Biden's fundraising numbers are a bad sign for him

Author: HistoryBuff

Posts

Total: 15
Topic's author
#1
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
The fundraising numbers for the last quarter so far are:

Bernie Sanders - $25.3 million
Pete Buttigieg - $19.1 million
Joe Biden - $15.2 million
Kamala Harris - $11.6 million
Andrew Yang - $10 million
Cory Booker - $6 million

It is important to note that warren's numbers aren't out yet. 

But those are not good numbers for Biden. He raised 30% less than last quarter. While Andrew Yang, Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker are all way up. (Yang 257%, Sanders 39%, Booker 33%). Harris has held steady and Buttigieg is down 23%. 

It is also worth noting that Sanders has not done any large dollar fundraisers. His average donation size was $18. It takes a whole lot of donations to get to $25.3 million when you are doing it $18 dollars at a time. 

Biden on the other hand has done dozens of large dollar fundraisers. if he is spending that much of his time trying to fundraise and he still can't beat Sanders or Buttigieg, that is not a good sign. He can't even hold his numbers steady from last quarter.

It is also critical to keep in mind that there are caps in place for how much you can donate. Over 99% of Sanders' donors have not hit that cap as they are all small dollar donors. So it is likely he can keep this up. Biden is relying on large cash donations, which means that many of his donors have likely hit their cap already and cannot donate again. I haven't seen a percentage for this quarter, but in his reporting for the previous quarter he reported that 38% of the $22 million Biden raised (in Q2) came from donors who gave the maximum amount possible to give in the primary. Which means that 38% of his donors from Q2 cannot donate any more money. That likely is part of the reason why his fundraising dropped by 30% in Q3.
Topic's author
#2
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
Update, Warren released her numbers. The list now looks like this:

Bernie Sanders - $25.3 million
Elizabeth Warren - $24.6 million
Pete Buttigieg - $19.1 million
Joe Biden - $15.2 million
Kamala Harris - $11.6 million
Andrew Yang - $10 million
Cory Booker - $6 million

Biden is now a distant 4th in fundraising even though he spends most of his energy fundraising. His 2 biggest competitors out fund-raised him by about $10 million each. This makes the news even worse for him.
Topic's author
#3
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
Would you like to repeat your line about how there are no facts showing Biden's odds of winning are declining? Between the polls now showing Warren in the lead consistently and Biden being out fund-raised by millions by 3 other candidates, it is not looking good for Biden. 
#4
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
Lol, It's adorable that you try to use facts to back up your case for once yet still aren't even smart enough to even post a link to an actual website you pull your numbers from.... I understand you're a beginner at things like 'citing evidence', but come on, these are just rookie mistakes that even a normal idiot would try not to make.  

Ill humor you this one time before leaving the thread, since arguments with you tend to devolve to you ignoring evidence when it suits you the most 

"It is also worth noting that Sanders has not done any large dollar fundraisers. His average donation size was $18. It takes a whole lot of donations to get to $25.3 million when you are doing it $18 dollars at a time. "

Check the analytics, Sanders has a habit of pumping unspent and leftover money from his previous campaigns both as president and Senator into whatever current campaign he is operating..... In Q2, $7.6 million of the money that came as 'donations' was money he donated to his own campaign from his previous campaigns, putting his actual fundraising total from small donors for the quarter at around $18 million, much closer to what Biden averaged this quarter from almost entirely small donor donations. https://www.politico.com/2020-election/president/democratic-primary/candidates/fundraising-and-campaign-finance-tracker/



"Biden is now a distant 4th in fundraising"

Being in 4th place with $15.2 million is hardly "distant" in a race with 2 dozen candidates who are mostly struggling and gasping for air. You list Booker as an example of a candidate whose fundraising numbers are way up ironically. Did you completely miss out on the fact that a leaked email from his campaign showed his candidacy was in dire straights, causing a surge of donations because his candidacy was on the brink of death, not because of skillful fundraising?: https://www.newsweek.com/cory-booker-campaign-finance-trouble-1460613

With multiple candidates desperately just trying to stay in the game (Castro is the most recent one to publicly plead for donations), a $15+ million haul for a single quarter is a pretty healthy sign for a campaign, contrary to what you wish it signified. You would only be able to consider Biden a "distant" fourth if you narrow your view to the part of the field you want to focus on, which is naturally your calling card since looking at things objectively is a foreign concept to you. 


"Biden is relying on large cash donations, which means that many of his donors have likely hit their cap already and cannot donate again. I haven't seen a percentage for this quarter, but in his reporting for the previous quarter he reported that 38% of the $22 million Biden raised (in Q2) came from donors who gave the maximum amount possible to give in the primary. Which means that 38% of his donors from Q2 cannot donate any more money"


I'll go ahead and just post the part that is most relevant here: "Biden revealed his haul during a fundraiser in Palo Alto, California. The former vice president's team then officially disclosed his numbers ahead of the mid-October deadline, noting 98% of all donations were less than or equal to $200 for an average contribution of $44"

While Biden does indeed do high-donation events, he does not 'rely' on them as the central force for his campaign. If we assume for a moment that those max donation givers all blew their load in the second quarter (They havent since donors dont all make huge donations as early as possible in a primary), then it means that 98% of the $15+ million he raised this quarter came from regular voters from small donations...... $15+ million in donations in a quarter from small donors is hardly a sign of a weak campaign, no matter how badly you would like to spin it as. 



#5
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
"Between the polls now showing Warren in the lead consistently and Biden being out fund-raised by millions by 3 other candidates, it is not looking good for Biden."

Biden currently leads recent polls in Nevada 24% to 21% (Sanders)  to 18% (Warren) 

Biden continues to lead the polls in South Carolina 37% to 17% (Warren) to 8% (Sanders) 

Biden continues to be in a 3 way tie in the ultra liberal state of California that people would normally believe would be solid Sanders or Warren territory, a state Sanders lost to Hillary last time in 2016 as a matter of fact

First polling out of Ohio for the first time ever Shows Biden leading over Sanders and Warren 

North Carolina also is squarely in Biden's grasp where he leads 31% to 20% (Sanders) to 15% (Warren) 

Georgia also released its first poll, with Biden holding nearly HALF of all voters in the state with a massive 41% lead 

Maryland released its first poll and Biden leads there by double digits, 33% to 21% (Warren) to 10% (Sanders)



Meanwhile, there are two very important things you clearly missed by clinging to the 'Fundraising = definitive power' argument

1 - A large part of the money Warren and Sanders raised will be spent fighting over the more liberal wing of the party, while Biden has a built in base in centrists and moderates. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-08-17/a-tale-of-two-rallies-elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-have-similar-ideas-different-paths-to-victory " Some progressive voters attended both rallies, and said their biggest fear is that Warren and Sanders will split the left-wing vote and clear the way for the more centrist Joe Biden, the former vice president who is widely regarded as the front-runner for now.
“Both Bernie and Elizabeth say they can beat Trump, and I believe that,” said Nancy Strand, a Sanders supporter in 2016 from Bethlehem who is now inclined to back Warren. “But somebody has to beat Biden first. If they split the progressive vote, Biden gets through.”


And 2 - Bernie suffered a heart attack recently. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hospital.html Biden may not be at the front of the line when it comes to fundraising, but Sanders just had a flirt with death itself, and the first primaries dont start taking place until February.... There's a concerning chance that Bernie doesn't even live long enough to make it through the primary race, let alone the general election or through his first term should he win, and that could start causing voters to worry if they think theyre giving money to a quite possibly dead-man-walking



Good try, better luck next time, kid. 





Topic's author
#6
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
You are just dead set to stay with the childish insults I guess. Well, nevertheless I will attempt to remain a grown up. 


Check the analytics, Sanders has a habit of pumping unspent and leftover money from his previous campaigns both as president and Senator into whatever current campaign he is operating
This is describing Q2. This doesn't tell you anything about what their finances are for Q3, which is what this topic is about. Even if that trend continued and we discounted that money, he would still be beating Biden by millions.

Being in 4th place with $15.2 million is hardly "distant" in a race with 2 dozen candidates
It is if you want people to believe you are the front runner. He is 10 million behind his closest competitors. He is 4 million behind a guy who is polling at like 5%. Biden is running on the narrative that he is the front runner. That he is the guy to beat. Bringing in 10 million less while you spend most of your time at fundraisers (I think it was 44 big dollar fundraisers this quarter), is a very bad sign. 

You list Booker as an example of a candidate whose fundraising numbers are way up ironically.
I listed the top candidates in earnings. I in no way said that booker was doing well. I said he earned more than last quarter. Booker has no chance. Please stop trying to straw man me by beating down things I didn't say.

$15+ million haul for a single quarter is a pretty healthy sign for a campaign, contrary to what you wish it signified.
Completely out of context you would be right. $15 million is a decent earning for a campaign. However, earning significantly less that last quarter while your rivals are earning significantly more is a bad thing. Is he going to run out of money and drop out? of course not. 15 million is still a reasonable amount. But his narrative has been that he is the front runner. That he was going to carry the field. As his poll numbers sink and Warren catches him and his fundraising is 10 million behinds sanders and warren, how much longer can he keep that narrative going?

it means that 98% of the $15+ million he raised this quarter came from regular voters from small donations
Regular voters don't normally donate $200 to a primary candidate. Recent statistics have shown that regular voters can't afford an unexpected car repair. If they are donating $200 in a single shot, then they are upper middle class at least. Notice he also didn't say how many of those supposedly regular voters had donated the maximum amount either. I wouldn't put it past a centrist politician of getting people to donate in regular smaller amounts so he can look like he has more grass roots support than he does. 

We will need to wait for the filings to be submitted to get details, but I stand by the topic title. $15 million is a solid amount for a candidate in a primary. However, getting beaten by $10 million by your competitors is bad. Having a high percentage of people who can't continue to contribute is bad. We don't know what that number is for Biden this quarter, but last quarter it was pretty high. We shall see if the details of his fundraising continue to be as bad for him. 
#7
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
"It is if you want people to believe you are the front runner."

Fundraising haul =/= success in polls, just ask Jeb Bush what happened to him in the 2016 primary. He had maybe the biggest war chest out of nearly everybody else in the race yet he didnt last a day past the 4th contest and only got 3% in Iowa. 

"I in no way said that booker was doing well. I said he earned more than last quarter. Booker has no chance. Please stop trying to straw man me by beating down things I didn't say."

First post

"While Andrew Yang, Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker are all way up"

You lumped in Booker with the guy who had the largest increase overall (Yang) and the guy with the overall lead (Sanders) immediately after saying Biden's numbers are way down, thus implying that Booker is doing well in addition to others while Biden is not. 

Its pretty pathetic that you cant even remember what you say in your own posts, but thats not at all surprising knowing you.... Maybe instead of spamming three posts all at once and then trying to draw me into a debate just to be utterly embarrassed, you should calm down and get your emotions in order do that you remember what you say, boy 


Topic's author
#8
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
When you constantly just sink to personal attacks, you make it impossible for anyone to talk to you. Why would you bother being on a debating website if at the slightest questioning of your beliefs you descend into childish insults?

Fundraising haul =/= success in polls, just ask Jeb Bush what happened to him in the 2016 primary. He had maybe the biggest war chest out of nearly everybody else in the race yet he didnt last a day past the 4th contest and only got 3% in Iowa. 
I never equated those 2 things. Yet another straw man successfully knocked down. 

You lumped in Booker with the guy who had the largest increase overall (Yang) and the guy with the overall lead (Sanders) immediately after saying Biden's numbers are way down
It is an empirical fact that bookers numbers are up and Biden's are down. I was simply listing the numbers before getting into my points. The fact that you chose to infer that as me somehow saying booker was doing well is entirely on you. I didn't say that. 

Its pretty pathetic that you cant even remember what you say in your own posts
I do remember what I said. I listed facts. You then chose to interpret what I said in a way I didn't mean. You then successfully knocked down a strawman. And now you are making childish insults about it.

you should calm down and get your emotions in order do that you remember what you say, boy 
I have remained calm this entire time. It is you that being intellectually dishonest and engaging in petty name calling. I wonder why you bother having debates at all if you can't do it in a constructive way. 
#9
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@HistoryBuff
I never equated those 2 things.
Amazing that you forget what your own thread is even about in the first place. 

This entire thread you made is built on the guise of "bIdEn iSnT fUnDrAiSiNg wElL hE's iN bIg tRoUbLe SaNdErS 2020!".... If youre too much of a sniveling coward to even defend the primary argument you wanted to put forth in the first place, then really my business is concluded here since youve disavowed pretty much everything you set out to claim in the first place. 


It is an empirical fact that Booker's numbers are up and Biden's are down
And I pointed out that context matters, namely that Booker went from almost having to drop out to getting back on track, while Biden has two and a half times the fundraising haul as Booker does and will likely increase once Booker's campaign goes back to floundering. "context" though is something you continue to misunderstand, which is why our conversations devolve into 90% me trying to explain things to you and the other 10% pointing out that you're hopeless. 





I do remember what I said. I listed facts.
You listed what you perceived to be facts without the proper context of critical details that render your overall point thoroughly debunked. 

If you could get over your bias one day, maybe you will be able to differentiate between what you perceive as reality and what is actually reality. 



I wonder why you bother having debates at all
You tagged me in the post and invited me to debate this. If you dont like being ridiculed for failing to do or understand basic things necessitated to have a constructive conversation about something, then Im not going to waste my effort and give you more then what you are worth. 
Topic's author
#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
Amazing that you forget what your own thread is even about in the first place. 
Are you actively trying to take things I say in a way that wasn't intended? I said, being out raised by 10 million dollars is a bad sign. I never, at any point, said this was a 1 to 1 relation to electoral success. would you at least try to pretend like you are willing debate on what I am actually saying?

And I pointed out that context matters
It was a list. I was not making any point about who was doing well and badly in that particular point. I was just listing what the numbers were. You chose to attack me over things I didn't say because of how you interpreted it. When I pointed out I actually meant, that you misinterpreted, you continued to attack me. 

You tagged me in the post and invited me to debate this. If you dont like being ridiculed for failing to do or understand basic things necessitated to have a constructive conversation about something, then Im not going to waste my effort and give you more then what you are worth. 
I have remained calm this entire time and you have personally attacked me in every response. do really think that it is me that is the problem?
#11
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
would you at least try to pretend like you are willing debate on what I am actually saying?
Frankly you dont even seem to have any remote idea what you want to say.

Let me break things down for you and your paltry little mind

1 - You issue me a challenge to defend the assertion that its not looking good for the Biden campaign based -SOLELY- on Q3 fundraising that you fail to provide a link for (Post 3) 

2 - I point out that not only is he doing better than a vast majority of other campaigns money wise, but that he is doing very solid in the polls, and the candidates who performed better than him this quarter are not as strong as they would like to appear. (Post 4 and 5) 

3 - You follow up my counter arguments based on a wealth of facts and sources with your regular dribble where you miss the point entirely, try to spin things back in favor of candidates you prefer since your bias controls your perception of reality with minimal resistance, or have some sort of brain aneurysm that causes you to forget what you said in the thread or what you were even arguing to begin with. (Post 6 onwards) 


It was a list. I was not making any point about who was doing well and badly in that particular point. I was just listing what the numbers were.
And then immediately after listing the numbers you tried to spin them to claim that Biden was doing poorly, that other campaigns were doing well, and challenged me specifically to dispute things.... You hould really get your memory checked if you only remember posting numbers of Q3 and dont remember anything from posts 2 or 3. 



I have remained calm this entire time and you have personally attacked me in every response. do really think that it is me that is the problem?
Yes for the following reasons:

1) You deserve it

2) You made this thread with the intent to cling to your biased viewpoints against Biden with a direct call out to me specifically to defend his campaign rather then actually have a fair discussion about the topic like you try to claim for some pitiful reason

3) You get your panties in a twist when I do not show you the courtesy you demand and feel entitled to just because people dont regard your opinions as facts, and in fact ridicule you for wasting my time as much as you have. 

And 4) I dont grant civility to every dingus on the internet with an opinion. For me, you have to earn it, and you havent gotten there yet due to your inability to drop your bias and look at objective facts. 
Topic's author
#12
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
There is just literally no talking to you it would appear. No matter what I say you will active try to spin it, straw man me, or just devolve to petty insults. Hopefully one day you are mature enough to actually engage in debates in an intellectually honest way. 
#13
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
 No matter what I say you will active try to spin it, straw man me, or just devolve to petty insults.
Pointing out important context you deliberately ignore and citing important facts you yourself try to spin to an asinine degree is not spinning things or trying to strawman you, but it makes sense that you would label anything that doesnt fit into your worldview as a personal attack.

Focus on your high school classes a little more before you try to participate in discussions on these kinds of things. Hopefully one day you will learn enough to not be a retard, but by my approximations it wont be anytime within the next 28 years for you. 
Topic's author
#14
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
Lol and even after I point out your constant childish attacks and how sad they are, you keep up with the childish attacks. thank you for highlighting my point nicely. Even if it has completely gone over your head. 
#15
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
The attacks against your intelligence are made because you lack it to a substantial degree, as evidenced by how with every post you concede half the points made in relation to the actual topic, utterly fail to understand the other half you do try to respond to, and spend disproportionate amounts of time playing the victim card simply because I am not nice to you in the face of your blatant stupidity. 

So go ahead and cry harder, If you take pride in being a polite dipshit rather then someone who knows what theyre discussing then that's your prerogative, not mine.