• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

 
Sanders, Warren, and Pete are a tier ahead in funding over the last 6 months. All are right at about $43M.
 
Before he ran, he had zero name recognition and is running against people who have been around a long time. The Top 3 have 90+% name recognition and similar amounts of money. Add to that his youth and that his experience is only at a small city.

He's done remarkably well fighting all the issues a newbie has.
 
Before he ran, he had zero name recognition and is running against people who have been around a long time. The Top 3 have 90+% name recognition and similar amounts of money. Add to that his youth and that his experience is only at a small city.

He's done remarkably well fighting all the issues a newbie has.

That doesn’t explain why he’s fundraising so well despite the fact that his stock is actually declining. Also, I asked Ph.
 
He has a core of donors who are with him and think he might pull it out late.

So, i'm not allowed to respond?

Sieg Heil!!!
 
That doesn’t explain why he’s fundraising so well despite the fact that his stock is actually declining. Also, I asked Ph.

A key piece you don’t see in those numbers is how much they spent to solicit those donations.

Ben Carson raised $24 million in one quarter in 2015- but spend $27 million to do it.
 
At the risk of me posting Noah Smith becoming the new 923 posts the Atlantic, I'll link his thread from today on Neoliberalism which I found useful and timely given our recent conversations on here.

 
I guess I don't think there is much distinction between the economic policies of Reagan and Clinton, which he seems to want to make

also, I don't know the tradition of self-named neoliberals

but I do agree that a lot of the things he states as his beliefs are not neoliberal: nationalized healthcare, unions, etc.
 
That doesn’t explain why he’s fundraising so well despite the fact that his stock is actually declining. Also, I asked Ph.

Serious answer. Pete still has a name recognition problem at least not as high as the others. He’s seeking high dollar donors more than Sanders and Warren. I don’t think he’s spending much outside of Iowa. I think he’s building infrastructure and running ads in Iowa and then saving to capitalize off any boost he gets there after the caucuses. He’s running 4th and in a 3 way tie for fundraising. He’s behind the 3 most well known candidates. He’s probably a popular second choice as well.
 
I guess I don't think there is much distinction between the economic policies of Reagan and Clinton, which he seems to want to make

also, I don't know the tradition of self-named neoliberals

but I do agree that a lot of the things he states as his beliefs are not neoliberal: nationalized healthcare, unions, etc.

Yeah you guys were right about that stuff, I didn't really understand what neoliberal meant. My beliefs are pretty closely aligned with his, and he doesn't seem to know what to call himself either. But I am clearly not neoliberal. Don't think it's awful or even unreasonable, but doesn't fit me.
 
Last edited:
It was reported in the second quarter that Pete was working with bundlers and his campaign was asking them to raise 50% of their target by the end of June. I think that helps explain both why he's had such strong fundraising numbers and why there was a bit of a drop off in Q3.

The intent was to make a big splash, which he did, but they didn't get as much of a snowball effect as they were hoping for.
 
I'm not sure how much they knew what to do to maximize having all that money. $25M sounds like a lot, but when you are starting with zero name recognition, it's a drop in the bucket.
 
He got his poll bump before his fundraising bump. I think his poll numbers flattened because he hasn’t been as dynamic in debates as he was in his town halls. For the people who follow politics, he’s not the new hot thing anymore.
 
I’m shocked that it all comes down to VA. Shocked!

Look at the map and tell me where I'm wrong. I don't see someone as far left as Warren contending as well in NC, FL or AZ, much less TX or GA. Which means she has to win back PA, MI and WI and hold MN, VA, NH and NV. Clinton won MN by 2%, VA by 5%, NV by 2% and NH by 1%. That adds up to 278, or 274 minus NH, or 272 minus NV. And this is assuming a 4-6% popular vote victory - the national polls in the last month have her up by 2-7% over Trump - contrasted with Biden's numbers which have been in the 10-15% range in the national polls.
 
 
Back
Top