Hillary Clinton
Related: About this forumDoes money matter? Is Bernie broke?
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/despite-claims-on-cable-news-bernie-sanders/23987/Bernie Sanders has already spent up his February haul, has a few million dollars left at most
Heres the real math on how campaigns work: of the $96 million total sum that the FEC says Bernie Sanders had raised prior to February, he had already spent $82 million of it, leaving him just $14 million cash on hand on February 1st. His pattern so far has been to spend most of his money as it comes in, which all campaigns must do when theyre behind and trying to catch up.
And this was back when he only had to lay out advertising dollars in the one early state that would be voting at a time, not eleven Super Tuesday states simultaneously. In an attempt to make a comeback, Bernie ran wall to wall national
Frankly, I don't understand Bernie's use of dollars. For example, registration for a closed primary was over in Florida weeks ago, and many have already voted by mail. Why run ads here for the first time this last week in an expensive market?
No matter, Bernie appears to have outspent Hillary in several primary markets and it didn't help him on Super Tuesday. The next few weeks are more expensive, and he is further behind in the polls. Bernie has not faced attack ads of any consequence yet. His effort appears to be in trouble now. Out of money, behind on everything (polls, endorsements), and no way to get traction outside of a few rural, mid-western states.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)but diminished returns tend to lose donors by the truckload. The less he wins,the less the average donor is willing to continue donating. He may be able to hold onto his most ardent donors,but those donors will hit their legal limit,if most haven't already.
Cha
(295,899 posts)thank you, Sancho~
FarPoint
(12,207 posts)So, the small donor backdoor for Sanders is closing shut. I never believed that progressives donated that much to Sanders...they just don't have that kind of money to toss out, never have had it . If they did, more change would of happened during the Obama Administration to fix Congress and amend progressive issues.
Sancho
(9,065 posts)The GOP is obviously capable of sending money to Bernie in order to defeat Hillary...for example:
Rep. Buchanans claim he knew nothing about thousands of dollars in illegal contributions propping up his campaign is laughable except to federal investigators.
Since 2010, 11 individuals and corporations tied to Rep. Buchanan have been fined for illegal conduit contributions to his campaign.
If Bernie's donations drop off, it could be because he's losing, but it also could be that the Koch brothers, etc. have stopped propping up his campaign too. After all, the GOP is really after Hillary, not Bernie.
FarPoint
(12,207 posts)Sanders hype is just another avenue of their assault. She has a Valerian Steel Aura ( Game of Thrones reference) ...she is amazingly strong.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)the BS will go on until November...and beyond!
Sancho
(9,065 posts)at best he will have a cameo as an extra who is killed in a giant battle!
Game of Thrones would be as good an epic exit as any other.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Nader in 2000 and 2004, I'm very, very skeptical of fringe candidates (even the one running under the Democratic Party banner) can raise millions upon millions in a single month while the true Democrat in the race is raising an equal amount. It just doesn't add up.
Also, the GOP and GOP money-masters are terrified of a Hillary Clinton nomination because it means eight more years of a sane Democratic Administration that will actually HELP the American people, economy, JOBS (so they can't force people to take whatever is there no matter how low the wage), SCOTUS picks, and a pathway OUT of war in pursuit of peace.
Politicub
(12,163 posts)You would think his campaign is flush with funds. The truth from the Bernie campaign is often an illusion or an outright lie.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The donations start to drop, throwing good money after bad. It takes big money to run for president, he can say big money should not be in politics but the fact remains. Even with a candidate who is well known like Hillary it takes lots of money. Senator Elizabeth Warren said she spent $42 million in her campaign in one state, then you add forty nine more and now the amount rises.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)Sancho
(9,065 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,235 posts)4now
(1,596 posts)CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)I am a Clinton supporter since 2008, but I will say this about Bernie Sanders: He has made a giant contribution to the campaign finance discussion. Demonstrating the amount of money that can be raised at the grassroots level is something I think more Democrats needed to be reminded of. It's a source of funding that keeps them much closer to their actual constituents and their interests.
I wish that he could channel this fundraising into more Congressional candidates though. It would be a major coup for an Act Blue financed candidate to win a Senate raise, or even a House seat. That would draw even more attention to this financing method. I'm afraid, however, that after Sanders burns through money on his quest to the convention that people will not want to donate as much out of fear of a wasted investment. Being entrusted with donors' money implies a responsibility, not a blank check.
Sancho
(9,065 posts)matching funds, give a dollar on your tax return, limits, transparency, abscam, on and on....
To me, Bernie is mistaken. Controlling gerrymandering, term limits, and outlawing organizations like ALEC would make more difference than contributions to PACs.
The influence of money is low hanging fruit.