New clarity about Beto and Bernie first 24 hours....

[RobertDevereaux]

%%%%
"Beto O’Rourke announced additional details Wednesday about the massive fundraising haul in the first day of his presidential campaign, showing that while he may have beat rival Bernie Sanders in total money raised, Sanders had the advantage in two key metrics.

"After a campaign stop here, O’Rourke told reporters that he received “more than 128,000 unique contributions” in the first 24 hours, with an average donation size of $47. O'Rourke's campaign later corrected the average donation size, saying it was actually $48. By comparison, Sanders’ campaign said its first-day haul came from over 225,000 individual donors for an average contribution size of $27.

"While O'Rourke didn't elaborate on what he meant by unique contributions, the measure is generally regarded as different from the number of individual donors."
%%%%

https://www.texastribune.org/2019/03/20/beto-orourke-bernie-sanders-unique-donors/?fbclid=IwAR1utSvlfP3pzRQ2tDAxxmRzNAGUEoIZZ_fY6qZfLc7X0B128eyKYxf4Vak

[SFnomad]

1. So don't tell me ... BS actually won, right?

[Renew Deal]

2. Like Iowa last time around

[sheshe2]

26. Lol!

[handmade34]

3. pshaw...

[TwilightZone]

4. So, all of the rumors of it being just a few large donations were false.

Interesting.

[floppyboo]

5. that's not how averages work. LOL! nt

[TwilightZone]

6. Hence, the word "just"

It clearly wasn't "just" a few large donations if more than 100,000 parties donated.

This isn't complicated. It's simple math, really. And simple English, for that matter.

[floppyboo]

8. obviously. And?

I was more impressed that he got donations from all 50 states. That, for someone whose polled 'unkowns' is quite large, is very impressive indeed. He's got a bunch of time to get his ground game together. Could be quite outstanding I think.

I have to say, being a Canadian, and having watched the Trudeau roll-out of a year or so of community coffee house style meet and greets to gauge the popular opinion, I feel like I'm watching a re-run. Beto clearly has the tv charisma (perhaps he should consider funky socks?) and will have his talking points clearly distilled by June. And then a year to choose which of those 'points' can be upheld as ultimate winners. But unlike Canada, I don't see that you guys down there have a choice. Third parties are not an option. So I only hope that Beto gets the best message for a winning strategy, and not just a few band-aids to cover the same old same old.

Rooting for you all! That beast you've got now is destroying the world.

[BannonsLiver]

18. Yes, the average donation was $47 or $48

TO some that's "oligarch money", I guess.

[NastyRiffraff]

21. Well, it's more than $27!

So it must come from PACs, oligarchs, and evil corporations.

[Cheap_Trick]

7. What they neglect to mention

I wonder how many "unique contributions" will come from fossil fuel?

[floppyboo]

9. I'm not sure that's going to be a thing going forward from Texas

If he's going to have any hope of winning in the primaries, IMO, he's going to have to pick a few really pivotal super progressive policies and stand by them no matter what. Green New Deal? Um, big doubts. edit:Unless he can be really articulate about investment in mew technologies. But perhaps some of Warren's economic policies?

[Nanjeanne]

10. What is a unique contribution? Never heard of it but it's obviously not individual contributions

[R B Garr]

11. This lie about Beto has already been debunked. nt

[floppyboo]

12. Which lie?

I am curious. The one rumour I have heard is that a big chunk of the 6.1K came from the Texan DNC - money that Beto returned to the party after his Senate run - and that they then gave back to him when he announced he was running?

Is that what you're talking about? So that didn't happen? Would be good to cite that info that that was a lie.

[R B Garr]

13. LOL

[floppyboo]

14. hey - I was quite serious. LOL?

[OilemFirchen]

22. GTFOOH

You cite your evidence that it's true.

[floppyboo]

23. see my post 17 below. Looks like we all have to wait.

Don't appreciate your language, btw.
I shouldn't have taken the bait of the OP. My bad.
And I would totally support a ban on speculation here - which is all emotional and not supported by fact.
Fed by indignant trolls.
This would be a really skinny group if we could stay focused.
Better for everyone's health.
I'm going on a diet.

[OilemFirchen]

34. That's the post where you said this:

Seems you turn on the news today, and all there is is a few headlines of fact and then it turns into a gossip column. Very hard to keep facts straight from the ever germinating fake news.

... after, again, repeating an unverified rumor. This subthread is about you suggesting that someone else prove it false.

BTW, I don't give a fuck whether you appreciate my language.

[floppyboo]

36. oh dear. I was merely trying to accept my portion of the blame.

should have spoke plain canadeese: "sorry"

[emulatorloo]

35. Yes it is best for us to avoid rumors and "some people say" type stuff

We do speculate here a lot but it is better when speculation is fact based.



Oh the diet has to include beer.

[Politicub]

16. They also neglect to mention

I wonder how many "unique contributions" come from people who sow chaos?

[Socal31]

42. Sorry but I had to stop and say thank you.

Its rare I catch myself grinning from ear to ear this early.

[BannonsLiver]

19. Careful, those goalposts can get heavy.

[emulatorloo]

32. A woman who works at a Texaco station and donates her own money isnt "fossil fuel"

It isn’t Texaco’s money. It’s her money.

We’ll see all this data in OpenSecrets soon I expect. The trick is not to confuse contributions from individual people with corporate donations, because they aren’t the same

[Politicub]

15. BUt, BErnIE's dOLLArs ArE mAgIcAL.

Even though his haul was less, it's worth more in spirit. Or something like that.

[Tipperary]

20. If you are going to type like that lol, you need more of these !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BannonsLiver]

24. Stop it!

[floppyboo]

17. It's all speculation until April(?) so let's all just be happy!

The tweet accuses the Texas Democratic Party of violating federal campaign laws by contributing more than $5,000 (£3,765) to Mr O’Rourke's presidential campaign. However, the Federal Election Commission only has disclosure information prior to February – meaning there is no way to know how much, if any, the Texas Democratic Party actually donated to Mr O’Rourke's 2020 campaign that kicked off last week, until that information has been filed and published.

https://news.yahoo.com/beto-o-apos-rourke-campaign-155253484.html

Let's hope the speculation proves untrue. More fodder for the media to stoke division.

Seems you turn on the news today, and all there is is a few headlines of fact and then it turns into a gossip column. Very hard to keep facts straight from the ever germinating fake news.

[TwilightZone]

25. You must have missed the part about it being misinformation.

You should probably read that article again.

"Beto O’Rourke's record-breaking fundraising haul has appeared to upset supporters of Bernie Sanders, who began spreading misinformation about how the Texas Democrat’s campaign managed to top that of the Vermont senator’s in its first 24 hours."

"It remained unclear where the misleading accusations stemmed from and whether or not they were simply based on a general misunderstanding of campaign finances."

The tweet you're talking about was false. Perez is either lying or misinformed.

[floppyboo]

37. huh? Missed it is why I bolded it??? Sorry x 1 gazillion for ever no pinky sweare

[lapucelle]

40. Where did you bold it?

I didn't see "misinformation" and "misleading accusation" bolded in your post. You called it "speculation".

[lapucelle]

38. Beto O'Rourke campaign: Bernie Sanders' supporters fuel misinformation about Texas Democrat's record

From your link:

A tweet claiming the former congressman’s 2020 campaign was part of a supposed financial kickback with the Texas Democratic Party went viral after Mr O'Rourke released his fundraising figures from his first day on the campaign trail earlier this week.

That tweet was posted by Xavier Perez, a member of the Democratic county committee in Bronx, New York and a former volunteer for Mr Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.

Mr Perez did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Calls to his offices also went unanswered.

snip=======================================================

The tweet accuses the Texas Democratic Party of violating federal campaign laws by contributing more than $5,000 (£3,765) to Mr O’Rourke's presidential campaign. However, the Federal Election Commission only has disclosure information prior to February – meaning there is no way to know how much, if any, the Texas Democratic Party actually donated to Mr O’Rourke's 2020 campaign that kicked off last week, until that information has been filed and published.

Supporters of Mr Sanders responded to a slate of tweets posted by journalists and other Twitter users discussing Mr O'Rourke's fundraising numbers with the same false information about the alleged kickback system between his campaign and the state party.

On Tuesday, Mr O'Rourke's director of communications Chris Evans told The Independent, "Beto's grassroots campaign raised a record-breaking $6,136,763 online from individuals in the first 24 hours after launching. Each and every single dollar of that came online from people, not from PACs, corporations, special interests or in the way described in this completely false tweet."

[lapucelle]

39. Your link says this about the "speculation":

It remained unclear where the misleading accusations stemmed from and whether or not they were simply based on a general misunderstanding of campaign finances.

[Hortensis]

27. Beto has one more advantage over Sanders:

My husband and I will donate to Beto, but never to the person who tried to illicitly, and bizarrely, overset the 2016 primary choice of the 17 million Democratic voters who nominated his opponent. If we regarded government of, by and for the people with contempt instead of veneration and would support election theft from the majority, we'd be Republicans.

[elleng]

28. Let's not do this, please,

appear to put them up against eachother.

It only serves the repugs' efforts.

[emulatorloo]

33. Thank you

[LakeArenal]

29. Let's see them compare tax returns.

[itsrobert]

31. Terrified!

Bernie and Trump supporters are terrified.

[George II]

41. The Sanders campaign didn't say they had 225,000 donors. They said they had 225,000....

....donations. There very well could have been many donors making more than one donation. In the past he had some donors that made over 1,000 donations, others as many as 700-900 donations.

By taking in hundreds of donations from the same person in very small amounts, that artificially reduced the "average" to whatever amount someone might want it to be.

In fact, in the past Sanders had 247,000 donors who made a total of 2,895,000 donations - an average of almost TWELVE donations each! The average donation from each of those 247,000 individual donors was a whopping $630! That's a far cry from the advertised $27 average.

More - of those 247,000 donors, only 40,000 made a single donation, an average of $98 each.

All of this is readily available at FEC.gov

[Gothmog]

43. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet