How can this be so confusing? 3.4% of Hillary's fundraising came from bank employees.

[DanTex]

Period. 3.4%. And that's from individuals working for banks, not from banks themselves (which are prohibited from contributing to campaigns).

Some anti-Hillary people are spinning out of control, trying to resurrect the "Hillary is owned by banks" meme.

Here's an honest question. Before the 3.4% number came up, what percent of Hillary's fundraising did you think came from the financial sector? For a lot of people, I imagine their guess was much higher than 3.4%. Those people need to seriously reconsider their assumptions. I can see where this belief came from, given all the attacks on Hillary from all sides. But data is data. There reaches a point where a clear-headed person should be able to say, "look, I used to believe X, but X is obviously at odds with the data, so now I think Y".


If you don't believe me, do the math yourself.

1999 - 2016 Total Receipts: $328,759,064
Securities & Investment $11,290,074

11,290,074 / 328,759,064 = 3.4%
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019&type=I

[Indepatriot]

1. Not confusing at all. Hillary takes a LOT of money from banksters. Period.

[JaneyVee]

3. And from labor unions, and from teachers unions, and from planned parenthood, and from....

Citizen donations, etc etc.

[PoliticAverse]

2. Interesting point. So lets explore why she doesn't support the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.

And why someone Like Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein (who has held fundraisers for Hillary Clinton)
said he "would be fine" with either Bush or Clinton. Why do bankers seem to fear someone like Elizabeth Warren
but are 'fine' with Hillary Clinton?

[DanTex]

8. I guess she agrees with a number of liberal economists including Paul Krugman

and Alan Blinder, who think that the separation between commercial and investment banking isn't at the heart of what needs to be fixed about financial regulation. Which is why she is in favor of tight regulation on banks (including Dodd Frank, the strongest financial regulation passed since the depression), in favor of eliminating the carried interest loophole, and her economic plan gets high praise from the likes of Joe Stiglitz.

Come to think of it, even if we didn't know that only a tiny fraction of her funds came from bank employees, simply looking at what she stands for makes it obvious that she's not even slightly "owned by banks."

[AgingAmerican]

18. You don't bite the hands that feed you

nt

[bobbobbins01]

4. You're either being purposefully misleading, or just don't understand statistics

Which is it?

[JaneyVee]

5. So if she took $11.2million from finance out of $328million, who made up the rest of contributions?

[bobbobbins01]

7. Those two numbers represent different data sets.

Therefore they can't be used together. If I have 10 jelly beans and show you 5 of them, and 2 of the 5 you see are red, you cannot make the statement that 2 out of the 10 jelly beans are red.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. Clearly bit players, to be ignored ...

as, is often the case, the data does not fit the conspiratorial narrative.

[hay rick]

6. From your linked page:

Top 5 Contributors, 1999-2015

Citigroup Inc $782,327
Goldman Sachs $711,490
DLA Piper $628,030
JPMorgan Chase & Co $620,919
EMILY's List $605,174

Wall Street very well represented here.

[DanTex]

9. Represented to the tune of 3.4% of all her campaing fundraising.

Whether that's "very well" I guess depends on how deluded the beholder is.

[bobbobbins01]

10. Your number is wrong.

Please correct it here and in the other threads you've referenced it so that people are not mislead.

[DanTex]

11. Why don't you divide the two numbers and tell me what you get. That should clear up your confusion.

[bobbobbins01]

12. You can't divide those two numbers.

They aren't from the same data set. I'm not confused at all. As I said, you're either being purposefully deceitful or you have no grasp of statistics. Either way, please correct your mistake.

[DanTex]

13. Sure you can. Try it!

One of the numbers is the total funds raised. The other one is the total funds raised from people who work at banks.

Dividing one by the other will give you the percentage of the total that comes from bank employees.

I suggest using a calculator. Let me know how it goes.

[bobbobbins01]

14. Please don't talk down to me when you're dead wrong.

My jellybean analogy will clear things up for you. Please read above.

[DanTex]

15. You're the one who is dead wrong.

If you don't understand that dividing the total from bank employees by the total from all donors gives you the fraction of money that came from bank employees, then I can't help you any further.

[bobbobbins01]

20. Let me explain it to you:

Only donations of $200 or more are tracked in regards to what industry they belong to(as you can see by clicking on the link at the bottom of the page you linked to).

The total you're using is for ALL donations regardless of amount. Therefore, you can't divide them because a large portion of the total number is untracked.

Your number is wrong, please correct it.

[DanTex]

22. Aha, so you're concerned about the corrupting influence of small donations.

OK, 3.4% represents the total verified amount raised from the financial industry. There may be more in small donations, which we all know are the way that politicians are really bought off.

[bobbobbins01]

29. I believe this is what they call moving the goalposts.

What you could maybe say is 3.4% is the absolute lowest possible amount she could have raised from the financial industry if not a single solitary donation under $200 came from that industry. Or you could be honest and say, out of all donations we have industry data on 9.6% came from the financial industry. 9.6% is the number you're really looking for. I'm sorry it doesn't fit with your narrative.

[DanTex]

31. 3.4% is the percent that is known to have come from financial sector employees in donations of $200

or more. The rest either came from other sources or from small donations that aren't tagged by industry.

I'm glad you brought this up though, because it also illustrates another important point, which is that huge amounts of Hillary's money comes from small donors. Again disproving the "owned by banks" theory.

[bobbobbins01]

33. That number is absolutely meaningless.

You are an incredibly intellectually dishonest person.

[Dawgs]

37. Or, just really bad at math.

Very dishonest and misleading.

[AgingAmerican]

16. More spin

nt

[DanTex]

17. Yes, arithmetic has now become "spin".

Why don't you answer the question from the OP? Before you knew about the 3.4%, what what you have estimated? Be honest.

[AgingAmerican]

19. Spin

You keep trying to distance her from herself.

[bobbobbins01]

21. Spin would imply hes twisting the facts

But hes just using bad math and hoping nobody notices.

[AgingAmerican]

25. He is spinning facts

He does it in op after op, day in, day out.

SPIN

[leftynyc]

44. Facts are facts

And numbers are numbers. You can't spin them. I swear the anti-Hillary brigade is starting to smell desperate.

[AgingAmerican]

58. And when they are spun

They are known as 'spin'.

Facts are spun to make the good appear negative, and visa versa. Limbaugh and FOX news spin facts all day long.

[leftynyc]

59. I'm going to give you

the benefit of the doubt that you're not actually comparing Hillary to rush and fox.

[AgingAmerican]

61. Hillary doesn't do the spinning

She has surrogates here on DU that do it for her. You pour a few facts into the spin machine. Something neutral like Bernie Sanders hiccupped once while making a speech. You flip the switch, wait a few minutes and walla, out comes spun, or twisted, negated facts AKA nonsense.

Copy, paste....and you are done! You have an OP of spun nonsense. The real trick is to do it many times a day, which falls into another category called 'spamming'.

[leftynyc]

62. How are you defining surrogates?

Do you think people here are being paid? Or are you just talking about supporters? Because I've seen every single person who works for a bank defined as banksters which is fucking ridiculous so definitions obviously matter.

[DanTex]

23. No answer, huh. Must be tough to re-examine your false assumptions.

[AgingAmerican]

26. The REAL question is...

why are the banks and investment firms that collapsed the economy and stole 40% of the middle class wealth supporting Hillary but NOT contributing to Bernie Sanders campaign?

That is the real question.

[DanTex]

30. New Yorkers like Hillary. In fact, Democrats period like Hillary.

Again, it's the bank employees, not the banks themselves. Mostly they live in New York, which is why they didn't contribute to any of Bernie's senate campaigns in Vermont.

With some exceptions. One New Yorker contributed to his campaign: Hillary Clinton.

But I'm glad you've at least changed from the outright false "Hillary is owned by banks" to "people who work at New York banks like Hillary more than Bernie".

[AgingAmerican]

32. lol

Your spinning faster now!

Your answer? "Cuz they live in New York!!!" lol Spin spin spin!!

Why don't they support Bernie? I'll tell you why, because he has promised to BREAK THEM UP. Why? Because they STOLE 40% of the middle class wealth whilst collapsing the economy.

You can't spin that fact away.

[DanTex]

34. The numbers don't include the current cycle yet. Bernie's numbers are from his Senate campaigns.

Which, again, were taking place in Vermont.

I'm sure some liberal bankers do support Bernie. We'll see how many. The thing is, very few people support Bernie to begin with, and in Hillary's home state the fraction is likely to be even lower.

I'll give you one more chance to not dodge my question. Before you saw the 3.4%, what would you have thought the percentage was?

I doubt you'll answer. Doing so would require to much honesty.

[AgingAmerican]

35. So the thieves who stole 40% of the middle class wealth

...while collapsing the economy support Hillary 'Because they are in New york!'.

lol Well that clears it up!

[virtualobserver]

27. This analysis is pointless

lets examine the change in my pocket.......forget about the giant stack of SuperPAC bills in my wallet.

Nobody ever imagined that her billions would come from direct donations.

Corporation speech only screams with the big chunks of money hidden in the PAC's

[azmom]

39. [phone]

Bernie is not for sale.

[virtualobserver]

54. endlessly analyzing any kind of pre 2010 data is pointless anyway

citizens united transformed the universe

One of the initial Pro-Hillary Anti-Bernie arguments was the 2 plus Billion dollar haul that Hillary was
going to get from her SuperPACS.

She has powerful friends on Wall St.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/why-wall-street-loves-hillary-112782.html#.Vaa8G_lVhBc

[HassleCat]

28. We can only hope Molly Ivins was right

She used to relate a story about some advice one Texas legislator gave another. "You got to be able to take their money, drink their whiskey, screw their women, then stand up on the floor and vote against their bill." I'm guessing Clinton is not much interested in drinking their whiskey or screwing their women, but she certainly is taking their money. The Clinton Foundation also receives big money from interests not very much related to the stated purpose of the foundation, so it will be a true test of her resolve to follow the advice of that Texas politician. I'm hoping it works out OK, but I think it will be a mixed bag, as it usually is with a president from either major party.

[madokie]

36. Hey Dan

Hillary will not and I mean WILL NOT ever be the President of the United States of America
No matter how much money she takes form whomever. She simply will not be elected. I seriously doubt that she even wins our nomination.

From paying attention to her since the big dog walked into the oval office she's had her sights set on being the first female President. The person who is Hillary will do and say whatever it takes to get there but like last time she will come up short. Not many people out here in the real world trust her and trust has a lot to do with who people vote for.

Sure her numbers are strong right now but you have to realize she's been on the quest of attaining the presidency since '92 so she has a lot of name recognition where Bernie is at most two months as is Martin or Lincoln. Her numbers are coming down as the three others are climbing. We're a long way from doing any voting and by the time we do start voting her numbers will be a lot lower than they are now. If you can't see that for what it is I or anyone else can't help you.
It used to be frowned upon here at DU to post the same shit day in and day out, yes I typed Shit as this is a shit post as was it when you posted it yesterday. I guess Hillary gets a pass or something.

Nothing personal but your slip is showing and its dirty

[DanTex]

38. Even if you think that, you should join in fighting the "Hillary is owned by banks" lie.

If Bernie is in such a strong position, then he doesn't need people telling lies about Clinton on his behalf.

[madokie]

41. Dan for the most part that is not a lie

Hillary has raised a ton of money and the big moneyed interest is where it's came from. Your continued used of bullshit trying to explain it away isn't going to change that, I'm sorry but we all see who she hangs with. Hillary Clinton is not one of us, she is one of them.

[DanTex]

42. 3.4% of it is not a lie. Actually even less, because those are bank employees, not banks.

Why is it so hard to campaign for Bernie, and even against Hillary, without the "owned by the banks" lie?

If you think her platform and her record are so bad, shouldn't that be enough? Why lie about her funding sources?

[madokie]

45. We all see through this play on facts of yours

I don't give a fuck about 3.4% and most of Bernies supports don't either, it is YOU who keeps bring it up. She is owned by big moneyed interest and that my friend is a fact, Always has been and always will be. You can deny that until hell freezes over but it won't change the facts. Give it up. Its only you who keeps saying that for the most part. Get a new angle and maybe some of us might give what you say a thought but this one is dead Dan, grave yard dead,

I'm done with you and your 3.4%, go bother someone who might lend you an ear. That person is not me or many others here for that matter.
Anyone with two brains cells can figure out where her money has come from. You can scream until you're blue in the face and all you're going to get for it is a blue face and high blood pressure. Find another angle, man, Geeze

I suspect you'll be back tomorrow with the same shit as you brought here yesterday and today and both days you've been faced with the same, ain't going to hear it Dan.
I suspect you are a good guy but dead wrong on this Hillary isn't owned by big moneyed interest like you keep bleating on and on about. Like I said anyone with half a brain can see through that.

[DanTex]

46. What makes you think she is owned by big moneyed interests?

Is that just a feeling you have? "Owned" is a pretty strong word. Please tell me you have some facts to back this, that it's not just some vague sensation.

Anyone with two brains cells can figure out where her money has come from.

That's right, they can go to opensecrets, and figure out that a small fraction of it comes from Wall Street, just like I did.

[madokie]

48. You are relentless

Owned is the right word in this case. It matters not if the money is coming from a bank or the people who work in banks but yet you can't seem to grasp that.

Good day, you've got me ready to go kick inanimate objects throughout the yard and would if it wasn't so fucking hot out.
I feel another old man nap coming on so good bye for now. I'll be back though so don't think for a minute by omission you can take it that I agree with you. I don't and won't.

[DanTex]

50. Just asking for the evidence behind the "owned" theory of yours. Is that wrong? Am I supposed to

just accept it even though all the facts I've seen suggest the opposite?

No, I won't take it by omission that you agree with me. The only thing I take from your omission is that there isn't any evidence to back the "owned by moneyed interests" charge.

[madokie]

52. What.the fuck ever man

You wouldn't see it if it hit you square in the ass.
Open your eyes and do some reading and you'll find this dead horse of yours is starting to smell bad.

as my dad always said never bet on another mans game. He was talking about You

this is a bad nightmare you're having and you can't seem to wake up from it. I feel for you. I used to have them too when I first got home from the war but now they're not so often. That little tid bit shoud give you some hope.

[DanTex]

53. Try me. Why so secretive? We've gone back and forth so many times with me asking for

evidence and you not providing any. You also seem to be getting personal. What's that about? Why not stick to the facts?

[madokie]

55. You've been shown many times these last two days where your 3.4%

is bullshit but yet you can't accept that and finally everyone has done the same as me just gave up. Thats what I'm doing, giving up. You'll not hear from me again concerning this. Good bye

[DanTex]

57. Why is it bullshit? It's just arithmetic. Division, to be precise.

Surely you must have some evidence that Hillary is "owned" by banks. Right? Why are you holding out?

[London Lover Man]

40. People seem to conveniently forget that Clinton's favorability is LOWER than her unfavorables

and that does not bode well for her electability or trust issues..

[madokie]

43. She can't get there from here

In her quest for the offices she has compromised herself. She thinks money is the only road to get there. She's been after this office since bill won the election in '92. She hasn't really tried to hide that either. Everything she's done since then is with an eye to that. We know what the heck is up with her. Its no secret that she will say and do any and everything to get there. People like that can not be trusted when it comes right down to it.

I'll vote for her if it comes to that but I'll have to hold my nose with one hand while I vote with the other. I don't like voting that way. Sure she is much better than the best of the 'CONs but thats really not saying much and it damn sure isn't something to hang her hat on as she seems to be doing.

Bernie on the other hand has none of these problems. He's trustworthy, honest to a fault and actually cares about those of us who have had to work for a living using our hands and backs and who have faithfully paid our taxes and supported our government as we went along on this path in life we're on. Bernie Sanders is one of us. How can anyone want anyone else to be our leader is beyond my comprehension. If he wasn't in the race then things would be different but he is.

[Sunlei]

47. so? I was a bank 'employee'. When people donate they ask your employer. Thousands &

thousands of people are 'bank employees'.

[DanTex]

49. Exactly. Not only is the total amount small, but "bank employees" and "banks" are different things.

[redstateblues]

56. Don't you get it? If it feels like Hillary is owned by the banks

Then it's true period. A lot of Bernie's supporters believe it so it is true. It's the same way it's OK to make up new definitions for "socialist"that fit what some people want to believe. I applaud your courage for taking on the Meme Enforcement Committee. Accusing you of posting the same thing everyday is laughable considering how many " Bernie is inevitable" posts are on here everyday. As a lifelong Democrat I feel like we should call this place SU.

[hobbit709]

51. What level of employee. the peons or the manager types.

[bobbobbins01]

63. That number only for donations of at least $200.00

So draw your own conclusions from that. Also(and I'll beat this into the group), 3.4% is a misrepresentation. Donations under $200 aren't tracked by industry, yet he's using that as part of his calculation, which you can't do if you want to give an honest picture. If you do the numbers with donations that actually do have industry data, the percentage is 9.6.

[Agony]

60. one person gives you an Andrew Jackson, another person gives you a couple of Abraham Lincolns

later they both ask you for a favor, given ordinary human nature, which one are ya most likely to do a little favor for?

it is not rocket science.

[ieoeja]

64. Less than 20% from small donations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lags-in-engaging-grass-roots-donors.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Of the $47.5 million that Mrs. Clinton has raised, less than one-fifth has come from donations of $200 or less. That is a far smaller proportion than that of her Democratic and Republican rivals who have excited grass-roots donors on the left and right, such as Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Ted Cruz of Texas. While Mr. Sanders raised far less than Mrs. Clinton over all — about $15 million, including money transferred from his Senate account — about four-fifths of that amount came from smaller donors.

47.5 x .2 = 9.5
15.0 x .8 = 12.0

Bernie has actually raised more money from small donations in absolute numbers, not just as percentages, than has Clinton this cycle.

[DanTex]

65. This is true. This is a valid argument to make. "Hillary is owned by banks" is not.