Image 01 Image 03

Trump and RNC Q3 Fundraising Dwarfs Announced Numbers for 2020 Democrats

Trump and RNC Q3 Fundraising Dwarfs Announced Numbers for 2020 Democrats

“President Trump has built a juggernaut of a campaign, raising record amounts of money at a record pace”

Third quarter fundraising totals are starting to roll in, and many of the Democratic candidates running in 2020 are reporting respectable figures.

Even so, none of them even come close to the amount raised by Trump and the Republican National Committee.

Here are the totals that have been released by Democrats so far. Via CBS News:

Kamala Harris: $11.6 million

October 1: California Senator Kamala Harris raised $11.6 million in the third quarter of 2019. She had nearly $10 million in cash on hand, according to the campaign.

The average contribution was $34, while the average online contribution was $20. Harris has raised $35.5 million overall in this campaign, from more than 850,000 individual contributions, according to her campaign.

Cory Booker: $6 million

October 1: After a last-minute push to raise $1.7 million before September 30, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker’s campaign reported raising over $6 million in the third quarter. The 10-day push raised over $2.1 million from more than 46,000 donations, according to the campaign.

The campaign did not provide more details about the average contribution, or how many donors in total contributed to the campaign.

Bernie Sanders: $25.3 million

October 1: Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announced his campaign raised $25.3 million in the third quarter, the most of any 2020 Democratic presidential candidate in a quarter to date. According to the campaign, September was its single best month of fundraising in the 2020 election cycle thus far.

The cash raised in the third quarter comes from 1.4 million donations. The average donation was $18.07. His campaign says it did transfer $2.6 million in the third quarter, but that is not included in the $25 million total.

Pete Buttigieg: $19.1 million

October 1: South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg raised $19.1 million in the third quarter of 2019, a lower amount than his second quarter haul of $24.8 million, but still a significant haul that demonstrates his status as one of the top tier candidates in terms of fundraising.

According to the campaign, more than 580,000 unique donors gave to the campaign, including 182,000 new donors. The average donation was $32.

At the time of this writing, Elizabeth Warren has not released her total but while looking for it, I did find this rather telling exchange:

Meanwhile, Trump and the RNC raised a stunning $125 million.

Andrew O’Reilly reports at FOX News:

Trump campaign, RNC breaks fundraising record with massive $125M third quarter haul

President Trump and the Republican National Committee brought in $125 million in fundraising in the third quarter of this year, setting up a hefty war chest for the president as he seeks a second term in office.

The Trump 2020 campaign’s fundraising arm said Tuesday that it has raised more than $308 million in 2019 and has more than $156 million in the bank.

Former President Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee raised just over $70 million in the third quarter of 2011.

“President Trump has built a juggernaut of a campaign, raising record amounts of money at a record pace,” said Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale.

It’s a huge haul.

This makes the whole impeachment charade look even sillier, doesn’t it?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Those numbers don’t include the free advertising Democrats get from academia, Hollywood and the media. I am willing to bet it is more than a billion every month.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | October 3, 2019 at 9:18 am

    Those numbers don’t include the free advertising Democrats get from academia, Hollywood and the media. I am willing to bet it is more than a billion every month.

    Doesn’t matter in the least how much “free advertising” the democrats get from the fruitcakes in academia, hollywood and the media. They are only preaching to the choir and not to the people they actually need to convert. So let them spew all the nonsense they want. It’s not helping in any manner.

I have always been one to “resist” the “hype”. I was nerd when nerds were uncool. But the fact that so many contribute money to Trump and the media won’t “hype” (or normalize, or report) that fact illustrates the media bias. The media’s war on Trump actually drives people into the Trump Camp. That’s how much the media disrespects the American public. They believe Americans are not capable of handling the truth. Why does anyone listen to them at all? P.S. Please don’t tell this to your journo friends. Just keep giving the media more rope.

    LookoutABear in reply to GTL. | October 2, 2019 at 12:34 pm

    Journalists have been told, and maybe some even understand. But in their world where they need clicks and to scoop everybody else, they can’t change their behavior

It sounds as if it’s a lot, but Democrat numbers do not include the free media spin they receive from Corporate Media. Trump needs to outspend because the Left has a baked in advantage in media.

    LookoutABear in reply to Cogsys. | October 2, 2019 at 12:35 pm

    Trump gets millions of free advertising from the press as well. It may be negative, but he know how to use that to his advantage

    Barry Soetoro in reply to Cogsys. | October 2, 2019 at 1:07 pm

    In the 2016 cycle (primaries and general), Clinton outspent Trump by 71%. Trump had zero political experience; now he has a track record of successful governance, despite an active and ongoing coup attempt.

Money is important, but no guarantee of anything, qv 2016. It’s more the number of people giving that is important. The Dems didn’t figure out this concept when Obama and Hillary became the country’s best firearms salesmen (yes, I said men) the more and more they opposed 2A.

Who were the 46,000+ fools who gave $6MM to Cory Booker’s campaign? I don’t get it.

That $6MM could have funded a successful startup company instead. Or GoFundMe has a number of campaigns that are far more worthy charitable causes than Booker.

PS- I have given to low-polling seemingly long shot candidates in the primaries before (Scott Brown, Ted Cruz early in his Senate race) – but they won. And there was a thesis as to how they could win.

I don’t think the Dem fundraising is all that bad. They don’t have to spend millions on $100+ venues. Instead they use tiny coffee shops and pizza parlors and amplify it to a huge audience using free mass amedia and social media. Their fundraising apparatus is all coordinated from the top which provides the candidates and DNC the same economies of scale as if it were just one candidate running.

I really admire how the Dems pull the same trick every year. Put out a smorgasbord of candidates in each niche, fleece the all of the niche suckers, then once they have shaken all the coins from their pockets, put forth their pre-chosen/selected candidate.

The Dems WILL move to the middle. I highly doubt it will be Warren and Biden is done. The only thing that is dissuade me from thinking that it will be Gabbard is that Hillary wants to run. Also, I am beginning to realize that the left has become so invested in that their own brand of coo-coo-wacko that I’m not sure the Dems can just bait and switch with Gabbard anymore.

I asked someone who did not vote for Hillary, but thought Obama was a likeable candidate and a good speaker, what he thought of Gabbard. He said he found her off-putting and unlikeable, despite being pretty. I think he’s a good judge of the “middle” who isn’t all that invested in politics. Anyway, if Hillary wants to run, she will squash Gabbard like a bug.

    elle in reply to elle. | October 2, 2019 at 12:23 pm

    It just hit me, the reason that the Dems did not allow Gabbard to get any traction was not because they intended to protect HER, it is because Hillary has always intended to run. Gabbard provided an actual threat to the plan of Hillary being able to ride in and seem like the best choice available.

    So they put out the smorgasbord of niche candidates, raised all the funds and now Hillary gets to ride in, without ever having to do a debate or stump in the Pizza parlor and actually seems like a good choice. Gotta give her credit!

      elle in reply to elle. | October 2, 2019 at 1:09 pm

      and, if she picks Gabbard as her running mate, Hillary gets to poach Gabbard’s sanity, gets a two woman ticket and they get to keep the $50 million donation from Google that they will “win” in a lawsuit because Google helped in the effort of making sure Gabby didn’t get too far out in front too soon and ruin the plan.

      MrE in reply to elle. | October 2, 2019 at 1:18 pm

      It’s Warren if they don’t Hillary her. When the DNC Hillary’d Bernie in 2016, it disenfranchised a great number of young voters. Trying to expose it got Seth Rich killed. Any plan to Hillary the nomination again in 2020 poses several risks – alienate every Warren/Biden leftist AND gambles that between now and November 2020 Trump and Co don’t expose Ukraine and Crowdstrike. Imagine real proof that Russia did NOT hack the DNC servers – it was leaker Seth Rich trying to expose DNC corruption and sabotaging Bernie.

      A rinse and repeat of 2016 would be near suicide for the Dems in 2020. I’m also trying to imagine what daft voter would warm to Hillary in 2020 after 3 years of her whiny exuse-a-thon. There’s been a number of prominent Dems and pundits expressing on MSM that it’s time for the Clinton’s to hole up somewhere and fade away. Their recent talk-tour had to hawk tickets at Walmart prices before it was cancelled. I think her goose is cooked.

        elle in reply to MrE. | October 2, 2019 at 1:42 pm

        I don’t disagree with what you are saying, but you are looking at it through the wrong prism. First, it was the Politico article that laid out the details of Biden’s corruption – which is pure Clinton dirty work. That it is just seeing the light of day right now, in the same week that Hillary is putting herself on the talk circuit is because the timing is right for Clinton to ride in and be the best option available. As for Booker, Harris, Beto, Yang and even Bernie the globalists are well aware that they don’t have a prayer in the general. As for Warren, Wall Street is now saying they won’t support her crazy ideas and she’s even LESS likeable than Hillary. Warren’s move to the FAR left allows Hillary to come right up the middle and look like a better choice to win.

        Deal with it. Hillary is likely going to run. And I have to give her credit for her cunning. She has prepped the battle space beautifully.

        Here’s where I think you are mistaken. You are thinking that people like Hillary even less than they did in 2016. But that doesn’t mean they like her less than Warren if presented correctly…..and….

        more importantly, Hillary still is powerful and dangerous enough to make people afraid to tell her no. She really doesn’t care if so much that the DEMOCRATS win. SHE wants to win. IF the dems picked the most wonderful candidate in the world, there is no personal benefit to her at all in that scenario because SHE wants to win. It’s all or nothing for her.

          MrE in reply to elle. | October 2, 2019 at 2:08 pm

          You know what they say about trying the same thing over and over, each time expecting a different result.

          More than anything, her salt-the-earth approach to the loss in 2016 where she blames everyone and everything but herself, in markedly bitter and scolding terms, will turn off even more voters than last time. I’m betting her 3 year long scold-a-thon will bite her hard if she runs – and that people who did not vote for her in 2016 will conclude “thanks for 3 long years of your BS to confirm I made the right choice”.

          But if your theory proves correct, I’d look for her to carry HI, WA, OR, CA and the NE states with Trump sweeping everything in between and AK.

          And then her whining will really start.

          elle in reply to elle. | October 2, 2019 at 2:21 pm

          Very true! While she will run if she can, it is really too soon to know how this will play out. We shall see what happens.

          MrE in reply to elle. | October 2, 2019 at 2:28 pm

          So I take it you aren’t voting for her, Elle? (Grin!)

DJT just might be the greatest president since George Washington. No hyperbole, either.

He is single-handedly saving the Republic as the swamp so desperately is trying to destroy it. (Include romney and mcconnell in that.)

    I think Washington is in a league all his own, since he walked away from absolute power twice (at the end of the Revolutionary War, and again after two terms as President). But Trump will be tied with Lincoln for 2nd place if he can save the nation from our current plight.