising strategies. But Biden and Bernie stand out because they have been written off but just keep chugging along.
My guess at this point is that it will be either Bernie or Biden. Warren and Pete peaked too early and lack the die hard base of Bernie or the steady base of Biden.
18
Can Obama serve as his Vice President? It could be Biden-Obama. I would also like to see Carter serve his 2nd term.
3
Found a possible dark horse candidate who might generate real excitement.
Governor Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania. Maverick governor of an important swing state (Hillary lost PA in 2016) for 5 years, ex-Peace Corp volunteer. Successful business person. Independent thinker and politician. Please research him.
9
Sanders was first in money raised coming in, and is going to be first in money raised this quarter -- a leader extending his commanding lead. You'd think that would be the lede.
233
@Brian
Were you around for the Howard Dean campaign? There are a lot of similar factors.
Sanders has a loyal and durable constituency, to his credit. But he's not going to get the nomination.
Money can't buy you love.
28
@Brian He's certainly not leading in the polls.
16
@Brian
Well, there is a bit of irony that the candidate who best appeals to those in financial need is also the candidate taking in the most money; and most of this money comes from these folks. Almost Trumpian, though I will acknowledge that Bernie actually wants to help his supporters.
17
Surprised Yang will do $13MM. Odd if they don’t let him in debate.
12
Except for Bernie there is no genuine candidate for the people in this race. The number of donors and the size of their donations show me that if we want a person in the White House to represent the common folk, he is the mensch to do it.
Buttigieg needs to release the list of his bundlers ASAP. We will see the names of Wall Street biggies as well as people who represent the likes of his buddy, Mark Zuckerberg, the famous Bond Villain.
People, please pay attention. None of the bundlers have anything good in mind for you unless you are in the one percent. Wake up. You can kick all the bums out of Congress up for election and deliver the White House to a good man. A man who spent all his life defending you and improve your lot. A true Rawlsian if there ever was one.
In his America you are closer than ever to go to sleep without knowing who you would get up as, and be indifferent to the fact.
132
@Blunt
Why don't you think Andrew Yang's Humanity First policy ideas aren't "for the people"?
I wish the media would cover the candidate's and their policy ideas better, instead of treating this like a game.
18
@Blunt Yang has a huge number of small donors. Almost all of his money has come from outside the usual Democrat machine.
11
Yang would make a good Secretary of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. He is a good man and has interesting ideas. In my opinion, he is not at the level of seeking the Presidency. He has zero political experience and brilliance and great ideas is necessary but not sufficient condition in my book.
Give him some time. Even the best Bordeaux needs some bottle age before being enjoyed by people.
28
So many people I know, including myself, are holding back on donating to any candidate for the present. The field is still large.
5
@J. Meanwhile candidates are dropping out because they don't have enough money. Donating to a candidate (early) is part of the way that we exert our choice of who is left when the field narrows and who is eventually nominated.
13
@J. No harm in spreading your money around a little. I am still donating to 2 candidates on a quarterly basis.
3
@J. , I have supported my candidate from the beginning, the way to change our nation for the better, Liz Warren.
3