MovieChat Forums > Beto O'Rourke Discussion > Raised Slighly More Than Bernie Sanders ...

Raised Slighly More Than Bernie Sanders In First 24 Hours Of Announcing Campaign

posted 5 years ago by [deleted]
12 replies | jump to latest

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/us/politics/beto-o-rourke-fundraising.html

March 18, 2019

WASHINGTON — Beto O’Rourke raised more than $6 million online in the first 24 hours after announcing his presidential campaign last week, according to his campaign, outpacing his rivals for the Democratic nomination and making an emphatic statement about his grass-roots financial strength.

Mr. O’Rourke brought in $6,136,736 after declaring his long-anticipated bid with a web video and trip to Iowa on Thursday morning, raising the sum entirely online and from all 50 states, the campaign said.

He narrowly beat the first-day haul of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who raised $5.9 million after announcing his bid last month and who would go on to raise $10 million before his first week was over.

In other words the party that pretends to champion females and pretends to fight sexism and misogyny has once again thrown another major round of support behind the other major white male candidate. Democrats refuse to support the only viable female candidates they have, Klobuchar (the most successful legislative history), Warren (the most famous, and a "leftist" mouthpiece pushing to break up corporations and capitalism), Kamala (minority who carries herself as another Barack Obama), Gillibrand (most leftist progressive voting record of all the candidates with a voting record), and Gabbard ("leftist mouthpiece" pushing hard against military industrial complex, broke ranks against Democrats over many military intervention and military spending issues, very publically broke rank against Hillary Clinton during email hearing and as superdelegate, dedicated anti-war platform). Democrats are instead pushing two white men as their frontrunners.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

How does supporting a male candidate mean they aren't opposed to sexism and misogyny?

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16175) 5 years ago

Typical con logic. O'Rourke sucks anyway.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It's wonderful that you think a "con" mostly promotes and would vote for Beto or Bernie or Kamala or Jay or Tulsi or Delaney or Rocky Mountain or Marianne or Wayne or Arth or Pete or Andrew (yes even you, the Democratic party must win) or Juan Amy or Elizabeth etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Candidates

Would a "con" donate to Tulsi, Beto, Andrew (but no more, why are all the Universal Basic Income advocates lt-right libertarian racist scumbags? "cons" don't support free money give-aways), Klobuchar, Pete, and Hickenlooper (and I'm hardcore anti-drugs in the extreme.....)

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Because they have multiple female candidates and they mostly refuse to support them (duh....), and two of those female candidates (Klobuchar and Gillibrand) have records (and educations) that are far more successful then the two frontunning males, Sanders and O'Rourke. Those two females, their records leave Sanders and O'Rourke in the dust. Also, the Colorado and Washington governors have actual real-life successful leftist liberal progressive records as governor, and Democrats refuse to support them. Both are demonstrably successful at implementing real liberal leftist progressive policies and Democrats are refusing to support them. The Democratic base are proving they don't care about anything other than having a candidate that "sounds awesome!" instead of a candidate who is actually stacked with a record that prepares them for the Presidency.

I'm not saying I won't vote for Beto/Bernie on Election Day. I'm simply pointing out that the Democratic base are trash idiots who don't support anything they pretend to support, they're hypocrites and liars and racist and sexist and more. They scream endlessly about being anti-war yet refuse to back Tulsi. They want the exact leftist policies the two governors have but won't back them either. They want a President who can pass the promised policies but dismiss somebody like Klobuchar, a massively successful legislative workhorse, who actually can get everything and more passed.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

I think you're reverting to identity politics with your logic on this.

It's identity politics to say gender or race should factor into any part of the equation as to who to vote for. That's the kind of thinking we need to get away from as a country. If it's toxic to think that way about the reason to give a white male more support the same logic applies for any race or gender.

As for saying the female candidates leave Sanders record "in the dust", that's highly debatable when you consider Bernie has been working in government for far longer than all of them. Unlike Warren and Klobuchar, he's only recently received the benefit of plumb committee assignments from Dem leadership after raising his profile in 2016, so he hasn't been well positioned in past years to push legislation through congress like the other two. But he has made the most of what he could do all those years as a back bencher, using the legislative side door of amendments to affect bills.

Electing a president has never been about just qualifications alone, personal appeal and charisma has always been part of the equation. As for the 3 female candidates thus far, all 3 have their flaws that detract from their personal appeal. Hillary was a woman and the most qualified candidate to date when she won the nom in 2016 and that didn't work out so well.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It's not identity politics when two of the females running and two males running have records that make Sanders' and O'Rourke's look like a joke yet Democrats refuse to support them. It's not about personal appeal or charisma because Sanders lost the primary and wasn't appealing enough for more than half the voters to write his name on the ballot. Nothing stopped them from doing so. I already pointed out, it's not the record Democrats care about, because the most successful elected officials running right now are simply done, campaign over, dismissed by the Democratic voting base already.

"As for saying the female candidates leave Sanders record "in the dust", that's highly debatable when you consider Bernie has been working in government for far longer than all of them."

And his record is nothing, Klobuchar is factually the most successful Senator in the Senate, and the two governors have factually successful records and both are leftist liberal progressive records, Bernie's stint as mayor was rocky and decades ago. Even Gillibrand's Senate record is factually better than Bernie's. She also votes alongside Trump/Republicans the least, technically making her the most leftist/liberal/progressive in the Senate, not Sanders. And she has zero support because of sexism (and real antisemitism....).

Also, Joe Biden, so far, also has massive support, and he's not, for the moment, running, and his record is half progressive-good and half-disasterous, he really is why Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court, and Democrats are salivating at the thought of voting for him. Even his messy speech the other day has not effected his support.

The Democratic base are lying, worthless, hypocritical, racist, sexist, people who quite possibly deserve to lose the election. The DNC already rigged the primary against the female candidates, and also against the most qualified male candidates, the two governors.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

"It's not about personal appeal or charisma because Sanders lost the primary and wasn't appealing enough for more than half the voters to write his name on the ballot."

Actually Sanders has lots of personal appeal. You're failing to take into account name recognition from playing a huge role as to who has the most support in early polling nearly two years before the 2020 election. The same applies to Biden. The female candidates are in the process of trying to raise their national profile when most people don't know anything about them. It's way too early to make snap judgments.

At this point in early 2015 no one knew anything about Sanders either and he was drawing less than one percent support nationally. He greatly outperformed expectations against the entrenched establishment candidate despite all her natural advantages as he gradually raised his profile throughout the primary. He made a competitive run of it because of his appeal and because people were drawn to his platform. Else he would have suffered the same fate as Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland who no one even remembers from the Dem primary because he dropped out early.

Personal appeal has always played a role in who people choose to support to be their leader. This is just a fact of life and the human condition. It's what I attribute to Beto's early success. As for Sanders, the fact his policy positions have now become mainstreamed into the Dem party speaks to the appeal he has to the base. They like his policy positions and appreciate his honesty.

[–] Cuthbert (732) 5 years ago

[–] jacob54311 (2070) 9 hours ago
How does supporting a male candidate mean they aren't opposed to sexism and misogyny

Here, here; it doesn’t.

BTW- Bernie said to wait and see how many individual donations Beto got. It’ll be interesting to see what the average donation amount ends up being.

[–] ctwdidswej (212) 5 years ago

In 2016, Hillary raised more than all other primary candidates from both sides combined. She went on to raise over 2 billion. Why are we celebrating this? We aren't concerned about money in politics any more?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Republicans do not care about money in politics and the current body of laws regarding money in politics favour them and they are laughing at "the left" who want money out of politics while they - the Republicans - control the government and are merrily outfundraising Democrats by the hundreds of millions (and outperforming the Democrats in so many more areas like the RNC's grassroots training organizations and bootcamps all across the US that are funded all-year-round, college conservative groups, union infiltration, and relentless republican "literature" disseminated everywhere).

Democrats threatening Democratic candidates to stop taking money and stop celebrating fundraising is not an option: fundraising is a key metric pointing to scope and size of base support, when you raise a lot, you celebrate that you do indeed have a base, that people really do want your policies to win; fundraising also serves to fund the down-the-ballot Democrats, and Democratic party's political machine, which runs at all times, all year round, full time job, just like the Republican machine.

Threatening them and calling them corporate shills isn't going to make them stop taking money because without that money they cannot in any capacity campaign on the same scale as the Republican machine, without the money there is no campaign and they lose. The laws as they currently exist allow for the exploitation of political financing and Republicans are exploiting it which means Democrats need to do the same (and they're trying to do it without SuperPac help), not "go higher" and pretend Republicans will magically follow them and stop their own fundraising and compete "fair and square" at a time when Republicans are openly and brazenly gerrymandering in the extreme and committing actual election fraud.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

It's significant because the haul came primarily from small donations online, which is a pretty good indication of a candidate's grassroots support.

It's also important because candidates who are funded in small amounts by large numbers can refuse to to accept donations from the corporate pacs and their ability to buy the loyalty of our politicians with the size of their substantial donations.

But so far I haven't seen Beto refuse to be bought by big money pacs like Sanders, Warren, and Tulsi have.

[–] McQualude (4231) 5 years ago

[deleted]