"A recent report by the Center for Responsive Politics used fundraising data made available by the Federal Elections Commission to analyze where women were putting their money, and likely their votes, in the upcoming presidential election."

...the rest were un-itemized.

That means other than those 22,000 we know virtually nothing about the others - no name, no address, no occupation, no employer, and most importantly no amount.

Plus, FEC doesn't require reporting the gender of any contributor.

I am not 100% sure on this

...all others are "unitemized" with no information available whatsoever.

Plus, candidate committees do not report gender (or age) of contributors. Only one campaign dwells on these undocumented demographics, and it's entirely speculative.

....less than 30% of BS' contributions are itemized (dollar wise) and an even smaller fraction are itemized with respect to # of contributors - 22,000 of the claimed million+, that's less than 3%!

Plus, there is no explicit data available about the gender of contributors, so all of this is speculative. It's based on an interpretation of the names of those contributors who are itemized. How do we know that contributors are women or men? We don't.

in the meantime this is what it is, a window on one segment of society women in suburbs itemized contributions.

and 17 million dollars isn't chump change.

...AND it's based on a very subjective interpretation of contributors' names.

It's not a question of FEC guidelines, it's a question of someone's subjective interpretation of available data. I seriously don't understand the rationale behind all of these attempts to skew the real facts to fit a narrative. It makes one wonder about the supporters' confidence behind the candidates' true viability.

If it is repeated frequently enough some people may believe it.

I guess that there wasn't any other good news for the campaign to report on a Friday night.

That's how you know Bernie's winning!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

Such assumptions say so much

history and heaven. Of course no one’s home to enjoy it. Nice for block parties.

Now, if they would just start showing polling #'s using 2018 turnout demographics, the news would be even better!
Here Comes Bernie!

Who Live in Vacation Houses Purchased Along Lake Champlain With Proceeds from Inheritances


Whew! That was a tough headline to fix.

It was the suburban women that won that back for the democrats.

I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but Stop using 2016 polling data for weighting demographic groups.
Post trump inauguration is going to be a hell of a lot different (results are in, btw) so insist of up to date polling, or loose again.

I didn't use any 2016 polling data as the basis for my reply.

I am ridiculing the use of emphasizing extremely targeted demographic groups to create a headline like the one in this OP which intend to make Bernie (or any other candidate) appear to be doing better than he actually is. Perhaps I should have narrowed it down using census tract information instead?

However, if you want to believe that winning a subset of a subset of a set is meaningful, then have at it since it is Friday night/Saturday morning.

I don't know if it applies specifically for this poll, but most major pollsters do make adjustments to their raw data to weight the demographics of their polls for factors such as age, education, economic groups, race, religion and sex. They will also weight that data to polling done in the past. Those pollsters tend to produce more reliable results than those who do not use such methodology which is why they remain in business.