Hillary raises 45 million so far. 90% of donations were under $100

[Misty]

I think this pretty much sums up Hillary's chances lol.

Oops.

"Attendees of the fundraisers, which were hosted by “Hillstarters,” people who raised $27,000 or more -- typically each donated $2,700, the maximum contribution the campaign allows per person."

Hillary Clinton What It Took For Her to Raise 45 Million in Just 3 Months - ABC News

 

[Andylusion]

When similar numbers were released by Bush in 2000, the leftists ignored it, and belittled it. Now Hilliary, the most corrupt politicians in recent history, does the same, now we're supposed to assume that means something.

Leftism is inherently hypocritical it seems.

 

[Misty]

We already know the Clinton's are great at duping people out of money.

The poor saps.

 

[Misty]

The OP thinks it shows broad based support.

Lol although I agree she is a formidable candidate, it's not because of her being the best, it's because the Clinton's are criminals and will do anything to do get what they want.

 

[SwimExpert]

If 90% of donations were under $100, all that tells us is that Hillary is a classic example of mega rich powers buying her off.

90 donations at $90 = $1800
10 donations at $4,499,820 = $44,998,200
Total = $45 million

 

[mudwhistle]

I think this pretty much sums up Hillary's chances lol.

Yet none of them can name one of her accomplishments

What were a couple of GW's accomplishments again? Besides being a completely hands off Governor or being given a baseball team where he flipped it for a few mill? I wonder how much that team is worth now?

Best deal Bush ever did was for Haloburton. He made that company trillions of dollars.

GW isn't running for office.....now what are all of those accomplishments (Hillary's)?

BTW, traveling around the world is a pastime...not an accompishment.

Best thing Hillary ever did was stay out of her husband's way.

Then why did Scott Walker go to England and make a fool of himself if not to try and build up his foreign experience?

What's hillary Clinton Secretary of State or something like that for a while? You guys are f****** idiots

Explain how talking to foreign leaders through personal communication is making a fool of yourself? It's important to communicate with other world leaders but it is also important to establish trust. Hillary never did that. She never built any lasting relationships that were reported. Her decisions often turned into embarrassment or total disasters, as in Benghazi. She was in the middle of a scandal in Columbia when instead of taking care of business she went to parties and her Secret Service detail ended up screwing a bunch of hookers. If it had been anyone else she would have been fired on the spot. John Kerry is in the middle of negotiations with Iran.....ever hear of Hillary doing this? No. John Kerry may have a bad mandate from Obama to work out a deal....but he's at least working the issue instead of just showing up for photos and going on trips, which is all Hillary did.

Scott Walker is a Governor. He's established his leadership by doing his job. Talking to our allies is just another part of being president, and having an established relationship with them is a plus. Hillary seemed to be on a shopping trip, parties, and photo-ops. She was Secretary when the Russians got the go-ahead on tons of uranium which the promptly handed over to the Iranians. Her handlers needed to tell her when to shit. She did that photo-op with the Russians and it turned into a total disaster.

 

[Billy000]

I think this pretty much sums up Hillary's chances lol.

Oops.

"Attendees of the fundraisers, which were hosted by “Hillstarters,” people who raised $27,000 or more -- typically each donated $2,700, the maximum contribution the campaign allows per person."

Hillary Clinton What It Took For Her to Raise 45 Million in Just 3 Months - ABC News

I don't understand your point. Obviously she is going to get big donations. It wouldn't change the 90% statistic.

 

[Billy000]

If 90% of donations were under $100, all that tells us is that Hillary is a classic example of mega rich powers buying her off.

90 donations at $90 = $1800
10 donations at $4,499,820 = $44,998,200
Total = $45 million

I know because you are conservative your command of math is limited, but try to understand basic reasoning. The 90% stat includes donations between $1 and 100%., This $90 crap you are spinning means dick. Youre pulling shit out of your ass.

 

[Vigilante]

.... $45 Million.......

If he wins the nomination, he can simply make the Hildebeast an OFFER she can't refuse! HEEHAW!!!!!!

 

[9thIDdoc]

I wonder if any of that money (Helleries) came from American citizens.

 

[Statistikhengst]

45 mill, and this is just the start. Looks like the small donors are going to once again decide an election.

We saw the same postive pattern with Obama in 2007-2008. This is a good starting haul.

Watch righties wail and gnash teeth.

 

[SwimExpert]

If 90% of donations were under $100, all that tells us is that Hillary is a classic example of mega rich powers buying her off.

90 donations at $90 = $1800
10 donations at $4,499,820 = $44,998,200
Total = $45 million

I know because you are conservative your command of math is limited, but try to understand basic reasoning. The 90% stat includes donations between $1 and 100%., This $90 crap you are spinning means dick. Youre pulling shit out of your ass.

Okay, so let's say for a moment that all of her <$100 donations are only $1. That means that she has even bigger big donors. Junior, the only person trying to spin anything here is you. You're taking this 90% figure, and trying to paint the picture that Clinton is some kind of woman of the people. So many people just love her that she's raise insane amounts of money by receiving small donations from countless people.

 

[GHook93]

I think this pretty much sums up Hillary's chances lol.

Right now she doesn't have a legit challenger. If Warren enters or a respected Latino then she is toast.

Whoever wins the D primary will win the general election.

 

[GHook93]

If 90% of donations were under $100, all that tells us is that Hillary is a classic example of mega rich powers buying her off.

90 donations at $90 = $1800
10 donations at $4,499,820 = $44,998,200
Total = $45 million

I know because you are conservative your command of math is limited, but try to understand basic reasoning. The 90% stat includes donations between $1 and 100%., This $90 crap you are spinning means dick. Youre pulling shit out of your ass.

Okay, so let's say for a moment that all of her <$100 donations are only $1. That means that she has even bigger big donors. Junior, the only person trying to spin anything here is you. You're taking this 90% figure, and trying to paint the picture that Clinton is some kind of woman of the people. So many people just love her that she's raise insane amounts of money by receiving small donations from countless people.

There are donation limits, so your conclusion is inaccurate.

 

[SwimExpert]

There are donation limits, so your conclusion is inaccurate.

First, there are not real limits. Just different hoops to jump through. Second, even if there were, it doesn't matter. You need to learn to understand the maths a little bit more.

 

[Vigilante]

If 90% of donations were under $100, all that tells us is that Hillary is a classic example of mega rich powers buying her off.

90 donations at $90 = $1800
10 donations at $4,499,820 = $44,998,200
Total = $45 million

I know because you are conservative your command of math is limited, but try to understand basic reasoning. The 90% stat includes donations between $1 and 100%., This $90 crap you are spinning means dick. Youre pulling shit out of your ass.

Okay, so let's say for a moment that all of her <$100 donations are only $1. That means that she has even bigger big donors. Junior, the only person trying to spin anything here is you. You're taking this 90% figure, and trying to paint the picture that Clinton is some kind of woman of the people. So many people just love her that she's raise insane amounts of money by receiving small donations from countless people.

There are donation limits, so your conclusion is inaccurate.

Either your dumber than you look, or you're a liar!

Obama’s Untraceable Donations: Hundreds of Millions From Overseas? Campaign Turns Off AVS Verification?

Obama s Untraceable Donations Hundreds of Millions From Overseas Campaign Turns Off AVS Verification Maggie s Notebook

The Corrupt Hildebeast will do the same thing...bank on it!... we see how the phony Clinton Foundation works!

 

[Billy000]

If 90% of donations were under $100, all that tells us is that Hillary is a classic example of mega rich powers buying her off.

90 donations at $90 = $1800
10 donations at $4,499,820 = $44,998,200
Total = $45 million

I know because you are conservative your command of math is limited, but try to understand basic reasoning. The 90% stat includes donations between $1 and 100%., This $90 crap you are spinning means dick. Youre pulling shit out of your ass.

Okay, so let's say for a moment that all of her <$100 donations are only $1. That means that she has even bigger big donors. Junior, the only person trying to spin anything here is you. You're taking this 90% figure, and trying to paint the picture that Clinton is some kind of woman of the people. So many people just love her that she's raise insane amounts of money by receiving small donations from countless people.

Lol your logic is going no where. I never claimed she didn't have big donors. Obviously she would. It wouldn't change the fact that 90% of her donors were a wide range of people now would it?

 

[SwimExpert]

Lol your logic is going no where. I never claimed she didn't have big donors. Obviously she would. It wouldn't change the fact that 90% of her donors were a wide range of people now would it?

Yes, it could. I've already demonstrated that fact. You are simply making an assumption that things are happening one particular way; you assume things are happening in a way that implies a wide range of people. Your assumption is unfounded, biased, and indicative of your feeble mind.

 

[Billy000]

Lol your logic is going no where. I never claimed she didn't have big donors. Obviously she would. It wouldn't change the fact that 90% of her donors were a wide range of people now would it?

Yes, it could. I've already demonstrated that fact. You are simply making an assumption that things are happening one particular way; you assume things are happening in a way that implies a wide range of people. Your assumption is unfounded, biased, and indicative of your feeble mind.

Well gee considering she was accepting donations as low as a $1 it would matter. Can you find a republican candidate with those kinds of numbers? No you cannot.

 

[FA_Q2]

Of note is that the OP is not sourced. It is a blank claim with nothing to support it.

Further, the OP also does not seem to understand what swim is getting at or the fact that the 90 percent figure is entirely meaningless without the context of what it means. A measly 9 people could have donated a dollar and one person the rest and that could be '90 percent of donations are under a hundred bucks' but is a completely different scenario than 100 thousand people donating various amounts and 10 thousand donating a larger amount.

Part of the confusion might center around the fact that there was never actually a point articulated with the 90 percent figure - it was just left out there as though it speaks for itself.

Well, it does not. If you think it means something billy then why don't you actually articulate WHAT you think it means and logically fit that number into that point.