SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
roseann demoro
Bernie Sanders Raises Over $3.3 Million From 120,000 Small Donors in Just 10 Hours
As one mainstream political observer noted, that's "pretty damn good."
Feb 18, 2019
Update (9:30 AM ET 2/20/19): 'Unprecedented': Bernie Sanders Campaign Says It Raised $6 Million From 225,000 Donors in First 24 Hours
In the 24 hours since Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont announced his 2020 run for president, his campaign on Wednesday morning reports that they were able to raise nearly $6 million from 225,000 individual donors across all 50 states.
According to a statement by the campaign, exactly 223,047 individuals contributed $5,925,771--putting the total raised over the $6 million mark with an average donation of $27. Since putting it online early Tuesday morning, the campaign said the senator's launch video has been viewed more than 8.3 million times across social media platforms, including 5.3 million views on Twitter alone.
Read the full updated story here.
Update (7:15 PM ET):
After an out-of-the-gate fundraising spree following the initial announcement early Tuesday morning (see below), sources from within the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign report that in just 10 hours--as of 5:00 PM ET--it was able to raise $3.3 million from approximately 120,000 donors.
The resulting donation average might sound familiar to those who remember the number Sanders turned into a catchphrase during his 2016 campaign: $27.
As other reporter's noted online, the Sanders campaign has now raised more money in less than half a day than the campaigns of Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Amy Klobuchar raised during their first 24 hours - combined:
\u201cThis Bernie Sanders $3.3 million > combination of Kamala's first 24 hours ($1.5 million) + Klobuchar's first 48 hours ($1 million) + Warren's first 18 hours via ActBlue ($300k)\u201d— Shane Goldmacher (@Shane Goldmacher) 1550618898
In addition to news that Faiz Shakir, formerly the national political director for the ACLU, has been hired to be Sanders' campaign manager, backers of Bernie's bid could be found applauding what they considered a very successful launch less than 12 hours into his 2020 run:
\u201cWe have raised 3.3 million so far today for the #PoliticalRevolution. \n\nLet\u2019s keep going!!!! @SenSanders sign, join, and more..\n\nCongratulations to Faiz Shakir the new Campaign Director. \n\n#TuesdayMotivation #Bernie2020\u201d— RoseAnn DeMoro (@RoseAnn DeMoro) 1550620724
\u201cI'm on the #Bernie2020 surrogates call and the Senator tells us he's the strongest candidate to beat Trump. We believe him. Especially given the fact that 3.3 million dollars has already been raised by 120k individual donors!. \n\nWe're doing this folks. We're doing it together.\u201d— Fred (@Fred) 1550619855
Earlier:
In just the first three hours following an announcement early Tuesday morning, the 2020 presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says it raised more than $1 million--with the number still climbing--proving the army of small-dollar donors which fueled his 2016 campaign are still on board, 'feeling the Bern,' and ready to put their hard-earned money behind the Democratic candidate of their choice.
According to sources from within the campaign, as of 11:00 AM Eastern time, Sanders raised $1.2 million from approximately 42,000 individual donors in all fifty states.
Reacting on MSNBC, the Washington Post's Jonathan Capeheart--based on earlier reports the campaign had raised over $1 million since the 7:00 AM launch--couldn't help but acknowledge that Sanders' morning fundraising haul was "pretty damn good."
As Josh Orton, a senior advisor to Sanders, tweeted at 10:39 AM:
\u201cYes, you read that correctly. \n\n$1,000,000 since 7AM Eastern time today.\u201d— Josh Orton (@Josh Orton) 1550590743
Subsequently, the campaign confirmed the number continued to climb and other outlets reported it had exceeded the $1.5 million mark.
As The Daily Beastnoted, Sanders was able to raise more money in a matter of hours than Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) raised in the entire first day of her campaign:
Up to this point, Harris had been the most dynamic fundraiser among Democratic candidates in the race, having raised a whopping $1.5 million in 24 hours after declaring from more than 38,000 individual donors. That number, the Harris campaign noted at the time, had surpassed the number of individual donors for Sanders in his first day of running during his 2016 bid. Now, Sanders' current campaign, says they have already received contributions that beat both of those figures.
According to a Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks, mainstream political pundits continue to underestimate the "power of small-dollar donors" and how--since his 2016 campaign--Sanders has been able to upend the political landscape by creating a source of campaign revenue that comes from people, not corporate interests or large campaign committees:
RoseAnn DeMoro, former president of National Nurses United (NNU) and a prominent Sanders backer, said there's no reason the campaign couldn't maintain the pace--or even exceed it--over the course of the day:
\u201cYes!\nCan we make it $5 million? It\u2019s going to be a killer campaign.\n\nThe #MSM and the #PoliticalEstablishment will do everything in their power to stop #Bernie2020. \n\nLies, deception, betrayal and rigging.\n\nEvery signature and dollar matters. #BernieSanders\n\n#TuesdayMotivation\u201d— RoseAnn DeMoro (@RoseAnn DeMoro) 1550593383
Keep ReadingShow Less
"Economic Analysis of the Medicare for All Act of 2017" Unveiled at Sanders Institute Gathering
Sanders Institute Fellows Michael Lighty and Robert Pollin answer the question on everyone's mind about Medicare for All: How do we pay for it? From a gathering of progressives to the halls of Congress, they are offering a deep dive into the economics of guaranteeing universal health care through a single payer system.
Feb 06, 2019
Sanders Institute Fellows Michael Lighty and Robert Pollin answer the question on everyone's mind about Medicare for All: How do we pay for it? From a gathering of progressives to the halls of Congress, they are offering a deep dive into the economics of guaranteeing universal health care through a single payer system.
When the Sanders Institute Gathering brought global leaders together to discuss progressive solutions to the most urgent issues of our time, Lighty and Pollin led a discussion, entitled "Medicare for All: How Do We Pay For It?" of Pollin's independent in-depth research study conducted by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). Last week, Lighty and Pollin followed up by presenting their study at the Democratic Senators Annual Issues Conference.
The summary and full study are available on the PERI website and the Sanders Institute website. Peer-reviewed by a group of eminent experts on economics and health care, individual reviewer assessments can also be found on the PERI website. One reviewer, Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, wrote "This study is the most comprehensive, detailed, authoritative study ever undertaken of Medicare for All, and it points powerfully and unassailably in support of Medicare for All."
Pollin and his PERI co-authors - James Heintz, Peter Arno, Jeannette Wicks-Lim and Michael Ash - show how, under Medicare for All, every resident of the U.S. can be guaranteed good-quality health care, while the system operates at an overall cost that is nearly 10% less than our current system.
Under the current U.S. system, which absorbs 18% of U.S. GDP, nearly 30 million people remain uninsured and another 40 million are underinsured. This means that they forgo necessary treatments because they cannot afford to pay for them, despite the fact that they do have health insurance.
In September 2017, Michael Lighty and RoseAnn DeMoro of National Nurses United proposed to Robert Pollin that the study be rigorously reviewed by a group of distinguished experts in the relevant fields. In the report, the economists outline seven major aspects of transforming the U.S. healthcare system, detailing step-by-step the actions needed to achieve truly universal health care, and its potential impacts on individuals, families, businesses and government.
The study reflects the reality of every other similar economy in the world and considers in-depth how to provide a Just Transition to people now employed in the private health insurance industry, such as providing them with retraining, relocation, job placement, as well as direct financial support as the country moves away from our existing private health insurance system.
Because Medicare for All would cost nearly 10% less overall than the present U.S. system, that 10% savings can translate into health-care cost savings for both households and businesses. The study shows that average businesses that are now covering their workers with insurance will save approximately 8%. The biggest winners will be middle-class households who now buy insurance on their own: these households will see a savings of 14% of their income. That is, the net income of these families will rise by 14% through Medicare for All. On top of these cost savings, Medicare for All will mean that no one will ever have to hassle with an insurance company, cover their own copays or deductibles or face bankruptcy.
The analysis, which was in development for 18 months, has received praise from 11 distinguished experts in the fields of economics and healthcare studies who have rigorously reviewed the researchers' findings:
In her review of the report, Alison Galvani, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis and Burnett and Stender Families' Professor of Epidemiology at Yale University, states "This stellar economic analysis of a single-payer, universal health care system for the U.S. is the first to sufficiently document each step of the calculations, enabling reproducibility of the findings. It is also the first study that thoroughly addresses the transition to and financing of a universal health care system for the U.S."
In his review of the report, William Hsiao, K.T. Li Professor of Economics at the Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said the study "presents an objective, unbiased, comprehensive and thorough economic analysis of Medicare for All. Professor Pollin and his co-authors have set a new high standard for transparency and clarity in presenting their analyses, estimations, and conclusions. The research methods they used to estimate both the cost increases and savings are sound. The assumptions they used to generate cost estimates are based on the latest empirical evidence. Consequently, the conclusions of this study on the overall costs and savings of Medicare for All are reasonable and scientifically sound."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Say Howard Schultz "Seriously Considering" 2020 Run Shows He's Not Qualified for Position
"If Howard Schultz were 'seriously thinking' about an independent run for president," quipped Larry Sabato, "he would have abandoned the idea already."
Jan 27, 2019
The announcement by Howard Schultz on Sunday that he is "seriously considering" a 2020 run for president was proof enough for some critics that the billionaire, former CEO of Starbucks, and self-described "independent centrist" is definitely not qualified for the position.
In messages on social media and an interview on 60 Minutes, Schultz announced his consideration while also championing a new memoir and launching a three-month book tour to promote it alongside his political ideas. Among those ideological positions is his belief that while it's possible and good to build a global business empire in order to provide people around the world with subjectively "delicious" and "overpriced" coffee it remains impossible, as he argued on 60 Minutes, to improve and expand Medicare so that every single American is covered.
"Every American deserves the right to have access to quality health care. But what the Democrats are proposing is something that is as false as the wall," said Schultz as he compared President Trump's xenophobic border wall to a single-payer system, which polls show 7 in 10 Americans now support, including 84 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans. "That is free health care for all," Schultz falsely claimed, "which the country cannot afford."
Contrary to Schultz's assertion, a study released in November showed that a Medicare for All system in the United States could save the country $5.1 trillion over ten years. Progressives did not let the former executives remark go by without comment.
\u201cHoward Schultz said \u201cwhat Democrats are proposing on healthcare is as false as the wall\u201d\n\nThat, alone, is disqualifying.\u201d— John Bisognano (@John Bisognano) 1548635688
\u201cAmericans can't afford Howard Schultz.\u201d— Fred (@Fred) 1548637114
Even Larry Sabato, the politically moderate director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, was severly unimpressed. "If Howard Schultz were 'seriously thinking' about an independent run for president," Sabato quipped, "he would have abandoned the idea already. I've had undergrad students with a more compelling platform than Schultz offered tonight."
\u201cAgreed. Claim that he\u2019s thinking about this seriously is the first big whopper of the Schultz presidency.\u201d— Josh Marshall (@Josh Marshall) 1548652772
For Democrats, of course, the large concern surrounding an independent run by Schultz--a threat also seen in New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg--is how such a candidate would siphon off votes and give President Donald Trump that much better a shot at re-election.
Julian Castro, among the current 2020 Democratic candidates and the former housing secretary under President Obama, told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" on Sunday that a run by Schultz "would provide Donald Trump with his best hope of getting re-elected."
And Tina Podlodowski, the Democratic Party Chair in Washington state, said in a statement: "I have two words for Howard Schultz on a potential run for president as an independent: Just. Don't."
Regardless of his intentions, RoseAnn DeMoro, a labor organizer and strong supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), indicated her belief that Schultz poses no serious threat to anyone in 2020.
\u201cThis will be an easy one to dismiss. He overcharges all of America for coffee... that\u2019s a nonstarter. #SundayMorning\u201d— RoseAnn DeMoro (@RoseAnn DeMoro) 1548602914
Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute, also said there is nothing to worry about:
\u201cI don\u2019t know why anyone is afraid of Howard Schultz running. He\u2019s not addressing some unmet yearning among voters. He\u2019ll waste a bunch of money and it\u2019ll be funny.\u201d— Matt Stoller (@Matt Stoller) 1548683560
On the other hand:
\u201cIt's hard to look at this photo of Howard Schultz and think he's unfit to be president.\u201d— wilf (@wilf) 1548685418
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular