Elizabeth Warren Takes a Bite Out of the Bernie Bros With $19 Million Haul in Campaign Cash

[SouthernProgressive]

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren raised $19.1 million in campaign cash over the past three months, beating the take of similarly politically progressive rival Sen. Bernie Sanders during the same period.

The numbers suggest Warren may be viewed as a more politically viable alternative to Sanders. And, as the New York Times reports, the Massachusetts senator also seemingly has impactful connections to donors, given that she managed to raise in this quarter more than three times the $6 million she took in during the three months prior—all without any fundraising events.


“We raised more money than any other 100% grassroots-funded campaign,” Warren campaign manager Roger Lau wrote in an email to supporters Monday. “You sent a message that Elizabeth’s vision for the future is worth fighting for.”

Lau’s message pointed up the fact that while Warren’s take was third behind Democratic rivals former Vice President Joe Biden ($21.5 million) and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg ($24.8 million), both Biden and Buttigieg did traditional fundraising.

The Root

I think the important take-away is that Sanders kept his 2016 operation in full swing. He never stopped running. It took Warren three short months to get herself into a better position than Sanders who has been running for years.

[ehrnst]

1. I believe that it was also done without fundraising events. (nt)

[SouthernProgressive]

2. That is correct.

The two who came in ahead of her do take part in high dollar fundraiser.

For transparency, I wish Warren would as well. But then she might not have all of the grassroots donations.

[Gothmog]

17. This is impressive

[ehrnst]

22. It is. She did it without even having "grassroots fundraisers" which are supposed to be TOTALLY

not like those "establishment" canapé-filled fundraisers, and almost the very same thing as just individuals donating.

Which is how Warren did it.

[oasis]

3. What's not to like about Elizabeth?

She'll be in until the end. A giant plus for the Democratic Party

[katmondoo]

4. That is very good news, I love Elizabeth Warren

[CentralMass]

5. I'm a big fan of Elizabeth Warren's but you earn a full ignore for your Bernie Bro's reference.

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2019, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)

[SouthernProgressive]

6. Does it hurt? No one has ever forewarned me.

Do any other benefits come along with my earnings?

[ehrnst]

16. ....

[LiberalLovinLug]

9. To be fair, it wasn't SouthernProgressive who used that term

It was the headline writer for The Root. Many times there is a different headline writer than the actual article writer. This one seems like a Bernie hater getting a dig in. Because nowhere in the article does "Bernie Bros" even come up. Its the equivalent of, in 2015, writing an article about fundraising around Hillary Clinton by calling some opponent who is doing well with donations as "So and so is taking a bite out of the PUMA sisters with a giant haul" and doing it four years after it was even relevant, if it ever was.

[emulatorloo]

11. That's the exact title of the article from The Root n/t

[mobeau69]

7. Way to go Liz!

She's doing a hell of a job on the stump; fired up and ready to go. Anxious for the Detroit debates. Hopefully she be on stage with Joe.

[George II]

8. Ouch! That's gotta bern.

[LiberalLovinLug]

10. "Warren has recently deployed a simple response on the issue: "I'm with Bernie."

Love it how people here supporting the most conservative old guard candidate also can't say anything bad about Warren. Even though Sanders and Warren have very similar, very progressive, platforms.

Some seem to still cling to the myth that Bernie's support is all a cult of personality. People that love dishevelled grumpy old men that bark more than speak. No matter how many times we remind them it is the policy that is important and that was why some of us supported Sanders last time despite the possible historical achievement of helping to elect the first female President, which in itself would have been awesome.

If Sanders OR Warren come out on top, progressives will be stoked. Its funny reading the same people bashing Bernie whenever they can, also saying they like Warren and are happy with her support. Whatever works.

[questionseverything]

12. so much of the democratic party have adopted bernies ideas, i feel like he already won

if we had ranked choice voting, we would get a progressive candidate

as it is especially with stiver getting into things...I am worried

[LiberalLovinLug]

13. I'm hoping on either Sanders or Warren pulling out once they realize they can't win

And suggest that their supporters move to the other one.

[ehrnst]

15. History indicates that one of the two will likely not. (nt)

[LiberalLovinLug]

18. I had to think for a minute what you meant

You refer to Sanders holding out until the convention last time. That was a very different situation. Sanders knew he had lost, he stayed until the DNC for a purpose, to negotiate a better more progressive platform for Democrats to vote for. Knowing that he had, not long before that, 48% of the delegates votes. It was the responsible thing to do for him. I'm sure many Warren fans were stoked about that.

I'm not talking about that scenerio. Not say, Warren, or Sanders, staying on until the convention with Biden as the presumptive winner. And doing the same, negotiating a more progressive platform. (That wouldn't be a bad thing either.)

What I'm talking about is BEFORE a winner has been established. If even there are 3 (or maybe even 4 or 5) left of the candidates with a shot. If one of Warren or Sanders has a clear lead over the other. There is no reason to hang on if you are clearly in 4th place, for instance. Especially if one or the other still has a shot, no reason to think you must stay to negotiate anything, or that you even have any power to do that. I'd think that, as last primaries, there'd be two left near the end. I am presuming one will represent the more establishment Democrats, and one will be more progressive, much like last time.

And it doesn't have to be a formal public request from the losing one to migrate to the winning one. I think it would happen naturally. Those who like Warrens platform will feel Bernie's is the closest to what they stand for. And visa versa.

What I'm saying is that I'm very encouraged that between the two, and even including Harris, there is a good representation for more progressive voice, even might I say a majority percent. So that when it does get down to two, we progressives have a much better chance this time around. Also... History indicates that one of them won't have that super delegate pile on before things even start.

[ehrnst]

21. Like I said - History tells us one of those candidate will not bow out

when it's clear they are not the nominee.

I hope that point is clear to you....

[ehrnst]

14. Bernie has stated that some people will vote for a woman just because they want to vote for a woman

in reference to Warren being ahead of him in the polls.

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-warren-beating-polls-elect-woman-1445065

So there's that.

[LiberalLovinLug]

19. You dispute that?

"I think that there are a certain number of people who would like to see a woman elected, and I understand that," the senator said. "There are people who would like to see somebody who was younger, and I understand that also. There are a lot of factors out there."

Its quite a stretch to think no person is ever influenced, even partly, by those desires. Or is it simply that he dared to be honest and spoke that out loud?

Anyways, fear not, it all balances out because, as you've pushed for years now, the fabled army of Bernie Bros will even the score. That strange particular brand of "bad" liberal (different obviously from a Sarandon "bad" liberal) All older white males who are fierce Sanders supporters, which mean they are extremely progressive in their values.......save for one issue and one issue alone.....respect for women's rights. Somehow they are able to convince themselves that they are left of centre, and support Sanders socialist policies....save for his support of maternity leave, or equal pay, ...anything that involves helping women. A strange creature indeed.

I don't know how anyone in this group can reconcile that kind of belief system, but there you are. Some still claim they are a big force to be reckoned with. And if that's the case then at least it balances out right?

[ehrnst]

20. I dispute that sweeping, dismissive generalization of Democratic voters who are supporting Warren.

Is that clearer?

And it's not the first time Bernie has inferred a rather uninformed generalization about female candidates running against him telling people to "vote for me because I'm a woman."

Do you dispute that?

I think that it's telling that he wouldn't dare dismiss support with "It's not enough to say 'vote for me because..." about a candidate of color. At least a male candidate of color.

It also sounds very much like what RWers said of people supporting Obama - "So many people are voting for him because he's black. That's just not a good enough reason."

Do you dispute that was an erroneous sweeping generalization? Do you think that's a reasonable thing to say about Obama and those who supported him? Or does it sound like sour grapes?

Because you know, many people liked that about Obama, but were able to nonetheless make a logical assessment of his actual capabilities and find that he was a preferable candidate to McCain and Romney. And yes, it was icing on the cake to have that historic QUALIFIED candidate be a black man.

[LiberalLovinLug]

23. Don't you mean ...

you dispute the sweeping INCLUSIVE generalization of Democratic voters supporting Warren?

And no of course I don't dispute it. Just as there are folks that think only a man should be President, there are those that will support a woman because "its time". I would hope that that wouldn't be anything more than a small minority. I'd think that Democrats are more savy than that, and would support the actual positions and policy of the person they support over their gender.

Maybe I'm naive. I am assuming that most Warren supporters like her policy positions, not because of what her gender is. And so, I assumed the logical postion that, if that were true, then the closest to their beliefs would be the other one of the two.

The only reason for not shifting from one to the other once one dropped out of contention, if there were no other contenders still running who are considered "progressive", would BE for other reasons like what the person's gender was. I'm sure that wouldn't be yourself right?

[ehrnst]

24. Well, that's one way to avoid addressing the actual point completely.

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. I have no idea what "point" you trying to make.

You have avoided answering if Sanders was right in that quote I posted.
I have not. In that quote he also included those that may want a younger leader. Don't you think there are some that think Warren is also too old, along with Biden and Sanders?

"I dispute that sweeping, dismissive generalization of Democratic voters who are supporting Warren.
Is that clearer?"

Which no one ever said. So no, I'm not going to answer straw man arguments.

[ehrnst]

27. I think it's more a purposeful avoidance of the point, in order to keep posting without actually

replying to the point...

[LiberalLovinLug]

28. I'm glad you had a moment of self realization

Takes a lot of courage.

[ehrnst]

29. "I know you are but what am I?"

That's where you've landed?

No surprise....

[stonecutter357]

26. WOW !

[BeckyDem]

30. She is doing great.

Warren 2020

[USALiberal]

31. Yes Buttigeg raised $24 million and has never ran a campaign! Nt

[SouthernProgressive]

32. Really solid haul by Buttigieg.

He did do high dollar events, which Warren did not do.

Don't get me wrong, I wish Warren had. I respect Buttigieg for doing them.

He is one of my favorites. No matter how you slice it that is a great showing for him.