Bernie Sanders's campaign is still raising far more money than Hillary Clinton's

[Omaha Steve]

Donate to DU for Bernie at Act Blue here: https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/duforbernie





http://www.vox.com/2016/3/23/11286028/sanders-fundraising-beating-clinton


Updated by Jeff Stein on March 23, 2016, 9:00 a.m. ET

Bernie Sanders's well-oiled fundraising machine is showing no signs of slowing down.

For the second straight month, Sanders relied on small donors to outraise Hillary Clinton, raking in $14 million more in February, according to numbers released on Sunday by the Federal Election Commission.

Sanders has now received $77 million from those giving less than $200, while Clinton has received $32 million from the same category, data from the Campaign Finance Institute shows.

Sanders's strength with these kinds of donors has been clear for months. But most campaign finance experts say they have been awed by the durability of his fundraising prowess: Sanders has now received more in small contributions than even Barack Obama had at this point in 2008, according to Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute.

FULL story at link.

[amborin]

1. K&R and, yes, time to donate!

[brooklynite]

2. Apparently, he needs to...

Clinton has $30 M Cash on Hand (not SuperPac); Sanders has $17.

[Omaha Steve]

5. I'm so scared of that

[GreatGazoo]

9. so she is sitting on cash while losing 80/20 in Idaho and Utah

must be some rougher states ahead for her

[brooklynite]

15. Maybe she knows that investing in States with low delegate return isn't worth it...

...remember when Sanders pulled out of South Carolina?

[GreatGazoo]

16. that could be part of it but it still leaves the question

if she didn't fight for Idaho and Utah, what state(s) is she expecting to have to fight for?

[brooklynite]

18. Wisconsin? Washington, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland?

[Peace Patriot]

23. "Low delegate?" Sanders made a very important and strategic advance...

...with his huge wins in Idaho (by 79%) and Utah (by 80%), by ending up with a net of 20 delegates, over Clinton, in the three March 22 states (including AZ). He thus gained in delegates, instead of falling behind. It was critically important for him to do this--win 2 of 3 states (and 3 of 4, counting Democrats Abroad), while gaining in delegates.

Net 20 is not a large number, but, strategically, it was vital. SC was a foregone conclusion for Clinton. It was wise of Sanders to pull out and spend resources elsewhere. But this (March 22) was NOT a foregone conclusion for either candidate. Sanders was predicted to win Idaho and Utah but not by that much. It was a big mistake by Clinton not to spend more resources in those states, because they gave Sanders a strategic advantage going forward--wins, delegates, morale and momentum--and, together with the massive vote suppression in AZ, these overshadow Clinton's apparent big win in AZ.

Delegates in small numbers sometimes count very much. Depends on circumstances.

[MADem]

43. He left piles of cash behind--that was a very expensive attempt at outreach.

240 staffers, 14 offices, a fortune in ad buys, all those hotel rooms and travel expenditures and per diem for C. West, H. Belafonte, Killer Mike...and he probably would have done as well with two staffers training volunteers and doing phone outreach 12 hours a day.

[BainsBane]

14. He does have to repay donors for excess contributions

cited by the FEC.

[Peace Patriot]

24. Oh, BainsBane, you are always good for a slam at Bernie!

Thank you for wasting it on this one!

[BainsBane]

26. My, you all really don't like references to any news that doesn't flatter him do you?

The story has only been reported once place that I could find, but the letter from his Treasurer is one the FEC website.

https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/bernie-2016-returns-donations-to-remedy-campaign-finance-issues/
http://docquery.fec.gov/dcdev/fectxt/1056008.txt

I expect that contributes to his fundraising plans and may explain why Clinton supporters are suddenly being bombarded with fundraising requests from him.

You wouldn't want campaign finance violations to be buried now, would you?

[Logical]

38. She took 5 years to pay off 2008 debt, stupid. Nt

[Skwmom]

3. Clinton has her billionaire super pacs so donate to Bernie!

[Renew Deal]

4. Tad Devine thanks you for the support

[CoffeeCat]

7. I'm happy to support Devine and the rest of Bernie's campaign

He's hired very wise and astute people who are running a great campaign.

Go Bernie! And Tad!

[BainsBane]

13. Do you also support his strategy to flip pledged delegates

and overturn the will of the people? http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-fantasy-campaign-hopes-win-hillary-clintons-pledged-delegates-unlikely-2338452

[CoffeeCat]

28. Pledged delegates are a very fluid situation. That's the reality.

I am a delegate for Sanders. I was a delegate at our Polk County Convention, which was held on 3/12.

At the Polk County Convention, 76 of Hillary's delegates--who were elected the night of the Iowa caucus--didn't bother to show up for her at the Polk County Convention.

This is the reality of pledged delegates, BainsBane.

Delegates lose interest. They defect to the other side. They decide to sleep in. That's the reality that Devine was speaking about.

Hillary's win in the Iowa caucuses was by a very slim .2 margin. After the County Convention, that lead is now .18.

Also, I read the article. Devine NEVER states (as you said) that he is going to flip delegates. In fact, he says the opposite, "We don’t have a plan at the moment to be calling all the Clinton delegates, you know, once they get selected and try to persuade them individually to be for Bernie Sanders.”

Devine discusses the facts and the reality of pledged delegates--which I just outlined for you as well--based on my personal experiences.

This happened with Hillary pledged delegates in 2008. Many switched to Obama at these caucus conventions. Obama ended up winning the Iowa caucuses by a few delegates more at the National Convention--than he had earned the night of the Iowa caucuses. Hillary delegates defected to Obama. This is what happens, when a candidate like Obama surges in popularity and delegates change their mind.

This is what Devine was referencing. And he was right. HE has no "strategy" (as you said) to lobby these delegates.

Make sense?

[revbones]

8. I see Tad Devine coming up as the latest meme from you guys. Too bad

you forget that instead of Tad who you guys think is crooked, you have a plethora of actual crooks and liars starting with David Brock, John Podesta, Peter Daou, all her Wall StGoldman staff members, etc...

It's pretty comical actually.

[hellofromreddit]

10. What is hyour comment meant to achieve?

[redstateblues]

21. Tad Devine is getting rich disparaging rich people. Nice work if you can get it!

[CoffeeCat]

30. Tad Devine is doing an excellent job for Bernie and he should be compensated well

No Bernie Sanders supporter has a problem with this.

Clinton minions are trying to make this an issue because Bernie has out raised Clinton two months in a row.

You guys have to figure out a way to stir the pot and depress the avalanche of money that is coming in to Bernie.

This turkey won't fly, sweetheart.

[SoapBox]

32. Exactly.

Thank you Coffee Cat!

[MADem]

34. It's not how much you raise--it's how much you SPEND. And calling people "sweetheart" is dismissive

and rude. You shouldn't do it.

Here, let's introduce a few facts to this conversation--the March report of disbursements (covering Feb, presumably). He's still in the black but he is "berning" through money at a rapid clip--and as people start to see the challenge he faces in continuing on, the receipts will likely dwindle and impact his financial posture. These are the line items I find interesting:

http://docquery.fec.gov/pres/2016/M3/C00577130/B_PURPOSE_C00577130.html

MEDIA BUY 19,941,795.03
MEDIA CONSULTING & AD BUYS 34,176.79
MEDIA PRODUCTION 810,211.44
...
PAYROLL 2,172,460.38
PAYROLL FEES 2,622.50
PAYROLL TAXES 764,934.40
...
POLITICAL STRATEGY CONSULTING 581,472.85
POLLING & STRATEGIC CONSULTING 592,530.00
...

The latter figures are separate from something that is billed as polling/research (likely oppo work).

http://docquery.fec.gov/pres/2016/M3/C00577130.html#DETAILED

22. Total Receipts 43,498,784.40
23. Operating Expenditures 40,324,601.03

8. Refunds of Contributions To:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other Than Political Committees 624,498.46 1,505,705.51

The 1st number (624K+) is just the refunds that happened during the month of February--the 2nd figure is the campaign total to date.

[riderinthestorm]

37. We knew he'd have to spend a fortune to get his message out

He's asked and we've responded.

People are aware its going to take many many billions of dollars to ensure Bernie and his message reach as many as possible.

His supporters dont begrudge the campaign for this cost. The only ones who seem to have their nose out of joint are Hillary supporters.

[MADem]

39. Please--donate away--early and often! Spend, spend, spend!

People look at disbursements for many reasons. They can learn a lot about the health of a campaign by seeing where the money goes--it's a forensic exercise because you're always looking a month back, but you can learn about where the money is going (massive staff hirings to no good end in SC, for example, and all those ad buys in other states) and where priorities seem to lie.

It's not having one's "nose out of joint" to do this--you can be damned sure that Tad Devine and the rest of the Sanders crew--if they are SMART -- do it, too.

By getting annoyed at what is an entirely NATURAL interest--given the nature of politics--it would seem that the noses out of joint are closer to your end of the woods.

[riderinthestorm]

40. The only ones annoyed appear to be those "complaining" @ Bernie’s expenses

coupled with the accusation that Bernie is fleecing his supporters or that his staff is overpaid.

Bernie’s campaign isn't following the usual $$ route so "forensic" analysis is going to be flawed. He can easily go back to his supporters and get another $100 million.

Knowing that means he can run his campaign very differently. Getting the message out becomes as essential as winning a state primary. Those of us in it for the long haul understand that.

[MADem]

41. This is a political forum--people talk politics here. It's not a cheerleading venue.

One of the most important and interesting aspects of politics is the sausage-making bits. That's all this is, is discussion.

When you ascribe terms like "complaining" and "annoyed" and "accusation" to the conversation, you're not advancing the discussion--you're trying to shut it down and characterizing those who do want to discuss these topics as "Mean to Bernie" or something.

If you don't want to talk about campaign disbursement, don't--but there's no need to try and cut off others who do want to.

It's perfectly legitimate to talk about these things. We're not only talking about where the cash is coming from, either (that's an interesting conversation, too, certainly) --we're talking about the DISBURSEMENT of the money as well, and his expenditures seem pretty typical thus far; though he is spending a shitload on staff and ads (and much of it in states that are giving him little to no return on investment). When we talk about staff, we aren't just talking about Devine and Weaver either(though the former does look like he's helping himself and his firm to a massive chunk of the pie), we are also talking about the veteran campaign organizers he hires on an ad hoc basis, and the wet-behind-the-ears piecework-paid junior staffers and interns that populate assorted primary efforts. You can see these people, BY NAME, in his FEC filings--see?


http://docquery.fec.gov/pres/2016/M3/C00577130/B_PAYEE_C00577130.html

It's an interesting exercise to see who he's hiring, and when/where. Like I said, it's a forensic one, because it's a backwards look, but to anyone who enjoys the whole process of the election cycle, it fascinates. There are new things to be learned with every turn of the page.

[riderinthestorm]

42. Oh I'm not trying to shut down discussion.

Talk away.

And Bernie donors will continue to counter any false characterizations about his campaign.

Cheers!

[MADem]

44. It will be interesting to compare his receipts, day-by-day, in March to those in Feb. nt

[ebayfool]

45. And Clinton is burning through hers just as fast. It's what campaigns do, right?

Compare apples to apples here:

Report type: March Monthly
http://docquery.fec.gov/pres/2016/M3/C00575795/B_PAYEE_C00575795.html

Clinton
GMMB consulting and advertising
paid March 16,604,798.72

Clinton
Bully Pulpit Interactive LLC marketing and advertising agency
paid March 1,040,000.00


http://docquery.fec.gov/pres/2016/M3/C00575795.html#DETAILED

2. Total Receipts 29,458,376.47
23. Operating Expenditures 31,346,367.35

expenditures more than receipts?


28. Refunds of Contributions To:
(a) Individuals/Persons Other Than Political Committees 214,199.11 1,813,863.09

[MADem]

48. She's well BEHIND him on "cash out" for the month, though.

He spent forty -- $40,949,099.49, to be precise, she spent thirty one (to include that refund you mentioned). And she got way more bang for her February buck than he did, by any measure.

It will be interesting to see what those successes did for her March receipts, if anything.

[MADem]

33. These disbursements for the month of March are EYE OPENING. He's "berning" through cash at a rapid

clip. The salary expenditures as well as the ad creations and ad buys--that is a massive chunk of the budget.

Great read, this list:

http://docquery.fec.gov/pres/2016/M3/C00577130/B_PURPOSE_C00577130.html

[ebayfool]

46. You're right, Clinton's is as well! Eye opening, that is. She's "berning" through cash at an even ..

faster clip. Check the salary expenditures as well as the ad creations and ad buys. What is Sanders thinking?!

http://docquery.fec.gov/pres/2016/M3/C00575795/B_PURPOSE_C00575795.html


Good grief.

[Ino]

6. I believe one reason they're pushing Sanders to quit...

is because they think Hillary will inherit his donors. Fat chance!

[MADem]

35. I don't think that's the case. Some might move, but many won't. And that's fine--maybe

they'll pitch in downticket.

When we shift to general election mode, too, we turn the page on fundraising and start all over again.


Also, the gloves are off at that point--when you're fighting big PAC money, you fight fire with fire.

[uponit7771]

11. That's a shame

[BainsBane]

12. That may be true

but ActBlue is not the only or even primary way the campaigns raise money.

[Peace Patriot]

25. You got that right (re Hillary)!

[BainsBane]

29. If it weren't true for Bernie

He wouldn't be sending Clinton supporters emails asking for contributions, would he?

I know math is a corporatist conspiracy and all, but if you look at the vote totals for Bernie at Act Blue vs. the numbers filed with the FEC, you'll see an enormous difference.

[Tarc]

17. Apparently it isn't being spent wisely

Bernie Sanders outspends everyone

esp in stages that he goes on to lose, e.g. Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada, and others.

Around this time is when campaigns usually see a bit of a lineup shakeup.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

19. the most famous woman in the universe

why does she need to spend any $$$

[Tarc]

20. What does Beyoncé have to do with this?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

22. Not getting his money's worth

Or is it his donors not getting theirs?

[JonLeibowitz]

27. We're just fine. If you aren't donating you have nothing to worry about.

[SoapBox]

31. Thanks for posting OS!

We all loves ya man, for all you've done for Bernie!



Greetings to the Mrs. too!

[pdsimdars]

36. Well, people like him more and trust him more . . . . .

then there are the issues. . . .. .

[ebayfool]

47. Kicked & rec'd! TY, OS! n/t