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.

GP