Sanders not running out of money: He's on track to raise 50-60 Mio. $ in March (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 12, 2024, 12:34:11 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Sanders not running out of money: He's on track to raise 50-60 Mio. $ in March (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Sanders not running out of money: He's on track to raise 50-60 Mio. $ in March  (Read 4015 times)
gf20202
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 329
« on: March 20, 2016, 05:23:21 PM »
« edited: March 20, 2016, 05:34:14 PM by gf20202 »


This is BS - Hillary spend almost the same amount of money as Sanders in those Sanders - Sanders narrowly out-spend her.

However I dunno if this includes Hillary's Super Pac spending - Name recognition, Bill Clinton campaigning & the entire Democratic Establishment campaigning for Hillary in Massachusetts.

If Missouri & Mass would have been solo contests or with 1 other state, Sanders would have got a convincing victory. With 5 states or 11 states, Sanders has limited time to campaign.

I do agree that time to campaign is a factor and in some states spending has mostly been even. But in MO, it was 4 to 1. In MA, it was a 2 to 1 and that doesn't include the rather large overlap of NH spending from a month earlier.  If these states were isolated and thus meant more because of it, there is no way she is outspent by that margin. And she had even more limited time to campaign than he did because she, in a definite weakness, has to leave the trail to fund-raise while he never has to. In MI, which was essentially isolated because no one went to MS,  Sanders outspent her far less than 2 to 1 and won by 1.5% I don't see how you can argue that Sanders would have gotten "convincing" victories in MO and MA when he lost despite heavily outspending her.

MO Spending: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/sanders-narrowly-outspends-clinton-ads-march-15-states-n538836

MA Spending: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/where-the-candidates-are-betting-big-on-super-tuesday-219870

(And there is this perception of this big bad Clinton Super Pac, but they've only spent five million total on the entire primary and are apparently ceasing that spending moving forward. Outside spending totals for Sanders is actually not that much different)

So it's not BS. Sanders has lost key states that he poured SIGNIFICANTLY more resources into. Nevada was in isolation and he outspent her there as well. Where was the convincing victory? And even if the argument is somehow that Sanders would have done better if states were in isolation, so what? That's not going to happen very much the rest of the calendar.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 11 queries.