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

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Wow this forum hates Bernie even more then Washington does.

The guy couldn't do it in the south. He couldn't do it in the upper Midwest aside from a fluke in Michigan. His appeal is limited to caucus states, parts of the northeast, and Dixiecrats who always vote R in the general. He has no winning coalition and needs to drop out if he cares about stopping Donald Trump.

Ok David Brock. Unfortunately for you he is not dropping out anytime soon. I don't know how staying in the race is going to hurt the Democrats chances against Trump, all I know is Democratic turnout will probably be super low with Hillary as the nominee. Even though people are voting for Clinton they like Sanders as well. (Not as much hate as this forum)

But what is the point of Sanders staying in when he has no chance of being nominated barring a Hillary indictment or death? The primary is no longer a legitimate contest of ideas, since only one candidate, Clinton, has a chance of winning. All it is doing is making it harder for Hillary to pivot to the center, which will be needed to defeat TRUMP, who is not necessarily a pushover in the general.

The spread is 1,147 to 830 in pledged delegates with 2,383 needed for the nomination so it's an uphill battle but not as impossible as you suggest. Also pivot to the center? I thought she was the progressive that was going to take on wall street (lol) just like she did in 2007 when she wove her finger at them and told them to knock it off. Anyone who supports her and believes she is going to fight for a progressive agenda instead of listening to her rich donors are suckers.

[Ebsy]

There has never been a case in the admittedly short history of the modern presidential primary process that a candidate has closed a 300+ delegate gap.

[Shadows]

Not that it matters now - But if Clinton did not have his Super PAC dumping millions of dollars in ads in crucial states, these things would then matter.

It's practically over & Clinton sits on like 100M money from her corporate masters (read - Super Pacs)

Clinton's Super PAC has barely spent anything on the primary. Meanwhile, between Sanders astronomical ad spending (not sure why his supporters are okay with him redistributing so much money from poor college kids to ad agencies and media corporations...) and the millions of dollars in pro-Sanders/anti-Clinton Super PAC spending he's benefiting from, he's outspent her in most states.

You can't lie your way to everything & make BS statements. Clinton had an advantage & raised more than 50M$ by the time Bernie started serious fund raising.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html

NY Times on Feb 20th - Her Super PAC already send 13M$ + on the campaign.

After that they pumped in 5M $ in March 15th states, almost 1M in each state

The group intends to let its ongoing ad buy in Arizona — which will vote on March 22 — play out, but it will cease pumping resources into the upcoming Democratic primary contests after spending over $5 million in February and March, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Story Continued Below
...................
The group has invested roughly $140,000 on digital ads in Arizona — a state where Sanders’ team believes he can compete against Clinton -- but not in any other states with primaries or caucuses in the coming weeks.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-primary-super-pac-220897#ixzz43NFolY8Q
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

They have spend close to 20M to defeat Sanders till now. Despite the assertion that Super Pacs won't be used in primaries - So when they got out-raised they used this.

Now that you have been proven as a lier, change your name to "Fraud Lief/whatever"

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Wow this forum hates Bernie even more then Washington does.

The guy couldn't do it in the south. He couldn't do it in the upper Midwest aside from a fluke in Michigan. His appeal is limited to caucus states, parts of the northeast, and Dixiecrats who always vote R in the general. He has no winning coalition and needs to drop out if he cares about stopping Donald Drumpf.

Ok David Brock. Unfortunately for you he is not dropping out anytime soon. I don't know how staying in the race is going to hurt the Democrats chances against Drumpf, all I know is Democratic turnout will probably be super low with Hillary as the nominee. Even though people are voting for Clinton they like Sanders as well. (Not as much hate as this forum)

Really? The same Hilary that's consistently winning the Democratic primary vote as Sanders wins independent voters? Good call!

Man you Sandernistas are the worst. My father is one of you and you're truly naive enough to believe that your Socialist leader is going to come anywhere near the oval office. Newsflash! He's got higher favorability because no one knows anything about him yet. Just wait until the GOP slime machine finds out Bernie once kicked a kitten while having an affair with his maid while under the influence of LSD in the 1980s.

LOL WHAT?!?! Great, another idiot.

There has never been a case in the admittedly short history of the modern presidential primary process that a candidate has closed a 300+ delegate gap.

This election has proved that conventional wisdom of past primaries should be thrown out the window.

[Ebsy]

Not on the Democratic side. Despite what you may believe, there has been little to nothing revolutionary about this primary battle.

[Shadows]

Wow this forum hates Bernie even more then Washington does.

The guy couldn't do it in the south. He couldn't do it in the upper Midwest aside from a fluke in Michigan. His appeal is limited to caucus states, parts of the northeast, and Dixiecrats who always vote R in the general. He has no winning coalition and needs to drop out if he cares about stopping Donald Drumpf.

Ok David Brock. Unfortunately for you he is not dropping out anytime soon. I don't know how staying in the race is going to hurt the Democrats chances against Drumpf, all I know is Democratic turnout will probably be super low with Hillary as the nominee. Even though people are voting for Clinton they like Sanders as well. (Not as much hate as this forum)

Really? The same Hilary that's consistently winning the Democratic primary vote as Sanders wins independent voters? Good call!

Man you Sandernistas are the worst. My father is one of you and you're truly naive enough to believe that your Socialist leader is going to come anywhere near the oval office. Newsflash! He's got higher favorability because no one knows anything about him yet. Just wait until the GOP slime machine finds out Bernie once kicked a kitten while having an affair with his maid while under the influence of LSD in the 1980s.

Ridiculous points - Your father is a smart guy, unfortunately you aren't. I would stand instead of Hillary & get her votes if the party & Obama was behind me. Any Joe can.

Hillary's voters are the core Dem base.

Who are the one's driving a higher turnout?

Independents who have no obligation to vote
Young people (20%) of whom vote

Independents are the largest voting bloc & unaffiliated - Whoever gets them wins - No1 can & has won without independents. If you add 85% odd of youth voters support, strong cross-over support, Sanders is a very strong GE candidate.

Also, Hillary has been barely vetted in this cycle - She is the scandalized candidate - Her Clinton foundation is a storehouse of corruption - She is under FBI Investigation - She acted irresponsibly in that email thing - She destroyed Libya & completely destroyed that country.

What is her experience as SOS? Destroying Libya? She can't even talk about experience when she did one of the worst jobs ever.

You can add Monica Lewinsky & the many woman Bill had issues with - Someone of them are attending Rallies of Trump & want to campaign against Clinton. You will have videos of these people playing.

Elizabeth Warren already detailed Hillary Clinton being bought & switching votes in the bankruptcy bill - "The Self-funded" Trump will be playing those videos time & again.

Trust me, Hillary has so many skeletons & has been completely protected. That email thing, coupled up with Libya would have destroyed the political career of anyone else!

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Not on the Democratic side. Despite what you may believe, there has been little to nothing revolutionary about this primary battle.

Wasn't this primary supposed to be Al Gore 2.0? I remember a few posters comparing Sanders to Bill Bradly who won NO states.

[This account no longer in use.]

Wow this forum hates Bernie even more then Washington does.

The guy couldn't do it in the south. He couldn't do it in the upper Midwest aside from a fluke in Michigan. His appeal is limited to caucus states, parts of the northeast, and Dixiecrats who always vote R in the general. He has no winning coalition and needs to drop out if he cares about stopping Donald Drumpf.

Ok David Brock. Unfortunately for you he is not dropping out anytime soon. I don't know how staying in the race is going to hurt the Democrats chances against Drumpf, all I know is Democratic turnout will probably be super low with Hillary as the nominee. Even though people are voting for Clinton they like Sanders as well. (Not as much hate as this forum)

Really? The same Hilary that's consistently winning the Democratic primary vote as Sanders wins independent voters? Good call!

Man you Sandernistas are the worst. My father is one of you and you're truly naive enough to believe that your Socialist leader is going to come anywhere near the oval office. Newsflash! He's got higher favorability because no one knows anything about him yet. Just wait until the GOP slime machine finds out Bernie once kicked a kitten while having an affair with his maid while under the influence of LSD in the 1980s.

What the f--- did I just read?

[Shadows]

Not on the Democratic side. Despite what you may believe, there has been little to nothing revolutionary about this primary battle.

If Sanders breaks the record of highest individual donations that is a revolution.

He brought a completely different progressive agenda which no1 thought was possible.

The fact that he is above 40% in almost all National polls & winning the young votes with 80%+ among them & the under 45 votes in most states show  - The future of the Dem party belongs to them.

Competing against Hillary effing Clinton & her Super Pac & coming this far without a Super pac through small scale donations while changing the political direction is to me revolutionary.

I think mathematically Sanders may have a chance but realistically he does not. 300+ is too much.

But Sanders has completely changed politics to me & created the space for Progressives Presidents for years to come. It will set up 2020,2024 & so on & will make a reversal from the Reagan area.

Ofcourse blind hillary hacks will barely have the competence to accept that!

[Ebsy]

Not on the Democratic side. Despite what you may believe, there has been little to nothing revolutionary about this primary battle.

Wasn't this primary supposed to be Al Gore 2.0? I remember a few posters comparing Sanders to Bill Bradly who won NO states.

It was more like Dean without the Dean scream.

[RaphaelDLG]

All of these posts by Hillbots gleefully laughing about Sanders raising millions to no avail are stupid.

The race isn't very competitive any more, but an elderly, uncharismatic no-name from a tiny state without pac money facing establishment opposition made the Democratic primary into a competitive race against a woman with 100% name recognition who is probably the 3rd most beloved Democrat in the country and one of the most admired women in the world and, oh, also happens to have a very, very close relationship with the #1 and #2 most admired Democrats in the country.

So, yes, Sanders has done much, much, much better than he should have with his dollars against great odds, and whether or not he "wins" going forward depends greatly on the maturity of his supporters.

He has forced Clinton to stake out positions on the public option, TPP, keystone, education, etc that she normally wouldn't have.  

Will his supporters stay politically engaged hold her/Congress' feet to the fire going forward, or will they become depressed children and disengage for politics until the next messiah comes along?

Idk what election laws say Sanders can do with his leftover money, but I hope he uses it to create a progressive action network that is used between elections and during midterms, because that's when progressives and even moderate dems need to come out if we actually ever want to get something done.

[°Leprechaun]

Let's DISPEL the MYTH that Clinton is inevitable, once and for all.
Sanders can win if people vote for him. Remember Clinton supporters have been saying that she was inevitable before the first vote was even cast. There are millions and millions of people who have not voted. Clinton supporters know that she is not inevitable, if they believed otherwise they would stay home and not vote in the primaries. They will not do that, because in their hearts they know they're wrong.

[Virginiá]

Let's DISPEL the MYTH that Clinton is inevitable, once and for all.
Sanders can win if people vote for him. Remember Clinton supporters have been saying that she was inevitable before the first vote was even cast. There are millions and millions of people who have not voted. Clinton supporters know that she is not inevitable, if they believed otherwise they would stay home and not vote in the primaries. They will not do that, because in their hearts they know they're wrong.

Well, it doesn't look like he's going to win Arizona (or not by much at best), and he won't win in New York. In fact, he'd be lucky to lose only in a mini-landslide instead of a massive one.

The math here just doesn't add up. Impossible to deny this.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Let's DISPEL the MYTH that Clinton is inevitable, once and for all.
Sanders can win if people vote for him. Remember Clinton supporters have been saying that she was inevitable before the first vote was even cast. There are millions and millions of people who have not voted. Clinton supporters know that she is not inevitable, if they believed otherwise they would stay home and not vote in the primaries. They will not do that, because in their hearts they know they're wrong.

Well, it doesn't look like he's going to win Arizona (or not by much at best), and he won't win in New York. In fact, he'd be lucky to lose only in a mini-landslide instead of a massive one.

The math here just doesn't add up. Impossible to deny this.

Don't ignore the west coast. Most of Clinton's best states are gone, he will be chipping away at that delegate lead slowly but surely.

[Shadows]

Let's DISPEL the MYTH that Clinton is inevitable, once and for all.
Sanders can win if people vote for him. Remember Clinton supporters have been saying that she was inevitable before the first vote was even cast. There are millions and millions of people who have not voted. Clinton supporters know that she is not inevitable, if they believed otherwise they would stay home and not vote in the primaries. They will not do that, because in their hearts they know they're wrong.

Well, it doesn't look like he's going to win Arizona (or not by much at best), and he won't win in New York. In fact, he'd be lucky to lose only in a mini-landslide instead of a massive one.

The math here just doesn't add up. Impossible to deny this.

I agree with you but there has no poll in NY giving Clinton more than 20% lead & that a while back - Sanders makes a lot compared to the early polls. I don't see him winning NY & I don't see over-turning 300 but there is no basis for a NY Landslide for Clinton as of yet!

[Joe Republic]

Lots of delusion rearing its head in here.  I guess the memories of this past Tuesday have already been forgotten, and another brutal drubbing is required.  Talk about gluttons for punishment!

I would hope that he will start transferring money to the DSCC and DCCC.

I wouldn't be surprised if he was a bit more selective as to who he gives his money to after the race is done and give to select progressive campaigns.

That would make sense, although again I would hope he would invest in progressive candidates who actually have a hope of winning, rather than plow a few million into some loyal foot-soldier of the anti-Wall Street revolution running in ID-1 or wherever.  I'm not too optimistic about that, and frankly I don't think the donors would even mind their money being wasted so egregiously, or they wouldn't have donated to Bernie Sanders in the first place.

[Xing]

Let's dispel with the fiction that the only purpose of Sanders' campaign is to win the nomination.

[IceSpear]

Wow this forum hates Bernie even more then Washington does.

The guy couldn't do it in the south. He couldn't do it in the upper Midwest aside from a fluke in Michigan. His appeal is limited to caucus states, parts of the northeast, and Dixiecrats who always vote R in the general. He has no winning coalition and needs to drop out if he cares about stopping Donald Trump.

Ok David Brock. Unfortunately for you he is not dropping out anytime soon. I don't know how staying in the race is going to hurt the Democrats chances against Trump, all I know is Democratic turnout will probably be super low with Hillary as the nominee. Even though people are voting for Clinton they like Sanders as well. (Not as much hate as this forum)

But what is the point of Sanders staying in when he has no chance of being nominated barring a Hillary indictment or death? The primary is no longer a legitimate contest of ideas, since only one candidate, Clinton, has a chance of winning. All it is doing is making it harder for Hillary to pivot to the center, which will be needed to defeat TRUMP, who is not necessarily a pushover in the general.

The spread is 1,147 to 830 in pledged delegates with 2,383 needed for the nomination so it's an uphill battle but not as impossible as you suggest. Also pivot to the center? I thought she was the progressive that was going to take on wall street (lol) just like she did in 2007 when she wove her finger at them and told them to knock it off. Anyone who supports her and believes she is going to fight for a progressive agenda instead of listening to her rich donors are suckers.

There's a big difference between theoretically possible and actually possible. It was theoretically possible for McCain to win in 08 after losing in Ohio. It's theoretically possible for Chuck Schumer or James Lankford to lose re-election. It was theoretically possible for Bernie to win Mississippi or Hillary to win Vermont.

[RaphaelDLG]

Wow this forum hates Bernie even more then Washington does.

The guy couldn't do it in the south. He couldn't do it in the upper Midwest aside from a fluke in Michigan. His appeal is limited to caucus states, parts of the northeast, and Dixiecrats who always vote R in the general. He has no winning coalition and needs to drop out if he cares about stopping Donald Trump.

Ok David Brock. Unfortunately for you he is not dropping out anytime soon. I don't know how staying in the race is going to hurt the Democrats chances against Trump, all I know is Democratic turnout will probably be super low with Hillary as the nominee. Even though people are voting for Clinton they like Sanders as well. (Not as much hate as this forum)

But what is the point of Sanders staying in when he has no chance of being nominated barring a Hillary indictment or death? The primary is no longer a legitimate contest of ideas, since only one candidate, Clinton, has a chance of winning. All it is doing is making it harder for Hillary to pivot to the center, which will be needed to defeat TRUMP, who is not necessarily a pushover in the general.

The spread is 1,147 to 830 in pledged delegates with 2,383 needed for the nomination so it's an uphill battle but not as impossible as you suggest. Also pivot to the center? I thought she was the progressive that was going to take on wall street (lol) just like she did in 2007 when she wove her finger at them and told them to knock it off. Anyone who supports her and believes she is going to fight for a progressive agenda instead of listening to her rich donors are suckers.

There's a big difference between theoretically possible and actually possible. It was theoretically possible for McCain to win in 08 after losing in Ohio. It's theoretically possible for Chuck Schumer or James Lankford to lose re-election. It was theoretically possible for Bernie to win Mississippi or Hillary to win Vermont.

Yes.  At this point, Bernie needs to have a tape leak where Hillary says the S and the N word in the same sentence and then have ABC news air a special news report detailing Bernie, Barack, and Bill's round of golf/afternoon of jovial back-slapping joking, schmoozing, and drinking if he wants to win a few of the necessary large states coming up by the appropriate margins.

[°Leprechaun]

Yes, Clinton has a significant lead in NY, if she holds it for another month and wins, don't forget, a close margin is very different from a landslide. If she wins NY, PA and CA by small margins, I think she gets the nomination. If not, the other states could be a factor. If she wins AZ, then onto WI where Sanders seems a little more viable, with a possibility of winning. Then onto NY which could be a major setback for Sanders.

The interesting thing to look for is whether Clinton can get to a majority before June 7.
If the race is decided on June 7, I am sure that the overwhelming majority here would predict that Clinton mathematically seals it. I am not going to quibble. It is a short amount of time relative to the last 14 billion years. I want to see results for 100% certainty. That said, CA is the largest state and I would be happy to let people have a voice in who the nominee is, regardless of whether or not Clinton is now the inevitable nominee. It is quite possible that both the GOP and Democrats pick their nominees on June 7.

[°Leprechaun]

I don't know for a fact that Sanders won't drop out before June 7, but I suspect that he won't.

[Mehmentum]

I for one have and will continue to enjoy watching Sanders getting defeated over and over again despite massively outspending Clinton.  So, I'm not particularly bothered by him staying in.

[Landslide Lyndon]

BTW, doesn't the fact that Sanders is soundly beaten almost everywhere by Clinton despite the fact that he outspends her kinda undermines his message about money in politics?

[DrScholl]

BTW, doesn't the fact that Sanders is soundly beaten almost everywhere by Clinton despite the fact that he outspends her kinda undermines his message about money in politics?

It really does.

[°Leprechaun]

BTW, doesn't the fact that Sanders is soundly beaten almost everywhere by Clinton despite the fact that he outspends her kinda undermines his message about money in politics?

If by "almost everywhere" you mean the South, yes she beat him soundly there.
Where else has she soundly beaten him? Ohio. Then Illinois and Massachusetts (were they big wins for her?) then Nevada, the remaining two Iowa and Missouri she won with less than a majority.

As for money, it doesn't seem to be having a big effect this year. People can get their information from the internet now. People can watch the debates and they are. So ads are less effective than in the past.

Facebook is a way to get a message out without a lot of money.