Bernie Sanders shouldn't get to have it both ways. On the one hand he claims to be a populist candidate with average donations of around 40 dollars. But on the other hand Bernie Sander's has out raised Hillary Clinton by 10 million or more dollars since the beginning of January 2016.
Can someone explain to me how one can be the populist, "for the people" candidate who collects more money than his alleged wall street opponent Hillary Clinton, while consistently losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton who he is outspending?
This same phenomenon occurred in 2008. Hillary Clinton was being wildly outspent by populist candidate Barack Obama by a 2-1 to 4-1 margin in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, yet Hillary Clinton kept winning those swing states in 2008.
Dollar for dollar, it looks like the alleged wall street candidate Hillary Clinton is spending LESS MONEY once the campaigns enter their stretch run, yet Hillary Clinton is delivering a BETTER return on the money she spends.
Maybe its time for the male dominated media to stop harassing Hillary Clinton by claiming she is the presumptive, paid and bought for wall street candidate when she is winning against an opponent who is ultimately spending MORE MONEY than Hillary Clinton while getting less votes than Hillary Clinton!
Maybe the media should not have it both ways either. Calling Hillary Clinton the candidate of the rich and owned by wall street as Bernie Sanders outspends her while getting less votes and delegates per buck than Hillary Clinton, seems to be a oxymoronic cliche whose time has passed.
Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.