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

[°Leprechaun]

I've seen only a few of his commercials, so it hasn't influenced me. I have gotten my information elsewhere. Nevertheless, this is only one of his issues. It may not be as big a problem as it used to be. He has other issues that he has talked about besides this. It has been one that he has talked about a lot, but he has talked about other ones with equal enthusiasm.

[Blair]

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.

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)

Although Clinton is the one turning out Hispanics/African Americans; basically 2/3rd of the Obama coalition.

I'd love to see Bernie supporters bragging if they had the numbers HRC has

[°Leprechaun]

He also hasn't gotten as much media attention. Not as much as Trump anyway. Trump hasn't needed to spend as much money. He is always all over the news. He likes to complain about all these protesters, but they are only giving him more. I do think that Sanders has benefited from his money. Without it who would have ever thought that he had a chance? He needed to outspend Clinton to level the race and make it fairer. Everyone knows who she is. Most people didn't know he is and many probably who aren't following the race, still don't.

[°Leprechaun]

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.

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)

Although Clinton is the one turning out Hispanics/African Americans; basically 2/3rd of the Obama coalition.

I'd love to see Bernie supporters bragging if they had the numbers HRC has

He has plenty to brag about. He has come from behind to beat her in many states. Michigan by a small margin, when nobody thought it possible and a number of small states by large margins. He is behind, but he has done well enough considering how far he has come.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Thank god I can stop reading these type threads since the primary is all but over.

[°Leprechaun]

Don't forget he has almost the entire establishment party against him. He has no Senators and six representatives behind him. His wins are impressive, if you ask me.

[°Leprechaun]

Thank god I can stop reading these type threads since the primary is all but over.

You have my permission to stop reading them whenever you want.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Don't forget he has almost the entire establishment party against him. He has no Senators and six representatives behind him. His wins are impressive, if you ask me.

Yeah, it's astonishing how the Democratic party establishment refuses to support for President a guy who isn't a Democrat and who accuses them of being beholden to the moneyed interests.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Don't forget he has almost the entire establishment party against him. He has no Senators and six representatives behind him. His wins are impressive, if you ask me.

Yeah, it's astonishing how the Democratic party establishment refuses to support for President a guy who isn't a Democrat and who accuses them of being beholden to the moneyed interests.

Oh for God sakes he has always caucused with the Democrats. This attack is getting old.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Thank god I can stop reading these type threads since the primary is all but over.

You have my permission to stop reading them whenever you want.

[ag]

His problem at this point is not money.

[RaphaelDLG]

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.

Only if you're a moron with no sense of context.

[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?

It really does.

Only if you're a moron with no sense of context.

...but enough talking about you.

[Mehmentum]

It really just goes to show that money has its limits.  Jeb Bush's 100 million dollar Superpac couldn't save his campaign because of fundamental flaws with the candidate and the messaging.

Similarly, Sanders still loses states like Massachusetts and Missouri despite outspending her 2:1 or 3:1.  It's not because money is worthless (after all, the spending definitely has buoyed his campaign), it's just that his appeal as a candidate is limited in a way that no amount of money can overcome.

[ag]

I mean, this is an election for President of the United States: a country of over 300,000,000 people and an economy that each year produces almost USD$17,000,000,0000,0000. The winner will be president of the US for 4 years, during which time he will substantially affect how that income is distributed. The total spent on the election campaign is not likely to hit even USD$5,000,000,000 - peanuts, really, in the scale of things. If money really mattered that much, you would have had campaign expenditures of 10 or even 100 times the present size.

[Santander]

Don't forget he has almost the entire establishment party against him. He has no Senators and six representatives behind him. His wins are impressive, if you ask me.

Yeah, it's astonishing how the Democratic party establishment refuses to support for President a guy who isn't a Democrat and who accuses them of being beholden to the moneyed interests.

Oh for God sakes he has always caucused with the Democrats. This attack is getting old.

Nobody said he wasn't an ally of the Democrats. It's not exactly an attack to make a factual statement that the D establishment has reason not to be enthusiastic about Sanders' candidacy. The insiders are the ones who built the party, which may be corrupt, but building it requires exhausting, sometimes ego-bruising work. Some insiders don't like that a guy walks into the party apparatus they built and runs a campaign free of their own burdens. I'm sure some insiders secretly prefer Sanders' platform, but endorsements aren't secret ballots, and you can't just do whatever you want.

[RaphaelDLG]

It really just goes to show that money has its limits.  Jeb Bush's 100 million dollar Superpac couldn't save his campaign because of fundamental flaws with the candidate and the messaging.

Similarly, Sanders still loses states like Massachusetts and Missouri despite outspending her 2:1 or 3:1.  It's not because money is worthless (after all, the spending definitely has buoyed his campaign), it's just that his appeal as a candidate is limited in a way that no amount of money can overcome.

Money definitely has its limits, mostly on the Presidential level, but it still really, really matters.  There's a reason why Congressmen spend over 50% of their waking hours dialing for dollars, why the average winning House and Senate races cost 1 million and 10 million respectively, why the candidate with the most money wins 90%+ of the time, and why studies like Gilens' and Page's Princeton study show that on average are policymakers respond very inelastically to our wishes but very elastically to the wishes of economic elites.

To overcome money, you need tremendous, 100% name recognition and a longstanding following (like Clinton and Trump) or to be up against a candidate with some other albatross around their neck like a scandal, horrible core policy positions, or the last name Bush.  These are sometimes available in a Presidential race but are almost never available in Congressional races.

[RaphaelDLG]

I mean, this is an election for President of the United States: a country of over 300,000,000 people and an economy that each year produces almost USD$17,000,000,0000,0000. The winner will be president of the US for 4 years, during which time he will substantially affect how that income is distributed. The total spent on the election campaign is not likely to hit even USD$5,000,000,000 - peanuts, really, in the scale of things. If money really mattered that much, you would have had campaign expenditures of 10 or even 100 times the present size.

Uh, $7 billion was spent in 2012 and that number will almost certainly be substantially eclipsed this cycle.  There's a very good reason why notoriously stingy corporations competing to squeeze the last dollar of profit out of their operations pour billions into political contributions:  Because doing so in aggregate yields fantastic return on investment.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Lol at people that don't think money in politics is a problem.

[Virginiá]

Nobody said he wasn't an ally of the Democrats. It's not exactly an attack to make a factual statement that the D establishment has reason not to be enthusiastic about Sanders' candidacy. The insiders are the ones who built the party, which may be corrupt, but building it requires exhausting, sometimes ego-bruising work. Some insiders don't like that a guy walks into the party apparatus they built and runs a campaign free of their own burdens. I'm sure some insiders secretly prefer Sanders' platform, but endorsements aren't secret ballots, and you can't just do whatever you want.

This. I think sometimes people take for granted just how many resources and how much work it takes to build up a brand like the Democratic party and bring together so many voters.

[Shadows]

It really just goes to show that money has its limits.  Jeb Bush's 100 million dollar Superpac couldn't save his campaign because of fundamental flaws with the candidate and the messaging.

Similarly, Sanders still loses states like Massachusetts and Missouri despite outspending her 2:1 or 3:1.  It's not because money is worthless (after all, the spending definitely has buoyed his campaign), it's just that his appeal as a candidate is limited in a way that no amount of money can overcome.

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.

Super Tuesday's are meant to destroy small anti-establishment candidates with limited recognition. It's a big problem & when you further add the 4th Clinton campaign here - They know the in's & out's - They have been to these states months before Sanders & have the entire establishment campaigning.

It's a no brainier - Sanders will continue to do well in the future in when limited states go for voting & he has time for campaigning - Which is why in a NY I expect him to do better than say New Jersey!

[Crumpets]

Lol at people that don't think money in politics is a problem.

It's more complicated than that, though. It's clear in some cases, like the Feingold-Johnson Senate election in 2010, that money can have an influence on elections. However, this has been the case even before Citizens United, and appointing a Supreme Court nominee who opposes it does not equal actually solving the problem. If you really truly want to get money out of politics, you have to 1) get elected, 2) amend the Constitution. To Bernie's credit, he has tried step 2 already, although it was even less successful than his ongoing attempt to complete step 1.

The sad reality is that bad campaign finance laws, with or without Citizens United, are the inevitable reality for at leas the next few years if not the next few decades. If having a "movement" could change something as big as Citizens United, Roe v. Wade would have gone away long ago. And seeing as that's not the case, the best options are either to push for a national constitutional convention and risk also getting flag burning amendments, overturning Roe v. Wade, etc. Or to simply play the game on your side as well, lobby the many liberal millionaires and billionaires to help finance your campaigns, and fight fire with fire. It's obviously not ideal, but it's the best we've got under the circumstances. Trying to be Sanders-pure as a party will get us a lot more 2010s and 2014s than it will 2006s and 2008s.

Although on the bright side, I think the vast majority of elections we hold are not determined by the amount spent, mostly because of how many elections on the local level aren't contested in the first place.

[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.