Thursday, July 23, 2015

Obama's Donors Flocking To Sanders, Romney's Going To Rubio


by Gaius Publius

This is an interesting find. The underlying article is from U.S. News, as is the graphic above, and underlying that is analysis by Crowdpac, a "San Francisco-based political data-mining firm which analyzed the July presidential campaign finance reports." There's a nice interactive graphic on their site if you're inclined to play with the data.

First, from the article; then a few notes (h/t dKos diarist LieparDestin; my emphasis):
Obama's Donors Flocking To Sanders, Romney's Going To Rubio

Bernie Sanders is drawing more of Barack Obama's 2012 campaign donors than Hillary Clinton.

And Marco Rubio is scoring the biggest share of Mitt Romney's contributors thus far.

These are the findings of Crowdpac, a San Francisco-based political data-mining firm which analyzed the July presidential campaign finance reports.

The Vermont senator has already received contributions from 24,582 of Obama's donors; whereas Clinton has only tapped just over 9,000 of them. Martin O'Malley, the former Maryland governor, has grabbed 383 Obama donors.

That means Sanders has nabbed 72 percent of the 34,340 Obama donors who have given to a candidate in 2016, according to Crowdpac.
There's interesting analysis of donor moves on the Republican side as well, but I'll let you click to read it.

I found this both fascinating and confirming:
And then there's the surprising.

There's 276 Romney donors who have given to Sanders, and 280 who have given to Clinton.

And just to show the dizzying breadth of some people's choices, Crowdpac discovered that five contributors to Michele Bachmann – one of the most conservative candidates in the 2012 GOP field – sent money to Sanders, the self-avowed socialist.
Which leads to this set of thoughts...

Is Sanders a Stronger Candidate in the General Election than Clinton?

It's always been my sense that while Clinton would likely inspire Republicans to vote against her (not her fault, it's just that '90s history and the right-wing's ready hatred of what they presume is the Clintons' hippie past) — Sanders would inspire Republicans to voter for him. After all, he's really talking the talk I personally hear from "tea party" voters all the time. Literally, all the time. (Ask any one of your right-wing relatives what she thinks of the bank bailout of 2008.)

Put another way, if you're just into electoral strategizing, it's been my sense that to some degree, Clinton will depress the Democratic turnout relative to Sanders (because of all those Warren wing types who have had it with "TPP presidencies," to apply just one label); at the same time she will perhaps increase turnout against her (again, not her fault).

I suspect Sanders, on the other hand, would keep all of Clinton's voters in the general election (because, "Republicans!" dontcha know) and pick up some Republicans that can't stomach the Trump or the Bush or the Bailout.

Which leads to two thoughts. One, let the Democratic candidates duke it out; that's why we have primaries. But make it a fair fight. After all, if Chuck Schumer–Democrats (the Wall Street–wing players who have power) do to Sanders what they do to almost all progressives — and Clinton loses in the general election — that lose is on them.

And two, if I'm right, Sanders' more difficult battle is the Democratic primary, not the general election. Partly because Hillary Clinton is indeed a "formidable opponent" (in Stephen Colbert's formulation), and because of the above — because the Chuck Schumers of the world may very well prefer to lose to an insider Republican (with whom they can deal on all issues related to money) than win with an anti-money Democrat.

Watch out for that. The bipartisan Wall Street wing is not to be trusted.

About That Data Above

As data goes, I found that pretty interesting. One thing to keep in mind, though. They can only analyze the data they have. Data from the 2012 race, they may have a fair amount of. Data from this race? There's probably more there than will ever meet the eye.

And one more thing — we don't know whether large donors are overrepresented in either the Sanders or the Clinton group, something that may be fascinating to know. Still, there's plenty of time, and apparently of money.


Labels: , , , , , , ,


At 12:10 PM, Blogger ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

Wall St. money was a big reason Obama was able to win against Hillary in 2008. (And it sure paid off big for them!!)

I doubt if much of that is going to Bernie Sanders.

At 12:35 PM, Blogger Mf Lehman said...

Really interesting data. And I think your notion that Hills might actually unite and activate the Republican base much more than Bernie could be right on the money. The bank bailouts remain the number one issue that can unite the "far left" and "far right" - i.e. people who want to reverse the plummet into national debt peonage. I am not sure why Rand doesn't excite that crowd on the right the way his dad did, but he doesn't. And I have heard a surprising number of apparent right-wingers express a lot of interest in Bernie. I think a lot of this goes to show how tribalism and bad journalism have destroyed a coherent national political conversation.

At 8:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rand Paul is a phony through and through who changes his positions to please whatever constituency he thinks needs pleasing at any given moment. That's why the extreme right that his father titillated isn't behind Rand. Ron Paul was authentically crazy, whereas Rand Paul is only authentically stupid and phony.

At 6:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

very interesting...

Like I've been saying all along, Bernie should engage the third of the electorate that doesn't participate due to never having a voice in today's moneygarchy. Obamination engaged SOME of that third in 2008 before he proved to be just another Reagan clone with a lot of Hoover thrown in. 2010 and 2012 proved that that SOME stayed home when the proof was seen.

It is relevant, imo, to note that these donors are NOT the big superpac donors, who will certainly dominate this and all future elections. They don't have to be revealed if they don't want to be.

Your analysis of how hilbillary will animate the right as well as suppress the left is right on. The right is where the misogynists are, and they've been inculcated with Pavlovian hatred of Hilbillary in spite of the limbic issues supported by them (think DOMA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, Welfare et al).

I get why Romney donors are giving to hilbillary. She, after all, is the best wall street and corporate candidate out there. But an almost equal number are greasing Bernie??? I find that immensely interesting.

Yes, I also agree that if Bernie can emerge from the primaries, he SHALL win. But will the money allow that? Only if Bernie meets with and pledges fealty to the lobby caste en masse. Otherwise, he ... won't. be. allowed. to.

Even if Bernie isn't smeared or killed to keep him out, he'd be nearly impotent against a unified senate/house/money collusion against his policy positions.

However, **IF** Bernie wins, it's possible that 2018 might see more ACTUAL progressives being encouraged enough to run. If they run, they should win... except in the south of course.


Post a Comment

<< Home