Its also worth considering that Biden doesn’t get practically any funding from small dollar donors. He’s basically completely dependent on a very specific class of “megadonor”, who can write million dollar+ checks.
I’m not saying he hasn’t been fundraising. I’m saying those funds are coming from a relatively small pool of donors. In the previous 8 months Biden’s small dollar funding dried up almost completely.
Where he previously did get something like 40% of his funds from small donors (pre 2024), the last several months has been Biden courting large checks from the few donors capable of writing them.
But Biden’s campaign said the bulk of its funds came from grassroots donors – 96% of its first-quarter donations were under $200. In March alone, 704,000 unique donors made 864,000 contributions to the Biden-Harris campaign.
Unless my sense of time is mega-fucked, March is only four months ago. Do you have any sources to the contrary substantiating your claims on Biden’s small dollar donors drying up?
Keep an eye on the fact that they didn’t put a specific dollar amount like the average size of those small dollar donations. The answer is in this article, you just have to read past the words and do the math.
Lets assume say, $30 a small dollar donation? Thats a pretty typical number that gets thrown around.
Puts it at 72 mil for that quarter, which is like, really good, except that:
25/72 =
34.7%
So if the big money pulls out of Biden as candidate, his fundraising would be relying on solely grass roots, and he would experience a 65% hit in donations.
I mean, the closest competing Democrat was basically the inversion of those numbers. Bernie was like 60-70 something percent donations of less than $200?
Small dollar donations are less likely to “move” than large donations are. It gives you a sustainability and independence that you don’t get when most of your donations come from big donors.
If any candidate, really at any level, fundraising dropped by 60% thats it. They’re cooked. Because those dollars are going to go some where.
Bernie was like 60-70 something percent donations of less than $200?
Bernie was in the 60s and his whole ‘thing’ was his ability to motivate small dollar donors. Most Dem politicians, even excluding Blue Dogs and the like, have numbers that resemble Biden’s, post-Citizens United.
Small dollar donations are less likely to “move” than large donations are. It gives you a sustainability and independence that you don’t get when most of your donations come from big donors.
If any candidate, really at any level, fundraising dropped by 60% thats it. They’re cooked. Because those dollars are going to go some where.
This is true and I don’t disagree. I only disagree with the assertion that small dollar donors have ‘dried up’ for Biden recently. Fact is, most of us who are politically motivated enough to not just be ready to vote, but actively donate, are still quite concerned with the prospect of fascism winning. Biden’s loss of support is largely with the sadly important contingent of low-information low-engagement voters who are the difference between victory and defeat in most elections in this fucking country.
The only silver lining there is that other events can (not necessarily will, but can) sway them back. Low-engagement voters necessarily have short political attention spans.
I think we should pin the small dollar question because since we started this, I’ve been trying to find better data on it, and its surprisingly difficult to find a granular enough breakdown to do a useful analysis. Maybe we can come back to in in a month or so and see how things have ended up post debate. It always take some time for things to trickle into effect.
Biden’s loss of support is largely with the sadly important contingent of low-information low-engagement voters who are the difference between victory and defeat in most elections in this fucking country
So I’m interested in where you are getting this, because from what I’ve seen, its the most politically engaged that have been shouting from the roof tops for months, longer even, that Biden needs to be replaced. Specifically, the Nate Silvers, Ezra Kleins of the world. I think you are projecting an opinion that is just uninformed here. Its only the “medium information” voters that have been putting out that Biden is going to be the nominee, people who only get their news from cable TV, or mainstream sources, with no real analysis.
Low engagement voters aren’t even represented in the current conversation and likely wont be until after August. At best they’ve seen a couple reels or tictocs of Biden mumbling or Trump lying. And I do agree at least that future events will bring low-engagement voters to the table. Specifically, an open convention would be so dominating of the news cycle, there is no way they’ll be able to stay un-informed.
So I’m interested in where you are getting this, because from what I’ve seen, its the most politically engaged that have been shouting from the roof tops for months, longer even, that Biden needs to be replaced. Specifically, the Nate Silvers, Ezra Kleins of the world.
Yes, and recent events haven’t affected their opinions much. They’ve been on this kick for a while now. Recent events HAVE effected low-engagement voters’ opinions, on the other hand; people who don’t generally pay close attention to politics until and unless something ‘big’ hits the news that’s hard to ignore - like clips of a presidential debate.
Specifically, an open convention would be so dominating of the news cycle, there is no way they’ll be able to stay un-informed.
… I’m not sure you’re getting where the low-information low-engagement voter is coming from. They’re not going to look at an open convention and say “Wowee, look at that, interesting new candidates!”
They’re going to say “Wow, the Democrats are really in disarray! I wonder if I should even bother voting for them.”
An open convention may be our best choice. But it’s not going to be our best choice out of some idea that low-information voters will be positively influenced by the events of the convention itself; only that a new candidate may (and the emphasis here is on ‘may’) be a better choice to influence them positively.
Yes, hardly anything
I’m not saying he hasn’t been fundraising. I’m saying those funds are coming from a relatively small pool of donors. In the previous 8 months Biden’s small dollar funding dried up almost completely.
Where he previously did get something like 40% of his funds from small donors (pre 2024), the last several months has been Biden courting large checks from the few donors capable of writing them.
Unless my sense of time is mega-fucked, March is only four months ago. Do you have any sources to the contrary substantiating your claims on Biden’s small dollar donors drying up?
Keep an eye on the fact that they didn’t put a specific dollar amount like the average size of those small dollar donations. The answer is in this article, you just have to read past the words and do the math.
Lets assume say, $30 a small dollar donation? Thats a pretty typical number that gets thrown around.
864000*.96*$30 == $24,883,200
So call it 25 million?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/14/politics/biden-fundraising-reelection-campaign-president/index.html
Puts it at 72 mil for that quarter, which is like, really good, except that:
25/72 =
34.7%
So if the big money pulls out of Biden as candidate, his fundraising would be relying on solely grass roots, and he would experience a 65% hit in donations.
Which is a pretty normal percentage for candidates, and not at all evidence of small dollar donations ‘drying up’.
I mean, the closest competing Democrat was basically the inversion of those numbers. Bernie was like 60-70 something percent donations of less than $200?
Small dollar donations are less likely to “move” than large donations are. It gives you a sustainability and independence that you don’t get when most of your donations come from big donors.
If any candidate, really at any level, fundraising dropped by 60% thats it. They’re cooked. Because those dollars are going to go some where.
Bernie was in the 60s and his whole ‘thing’ was his ability to motivate small dollar donors. Most Dem politicians, even excluding Blue Dogs and the like, have numbers that resemble Biden’s, post-Citizens United.
This is true and I don’t disagree. I only disagree with the assertion that small dollar donors have ‘dried up’ for Biden recently. Fact is, most of us who are politically motivated enough to not just be ready to vote, but actively donate, are still quite concerned with the prospect of fascism winning. Biden’s loss of support is largely with the sadly important contingent of low-information low-engagement voters who are the difference between victory and defeat in most elections in this fucking country.
The only silver lining there is that other events can (not necessarily will, but can) sway them back. Low-engagement voters necessarily have short political attention spans.
I think we should pin the small dollar question because since we started this, I’ve been trying to find better data on it, and its surprisingly difficult to find a granular enough breakdown to do a useful analysis. Maybe we can come back to in in a month or so and see how things have ended up post debate. It always take some time for things to trickle into effect.
So I’m interested in where you are getting this, because from what I’ve seen, its the most politically engaged that have been shouting from the roof tops for months, longer even, that Biden needs to be replaced. Specifically, the Nate Silvers, Ezra Kleins of the world. I think you are projecting an opinion that is just uninformed here. Its only the “medium information” voters that have been putting out that Biden is going to be the nominee, people who only get their news from cable TV, or mainstream sources, with no real analysis.
Low engagement voters aren’t even represented in the current conversation and likely wont be until after August. At best they’ve seen a couple reels or tictocs of Biden mumbling or Trump lying. And I do agree at least that future events will bring low-engagement voters to the table. Specifically, an open convention would be so dominating of the news cycle, there is no way they’ll be able to stay un-informed.
Yes, and recent events haven’t affected their opinions much. They’ve been on this kick for a while now. Recent events HAVE effected low-engagement voters’ opinions, on the other hand; people who don’t generally pay close attention to politics until and unless something ‘big’ hits the news that’s hard to ignore - like clips of a presidential debate.
… I’m not sure you’re getting where the low-information low-engagement voter is coming from. They’re not going to look at an open convention and say “Wowee, look at that, interesting new candidates!”
They’re going to say “Wow, the Democrats are really in disarray! I wonder if I should even bother voting for them.”
An open convention may be our best choice. But it’s not going to be our best choice out of some idea that low-information voters will be positively influenced by the events of the convention itself; only that a new candidate may (and the emphasis here is on ‘may’) be a better choice to influence them positively.