Sanders campaign begins laying off staff

[pnwmom]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by mcar (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Politico

TERRE HAUTE, Ind. — Bernie Sanders’ campaign started letting field staffers go on Wednesday, hours after five states in the Northeast voted and the Vermont senator fell further behind Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination, five people familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

The extent of the cuts are unclear, but staffers who were working in states that voted Tuesday were told to look elsewhere for work rather than continue onto the next voting states, according to people close to the campaign.

"We're 80 percent of the way through the caucuses and primaries and we make adjustments as we go along. This is a process that we’ve done before of right-sizing the campaign as we move through the calendar," said Sanders' campaign communications director Michael Briggs.

While Sanders has raised large amounts of money online, and started April with $17 million according to his most recent Federal Election Commission report, he has also spent at a very high rate, including $46 million in March. It is unclear how much money his campaign currently has on hand.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/sanders-campaign-begins-laying-off-staff-222552#ixzz473rpNyZh

[onehandle]

1. Welcome to the General Election. nt

[pnwmom]

2. At last we can end this circular firing squad. n/t

[KamaAina]

10. Got a link for that?

[LS_Editor]

24. The irony of a Hillary supporter accusing another candidate of stinking contributions is epic.

[yallerdawg]

4. There is no denying...

checkbook math!

Finally!

Thank you, Bernie supporters.

[CrowCityDem]

5. Should have spent less on renting big arenas.

[pnwmom]

6. People don't realize how costly those giant rallies were. The security costs alone

really add up.

[LiberalLovinLug]

18. Good thing for Hillary then

that she couldn't get those kinds of crowds even in her dreams. Must have saved her a lot of dough.

[pnwmom]

20. She made the right choices. Her small gathering were very effective

in exciting actual voters.

[George II]

26. She held about a half dozen appearances between her and her husband in CT over the weekend....

...no more than 200-300 people. No flashy large rallies on the New Haven Green, etc.

She wound up winning by a bigger margin than anyone predicted.

[Svafa]

29. Actual voters with large pocketbooks too!

[LiberalLovinLug]

30. Okay sure...

Its always so much more "exciting" for voters to watch a YouTube video, after the fact, of a small carefully chosen crowd, than to actually attend a massive rally with thousands of like-minded progressives.

The fact that Bernie started out with such a disadvantage, and entailed further disadvantages during his campaign, and now is neck and neck with her in the popular vote amongst Democrats today, despite her early advantage and massive lead, is not something to brag about. It looks like Hillary will win, but she and her supporters should take that with a big slice of humble pie. Because looking at those polls today, its obvious that many of those early voters, would now switch their votes if they could.

I'd hope, for the sake of the Democrats winning the general, that she and her supporters are not so arrogant in their grave dancing that they think they can smirk and insult 50% of Democrat party members, members who already feel marginalized by the MSM and the DNC, and still win it all.

[pnwmom]

33. Middle aged and older voters are a lot less likely to show up for giant rallies.

But they are more likely to show up to vote.

[Thinkingabout]

60. Very true, older voters which were young once also.

[llmart]

72. Terrific point....

and absolutely true.

[anigbrowl]

57. You really think this?

"Because looking at those polls today, its obvious that many of those early voters, would now switch their votes if they could."

That's not obvious to me at all, considering that she's won pretty big in multiple populous states over the last week. If people who voted earlier in the season would now switch if they could, why aren't more of the people voting now choosing Sanders? It sounds like you're just telling yourself what you wish were true, as if people voting for hillary were well-known for having a change of heart 2-3 months after casting their vote (despite the lack of meaningful evidence for this suggestion).

[pnwmom]

66. Hillary won in those early states largely because of minority voters and they are still supporting

her in as high numbers as ever. In NY she won three times as many African American votes as Bernie did.

[Dont call me Shirley]

51. Small gatherings of super-rich can net quite a warchest.

[pnwmom]

52. She was meeting ordinary people in coffee shops and other small locales all over key primary states

and they loved it. It made me wish I lived in a place like Iowa or New York.

[Dont call me Shirley]

53. After her soirees with the local wealth.

[pnwmom]

54. And Bernie held rallies where attendees screamed loud enough to make anyone deaf.

Enthusiasm isn't measured, at least among people middle-aged and older, on interest in attending giant, noisy rallies. It's based on voting.

[Dont call me Shirley]

56. Those attending Bernies rallies are on the fair side of the aisle. Wealth is on the unfair side of

the aisle.

Voting has not been fair for quite some time, thats a fact!

[anigbrowl]

59. It sounds like you think anyone with any money is automatically morally compromised

I find this attitude bizarre, to say the least. It's as if you think any sort of business or professional success must have involved ripping off someone more deserving. But if you have good business skills you can treat people fairly and still make a handsome profit in many fields.

[Dont call me Shirley]

68. Business is competition these days, unfair, gutless, heartless destruction of your competitior.

Bizarre is the attitude that some deserve so much more than others, especially in regard to our Preamble "All men are created equal". Bizarre is the winner take all ways of the uber-rich. Bizarre is the attitude that stealing from working people's pensions, 401ks, homes just because you live on a street called Wall is perfectly okay. Bizarre is the attitude that only the wealthy deserve health care. Bizarre is the attitude that people should live on the streets because they won't or can't play the manmade game of capitalism. Bizarrre is the attitude that children cannot be educated because they nor their parents can afford to do so or to be in debt for a lifetime from student loans. Bizarre us the attitude that the military desreves to have all the resources of the earth under their thumb at our expense. Bizarre is the attitude that you can invade whatever country because money!

[anigbrowl]

70. Bizarre is your attributing all these ideas to me as if I supported any of them

Your 'argument' is like saying rain is bad because some people get soaked and go on to die of the flu, so anyone who doesn't hate the rain wants people to die. You've listed a bunch of bad things in our society but failed to explain how they automatically follow from the existence of wealth.

And if we are going to quote from the Declaration of Independence (not the same thing as the Preamble to the Constitution), let's recall that the inalienable rights that are said to flow from this equal creation are 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.' The pursuit of happiness, not the automatic acquisition thereof.

[Dont call me Shirley]

76. Happines does not equal money. Nor can money ever buy happiness.

Bizarre is your thinking that I was attributing any of those ideas to you. I was speaking in regard to the uber-rich, which you said you are not. Every attiude of which I referred is directly attributable to the very rich. How rain is bad fits into that, I have no idea.

[anigbrowl]

58. The horror, meeting people from multiple social classes

I'm truly outraged about this...oh wait, no I'm not.

[Dont call me Shirley]

65. Its frankly unbelievable how the mass economic inequality doesnt factor into her camp's thinking.

Take from the rich to screw the middle class, working class, poor and immigrants, oh yeah and other countries. That doesnt even factor into her supporters consciousness. Some real shame, guilt, compassion and empathy would be helpful for her campers.

[anigbrowl]

67. Perhaps because it's not true?

It's an issue I think about all the time. Unlike you I don't believe that the solution is to demonize everyone who's better off than I am. I'm not sure what you think I should be feeling guilt and shame about, having a working knowledge of economics and game theory? I didn't go to a fancy expensive college for that by the way, I bought some cheap books and studied them carefully until I was able to get some good exam scores that counted for college credit.

I'm an immigrant and not well off at all, but as least I'm not ignorant. I am well aware that unfairness exists in our economic system but I can distinguish between that and the mistaken notion that it is intrinsically unfair and that therefore anyone who does well is somehow morally blameworthy.

[Dont call me Shirley]

69. Massive inequality is intrisically unfair. Period. The majority of us in this country either are

immigrants or came from immigrants, with the exception of the First Nation Peoples, who were genocided and whose land was stolen from them by immigrants.

[anigbrowl]

71. I don't think you understand what intrinsic means

What level of inequality do you consider acceptable? I think we should be looking for Gini coefficients that approximate a Pareto distribution.

[Dont call me Shirley]

78. None. Inequality equals suffering. Intentionally causing others to suffer, which is a tenet of the

uber-rich, causes the demise of society as we are witnessing today. Intrinsically elemental to humanity is cooperation, community and happiness. An abberration of human behavior is unbridled greed, lack of compassion, heartless competition and bloodthirst for power.

[George II]

74. This doesn't stop does it? Regardless, let's look at where we are today:

Sanders presumably got his money in small contributions from many people (actually not entirely true, but we'll run with that for now), and Clinton presumably got her money from big donors (not true at all but we'll run with that for now, too)

Sanders has run a losing campaign, Clinton has run a winning campaign. So what did Sanders accomplish if he can't get himself elected?

My father told me 60 years ago that in order for the most idealistic, well-meaning politician can't do anything unless he (they were all men back then) gets elected.

Getting back to it, your premise that Clinton raised her "war chest" via small gatherings of super-rich is entirely false, and you nor anyone else can prove otherwise.

By the way, last week Clinton's lead in Connecticut was about 3% in the polls. Hillary and Bill Clinton conducted a series of small rallies (no super rich at them) over the weekend and Monday, no huge rallies at all, and she wound up winning by more than the polls indicated last week.

Finally, Sanders spent a lot more than Sanders in the last few weeks, he got his clock cleaned. It's not a question of how much money a candidate spends, it's the message that the candidate has to present to the voters. Obviously Clinton has a better message that appeals to more voters.

[George II]

75. THAT is the key to a grassroots campaign and GOTV effort. Targeting audiences and targeting voters.

[Scootaloo]

77. As opposed to all those, er, fake voters that voted for Sanders?

Okay.

[pnwmom]

80. As opposed to all those very expensive voters who went to rallies.

Rallies are much more expensive than many people realize.

[brooklynite]

25. Brings down the cost per vote...

[William769]

47. She didn't need them as the popular vote shows.

[anigbrowl]

55. She's run before and knows how to manage the budget

Perhaps the big rallies didn't deliver good bang for the buck in terms of actual votes. They're impressive but ultimately the prize they're after is pledged delegates, not attendance records at rallies.

[Kingofalldems]

8. Hillary caused it!

She responsible for everything.

[Hoyt]

9. Hard lesson. Welcome to reality, Sanders not able to keep his staff employed.

[mwrguy]

11. right-sizing?

Sounds like something that Dilbert's boss would say as he lays off a thousand single mothers.

[Hoyt]

13. Does sound like a hard-assed corporatist protecting his stash of money. Little people don't matter.

[RandySF]

12. Today's hard lesson

Not even Uncle Bernie can guarantee employment.

[Indepatriot]

14. Maybe he should follow Hillary's example from 08'

Stiff a bunch of vendors, then demand HRC pays off a big chunk of the debt in exchange for an endorsement. That is what Clinton did. It is a fact.

[pnwmom]

15. Link, please. n/t

[Indepatriot]

16. This will get you started, you can take it from there

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/nyregion/23owe.html?_r=0 http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2008/dec/04/clinton-debt-120408/

[pnwmom]

21. Oh, that's what you meant. That's what usually happens and I'm sure Hillary

will help out Bernie, too, assuming he's still a Democrat and endorses her.

[George II]

34. Clinton didn't ask Obama to give her campaign any money, but Obama asked HIS contributors...

....to contribute directly to Clinton's. BIG difference.

[Agnosticsherbet]

17. He has been outspending Clinton since the beginning.

And made a distant second.
Revolutions are expensive, I guess.

[UtahLib]

19. K&R. nt

[George II]

22. CNN just reported it - the campaign has "laid off hundreds of workers"

This is a very curious development. I'll resist trying to speculate about the reasons behind this.

[democrattotheend]

36. This is sad. I remember when Howard Dean started doing this in 2004

And we knew the end was near. Of course, this is a little different because the primaries are almost over and Bernie has made it this far. I would imagine fundraising is down as well, although probably not as much as for candidates who rely primarily on big donors (who tend not to give to candidates facing odds as steep as Bernie's). Makes me feel good about my decision to donate again this morning, because I want him to see it through to California.

[procon]

23. If he's done, he should bow out as graciously as he started.

Stop Trump.

That's the only thing that matters now, and he's either going to work to help get her elected or he going to be a spoiler who tries to drag the whole Party down with him and throws the GE to Trump.

[Gothmog]

27. Sanders small dollar donors are drying up

Without the hope (real or imagined) of Sanders becoming the nominee, it appears that Sanders small dollar donors are drying up. Sanders has been spending money at an incredible rate outspending Clinton two to one in most states and still losing. You can not keep up that burn rate unless the small dollar contributions keep rolling in

[Cha]

28. Thank you, pnwmom~

[wendylaroux]

31. is this a get rid of Sanders supporters post?

[NastyRiffraff]

37. Where in the OP did it say that?

Or anything at all about Sanders supporters. Not everything is about you.

[wendylaroux]

43. well ya old grump.

[anigbrowl]

61. It's legit news, it's #3 in my top stories feed right now

Layingg staff is usually the beginning of the end for a campaign and a possible end to Sanders' campaign is newsworthy. As soon as I saw the story I went to DU to see if it had already been posted.

[wendylaroux]

63. I didn't mean that part,I meant the snark.

[anigbrowl]

64. Then you should have said that. We're not psychic. nt

[Xolodno]

32. Going to go out on a limb...

...and say the next primary is his last hurrah.

[humbled_opinion]

35. So will I be called upon

to defend her, when trump puts out her wall street transcripts showing her yucking it up with the fat cats at all our expense? Will I be told oh but we must rally to her or else we get trump.... fear, fear, fear, it used to be the only thing we had to fear was fear itself.. now we have to fear sticking to progressive principles. If I refuse to support her, I wonder what names I will be called, will I be banned?

[Pathwalker]

38. If you refuse to support the Democratic nominee, YES you will

be banned from DEMOCRATICunderground.

[Indepatriot]

40. This is Breaking News, now go clutch those pearls elsewhere..."safe haven" drama queens much?

[wendylaroux]

44. noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

sweet jesus,don't say that!

[Indepatriot]

39. Yes, yes, yes, Unicorn Rancher, yes....

[MyNameGoesHere]

41. There is a door

It isn't locked. It swings both ways. It's your choice. In or out make a choice.

[wendylaroux]

45. that sounded so dramatic,are you a writer?

[pnwmom]

42. He's got quite a past of his own, including associates affiliated with the Mafia.

Her transcripts will look like nothing once his past has come to light.

[William769]

46. It's the right thing to do.

[NurseJackie]

48. Good news. Very good news indeed!

The slower you peel-off a Band-Aid™, the more it hurts.

[workinclasszero]

49. Primary is over.

Hillary won, the people have spoken.

Lets move on to the general and defeat that snake Trump and his vile party!

[DCBob]

50. This is not "right-sizing the campaign". This is bailing out.

If they thought they still had a chance to win this thing they would send them all to the states that have not voted yet. There are never enough staff in big national campaigns like this.

[Thinkingabout]

62. This is usually an early sign of what is coming. Nothing wrong with this, it just happens.

[lanlady]

73. "Right-sizing"?

That's not a word I ever expected to hear out of the sanctimonious Sanders campaign. Sounds positively Banes Capital.

[thebeautifulstruggle]

79. Reading threads like these, I seriously can't stand Clinton or her supporters

no substance, just trash talk

few have any good reason that they have such an attachment to her

her message is....well I don't know what it is, it certainly isn't moving forward

the only positive is at least I won't feel disappointed like I did with Obama when he proved to be too corporatist