When the first poll, of the new year came out on February 8th surveying a massive 1236 people in Nevada, the not-fake-news website DailyNewsBin.com published an article explaining that the poll was a fake manufactured by Republicans in an attempt to undermine Hillary Clinton’s campaign. This of course, coming from a totally legitimate website, coincidentally established in the summer of 2015, which bans commenters who don’t support Hillary Clinton, and almost exclusively publishes articles expressly supporting Hillary Clinton.
Fortunately for those of us supportive of the iconoclast Bernie Sanders, further surveys have confirmed the statistical tie between the candidates.
Yet, a basis for believing that Sanders has equal support in Nevada should not come as a surprise to anybody tracking donor information from the state as far back as December of 2015. Based on the year-end information for 2015 logged with the FEC, in Nevada Sanders had 1450 contributions compared with only 1361 from Clinton.
Not only did Sanders have more logged contributions in Nevada than Clinton for 2015, if you look at contributions over time there has been a steep growth in both number of contributions and the number of contributors (Figures 1 and 2).
|Figure 1: Number of contributions to each democratic campaign over time.|
|Figure 2: Number of contributors to each democratic campaign over time.|
Both of these figures show the real struggle Clinton has had in picking up support from the general population relative to her populist rival Sanders. Yet, these graphs vastly underestimate the number of supporters Bernie has relative to his rival. This is because the vast majority of contributions are from supporters who are giving less the FEC mandating reporting minimum of $200.
For Sanders is backed largely by small money with only 26% of his support itemized and reported to the FEC while Clinton on the other hand is backed by big money from a relatively few number of contributors and therefore reports 84% of her contributions. If we make the simple assumption that those contributions which are not reported look pretty much the same as those which are reported then the picture becomes even more dramatic (Figures 3 and 4).
|Figure 3: Number of contributions over time in Nevada adjusted for missing observations.|
|Figure 4: Number of contributors over time in Nevada adjusted for missing observations. By December the gap of support between candidates is a chasm with Sanders have an estimated 6.4 times as many supporters as Clinton in Nevada.|
Form Figures 3 and 4 we can see that the number of people willing to put their personal money in to back Sanders in Nevada is vastly greater than those supporting Hillary Clinton. Not only that, but those numbers have continued to grow over time while Clinton’s numbers have remained relatively stagnant.
It is unclear as to how the number of people willing to put their money behind a candidate relates to how the general population of voters will vote. Yet those members of the Clinton campaign, including the folks at the not-fake-news website DailyNewsBin.com, must find these numbers combined with those of the polls at least somewhat worrying.
The Simple Reason Sanders Is Winning
As First Lady, Popularity of Babies Named “Hillary” Dropped by an Unprecedented 90%
Hillary Clinton’s Biggest 2016 Rival: Herself
Cause of Death: Melanin | Evaluating Death-by-Police Data
Obama 2008 received 3x more media coverage than Sanders 2016
The Unreported War On America’s Poor
What it means to be a US Veteran Today