Bernie Sanders: "We are obviously going to be on television and the radio with ads"

[brooklynite]

(on TRMS)

Perhaps the Sanders supporters should get an update from the campaign team? When I've raised the issue of Sanders having enough funding to campaign nationwide, I keep getting told that advertising is a waste of money in today's social media era.

Perhaps YouTube doesn't have as much clout as some people think it does?

[HooptieWagon]

1. Why do you care?

[brooklynite]

2. Because in the unlikely event he ends up as the nominee...

...he 'll need about $1 B to compete with the Republicans in a national election, and I'm not convinced he'll be able to raise it.

[restorefreedom]

4. in the likely event that he is the nom

i doubt he will have any trouble raising what he needs

but in this age of social media, he seems to be doing a lot more with a lot less $$

[peacebird]

6. When he becomes the nominee the DNC will be supporting him, no?

[brooklynite]

9. Money for Presidential races doesn't come (primarily) from the DNC.

Barack Obama raised his own money. Sanders could take public campaign funds, but then he'd be limited to a far lower number than his Republican opponent.

[peacebird]

10. As nominee I am sure he will get $$, after all, Hillary's pit bull Brooks just got Bernie $1.5 mil!

[HooptieWagon]

19. Hillarys Super PACs will support the nominee, right?

Should we make them take a loyalty oath?

[MADem]

36. Bernie said he won't "take" Super Pac money. He'd look like a liar if he changed his mind.

That money, if it's not spent on the candidate for whom it was raised, will likely be spent on legislative races.

[AgingAmerican]

69. Super Pacs dont work that way

nt

[MADem]

77. The people managing the fund can spend the money as they see fit.

Not sure what your point is; you're going to have to speak in greater detail.

[Scootaloo]

61. I'm sure you could help. Scrounge for some change under the seats of one of your Bentleys, maybe

[brooklynite]

64. Actually I drive a VW hatchback...

...and most of the time I take public transportation.

Seriously, if Sanders wins the nomination, -I- will max out to him immediately. Not sure if it will be enough.

[morningfog]

3. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Social media, tv and radio reach different audiences and serve different purposes. TV is a necessary dinosaur.

You are seeming more desperate by the day. How are things at the salon?

[MADem]

8. """""You are seeming more desperate by the day. How are things at the salon?""""""

That was incredibly rude and pointless. All Praise Bernie--or it's Personal Insult Time?

morningfog
3. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
View profile
Social media, tv and radio reach different audiences and serve different purposes. TV is a necessary dinosaur.

You are seeming more desperate by the day. How are things at the salon?

[morningfog]

25. Oh please. The OP has been posting inaccurate

Junk for days.

I you have a problem with it, alert ignore or whatever gets you through. If it is quoting me verbatim, I'm glad I can provide you with some meaning.

[MADem]

31. I'd rather just point it out, thanks anyway.

Attack the arguments, not the person, and I don't have a problem with a vigorous debate.

The responses to Brooklynite's OP, though, many of them, have been entirely personal--snarky, petty and childish.

It's why DU is hemorrhaging members.

[morningfog]

34. They brought it on them self.

Reap what you sow. I got no pity for him receiving snarky responses. And it has nothing to do with their political positions.

[MADem]

35. Whatever. It's why people are turning away from DU, the petty and personal stuff.

Talk about the arguments, not the posters.

[AgingAmerican]

70. Only people who are thin skinned

You should take your own advise

[MADem]

71. I don't think it is "thin skinned" to object to some of the shit I've seen flung here. nt

[AgingAmerican]

72. Considering you fling a high percentage of it

I will disregard that as blather.

[MADem]

74. False characterization. I don't name call and I don't get personal.

I do point it out when others do--like that thing you just did, there. Your anger/outrage comes because you don't like my arguments--not because I've called you any names, or, for example, accused you of 'blathering.'

AgingAmerican
72. Considering you fling a high percentage of it
View profile
I will disregard that as blather.

[Major Hogwash]

78. That's not exactly true or accurate.

He does not fling shit.
He may cast asparagus once in awhile, but he is not a pooh flinger!!

The pooh flingers are all posting over on DI.
You should see some of the wretched pooh they are flinging over there.
And they can't hit a damn thing either.

It's enough to make a man who works in the sewers weep, that's all I can say.

[MADem]

5. You're apparently not allowed to discuss politics on this political website anymore....!!!

It is a salient question--campaign ads are expensive, Boston is a pricey market (for NH ads) and they don't do anyone any favor$ during the Every Four Year Frenzy.

I know there are people who listen to radio going to/from work; I'm not one of them as I no longer work and I got out of the habit of listening to radio in the car regularly--I would imagine the radio stations will try to charge what the market will bear as well.

[peacebird]

7. One presumes when Bernie becomes the nominee the full force of the DNC $ will be behind him, no?

[MADem]

13. Do you want my honest view, or some pablum answer?

I'll give you the pablum answer first:

"Why yes, of COURSE!"

You want my honest view? The quiet truth?

"Hell no--the vast bulk of the money that has been raised to this point will go into Congressional/Senate races in support of Democratic candidates, and the party support for Sanders will be perfunctory and TEPID at best.

The party will try to make gains in both chambers of the legislature and cede the White House to the GOP and try again in 2020."

That's an opinion--it could change but I think that's how it will go. To no small extent, and to be fair to the party, Sanders is running as an "outsider" and a "revolutionary" who eschews all that nasty Big Money and says he can do it all on People Power--it would look "genuinely" phony if all of a sudden he says "I MYSELF won't raise or take SUPERPAC money--but I'll take YOUR SUPERPAC money and use it for my purposes...."

Also, it would look fake as hell if all the people he's snubbing as not being sufficiently liberal to suit his purposes are beating the bushes looking for votes for him. It's like the Hatfields campaigning for the McCoys, to some extent.

FWIW, if he gets the nomination I will vote for him, so no shooting the messenger.

[peacebird]

14. I heard that he has registered as a dem today, does that make a difference to you?

[azmom]

20. That was wrong information.

Check the thread again.

[MADem]

33. That was an erroneous comment by the Union Leader. They often get things wrong.

The Sanders campaign has retracted the assertion, in fact.

That said, even if he did find some way to stamp "Democratic Party Member" on his backside, my assessment stands.

He's running as an outsider--he'd have a hell of a time "taking" from "the establishment."

He'd have to rely on uncoordinated assistance, and frankly, I don't think a lot of the party stalwarts, who never got ANY help from him when they were running for re-election for the last third of a century, will go out of their way to help him. I think they'll focus on House and Senate races--maybe that will put him over, by simply delivering a Dem to the polls for a local race; maybe it won't, either.

I think they'll keep their powder dry and aim for 2020 and a rebuilding cycle--that's assuming he somehow managed to pull off getting the nomination.

That's just my opinion, everyone is entitled to one--you don't have to take it onboard if you don't like it.

[Aerows]

12. I'm pretty sure

that every candidate has enough donors to hold a rally.

Bernie Sanders has held a lot of them with tens of thousands attending.

I'm also pretty sure that the donations Bernie has raked in can finance radio and television ads.

Finally, and this is pretty important, Bernie Sanders has supporters that will carry a bucket of gasoline through hell for him. I know you understand that, MADem.

[MADem]

15. My response to the OP was issued in the context of Post One, which queried why the OP cared.

I.E, any discussion save full throated support is verboten here.

I am not in a position to comment on Sanders' financials.

I will say that individual donations paying for the amount of media needed for a national, general election campaign from now to Nov 2016 would be one hell of a neat trick for ANY candidate.

Gasoline, or no.

Anyone can put up an ad or two--it's the sustained production and distribution to markets across all battlegrounds that gets expensive in the extreme.

[Aerows]

22. If you are on a battleground

You want people that will back you through thick and thin. That was my point.

[azmom]

17. Damn straight. N/t

[morningfog]

26. Oh the victimhood of posting on a internet discussion site.

So pathetic.

[MADem]

38. That's another comment that just doesn't advance the discussion, or put your candidate in a good

light.

morningfog
26. Oh the victimhood of posting on a internet discussion site.
View profile
So pathetic.

[morningfog]

63. Keep your tally. I'm not here to

to convert anyone. I don't represent anyone. You are being disingenuous if you consider this op to be some great advancement of discussion. It isn't, it's flame bait.

Feel free to quote this in full too. Weird habit you have.

[MADem]

67. Well, I don't need your permission. I quote because some people

have a habit of deleting intemperate remarks.

I'm here for the exchange of ideas. I come less and less because the exchange is nothing but shit flinging, lately.

And if you think a conversation about media buys is "flame bait" you have an interesting perspective.

morningfog (12,033 posts)
63. Keep your tally. I'm not here to

to convert anyone. I don't represent anyone. You are being disingenuous if you consider this op to be some great advancement of discussion. It isn't, it's flame bait.

Feel free to quote this in full too. Weird habit you have.

[morningfog]

68. .

MADem
67. Well, I don't need your permission. I quote because some people

have a habit of deleting intemperate remarks.

I'm here for the exchange of ideas. I come less and less because the exchange is nothing but shit flinging, lately.

And if you think a conversation about media buys is "flame bait" you have an interesting perspective.

morningfog (12,033 posts)
63. Keep your tally. I'm not here to

to convert anyone. I don't represent anyone. You are being disingenuous if you consider this op to be some great advancement of discussion. It isn't, it's flame bait.

Feel free to quote this in full too. Weird habit you have.

[arcane1]

41. The OP isn't about the cost of campaigns, it's about fictitious DUers who claim he won't run ads. nt

[MADem]

43. Re-read it.

It doesn't say anything about DUers, fictitious or otherwise, at all. It also does not say he WON'T run ads. The universe IS bigger than DU.

Shutting down discussion by twisting words isn't a good look.

It's quite obvious--sky blue/water wet territory--that media buys are expensive. Everyone who knows anything--even the basics--about campaigns knows this.

I agree that the New School use of social media is an excellent adjunct to any campaign, but one avoids the traditional lines of communication at grave peril--old people don't use twitter or facebook, and they vote in great numbers.


I have also heard this meme that pooh-poohs traditional lines of communication, that Sanders will run his campaign outside the traditional lines with heavy reliance on social media and so forth. I've heard it here on DU, and I've heard it elsewhere as well. Media is changing! Fewer people get their news from the MSM, etc., etc.

Here's one thread in the BS Group praising just such a strategy (Who needs the corporate media?) --and it's PINNED, too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128016621

So, whatever.

I think what I've learned from this thread is that critiques, even valid ones, are verboten. Discussions that challenge a favored candidate's strategies or tactics will be shouted down with snark and rudeness.

Praise--or else. And the "or else" involves personal insults, slurs, and characterizations.

Like I keep saying--this place is becoming an echo chamber for one candidate because people are forgetting to be decent to one another. Do not ask for whom the bell tolls....

[arcane1]

49. Your link to the Sanders group proves it was meta n/t

[MADem]

53. No, the OP was not "meta" at all. YOU brought in the accusation that "DUers" were involved.

You did that in post 41, AND you mischaracterized what the OP said.


I replied that I've heard the meme as well--to "include" here at DU, but not at DU exclusively. Here, you want more links? Be my guest:


http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/24/politics/bernie-sanders-media-new-hampshire/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/29/1388846/-Bernie-Sanders-Doesn-t-Need-Big-Media-to-Talk-Directly-With-US

Besides, in order for a thread to be regarded as "meta," the meta has to happen in the thread starting post. This is in the TOS/SOPs.

Even if you wanted to stretch the point, and aver that the OP was talking strictly about a "DU universe," there's nothing "disruptive" about talking about campaign strategy...and only "disruptive meta" is verboten.

It's apparent, though, that fighting about personalities holds sway over discussing a campaign tactic/strategy here at DU.

[arcane1]

54. The OP *begins* with "Perhaps the Sanders supporters should..."

No, that's not about DUers!

[MADem]

57. I just provided you with two links you plainly did not read. You should be embarrassed.

Are you seriously telling me that ALL "the Sanders supporters" in the world are here at DU, and nowhere else?

Did you not see in the links I provided that many of "the Sanders supporters" who likely don't even know what DU is are shopping this same meme?

Have you not even read this thread?

Your remark leads me to believe that, frankly.

I don't think you should be using that icon--unless you're 'rofl-ing' at yourself.

[senz]

55. I always enjoy reading your comments, MADem.

I rarely agree with them, but they're entertaining because you have an interesting writing style. This particular comment reads as if it were written to be a soliloquy in a play. Pretty elegant, all in all.

[Aerows]

11. Candidate states: "We will be doing political ads"

brooklynite states: "Oh no you won't, you poor, shabby person. You aren't rich enough to advertise on MY TV and radio!"

Do you even listen to yourself?

[peacebird]

16. LOL! Exactly!

[brooklynite]

18. Um, I work for the Government...

...I think it's GREAT that he plans to advertise, if he wants to campaign seriously. But if he's going to be my candidate in Fall 2016, I want him to have the resources to spend on advertising, and I'm not sure his approach to fundraising is going to work.

[HooptieWagon]

21. Your concern is noted.

If he can beat Hillarys billion, he can beat the GOP's billion.

[aspirant]

23. Plan ahead

"I want him to have the resources to spend on advertising," Good, start organizing future "Salons" for Bernie now so we won't be caught off guard.

[Aerows]

27. His approach to fundraising?

Do you mean thousands upon thousands showing up FOR FREE, volunteering for his campaign simply because said volunteers believe in him, and individuals donating as much as is legally allowed?

None of that is a recipe for a successful campaign.

Nosireebob.

Charisma grows on trees which Hillary Clinton ... I'm trying to be diplomatic here, but I'm at a loss for words of how to describe the devotion she inspires in the Democratic electorate.

Perhaps you can supply some words on Hillary Clinton's appeal to the masses?

[morningfog]

28. You're lucky to have such a wealth of resources in a government job.

[brooklynite]

60. I married well...

...I still pull in a good salary, but my wife makes about 20x that.

[Autumn]

30. Yes, he should cancel events and stick with small fundraisers.

Between you and me, I'm concerned about Hillary's approach to her campaign.

[Live and Learn]

24. LOL Had me a bit confused too.

And I don't think anyone ever said that advertising was a waste of money anyway.

[MADem]

29. At what post did Brooklynite "state" any such thing?

Poor, shabby person? Really?

I think you need to listen to YOUR self:

Aerows
11. Candidate states: "We will be doing political ads"
View profile
brooklynite states: "Oh no you won't, you poor, shabby person. You aren't rich enough to advertise on MY TV and radio!"

Do you even listen to yourself?

Media buys are really, really EXPENSIVE. Saying so isn't a crime. They are part of the reason that so many candidates and party officials are of a mixed mind when it comes to the whole Money Equals Speech mess we find ourselves in. Those rich cretins with all that money like buying that media time. A lot of those rich cretins OWN TV and radio stations.

Dismissing the influence, availability and COST of media buys is a strategic error. Every campaign budgets for it. Hell, even WELL before CU, before prices went batshit crazy, Paul Wellstone made a joke out of it--but there was seriousness behind his Senate ad--"I don't have six million dollars so I'll have to talk fast":

The reason John Kasich was in the Big Boy Club at the GOP debate instead of at the Little Kids' Debate is because of ads--he's been running this weird one in Very Heavy Rotation in the New Hampshire market--and I think it is moving his numbers. Only the RNC Internals know for sure:

This is the One Minute Version--they've cut this thing down to about thirty seconds and I've seen it dozens and dozens and dozens of times in the Boston (which encompasses southern NH, where most of the voters are) market.

Kasich went from running in the "who the hell is he" back-pack to a strong and convincing 4th in NH. He just jumped up to 3rd place in this poll: http://www.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-daily-briefing/2015/09/14092015---kasich-3rd-in-nh-monmouth.html

Don't dismiss ad buys. They MATTER. The GOP stink at a lot of things, but they have those ads down.

[Aerows]

32. MADem, I respect you

You have a tireless sense of loyalty and I appreciate that about you.

That's why I'm not going to engage in a political slugfest with you tonight, because neither of us will win it.

Catch me on another night, and I might be up for a bit of verbal pugilism.

I don't know why coming into the Primary forums when I already had indigestion seemed like a good idea. LOL.

[delrem]

45. We got it, MADem. You worship money.

That's really not such a big fucking deal.

[MADem]

46. Wow. Another one. Thanks so much for proving the point I have been making over and over again.

If anyone tries to discuss an issue, the response will be rude and snide.

delrem
45. We got it, MADem. You worship money.
View profile
That's really not such a big fucking deal.

By that nasty and pointless comment, you've shown me that you haven't taken a single point I've made, AND your first response to any challenge is personal insult.

[RichVRichV]

58. Advertisements are very very good at one thing, building name recognition.

That's true in the business world and it's true in politics. It's no surprise that Kasich has improved substantially from running them since so few knew who he was. It got people looking at him. Hillary hasn't seen anywhere near the return on the ads she's run in Iowa because she already has the name recognition (not picking on her here, just pointing out for contrast).


Once the name recognition exists there's no comparison between advertisements and the much more effective word of mouth. That's where grass roots have the advantage. Honestly Bernie would benefit more from running ads now than in the general when he'd be much better known.


I'm not saying ads don't have other effects, but that's far and away their primary advantage offered.

[MADem]

59. I will be quite frank--I didn't know Kasich from a hole in the wall, and I didn't have a clue as to

how to pronounce his name. I was vaguely aware of who he was, but couldn't really pick his face or voice out of a crowd. Now, I recognize both.

I found the ads smarmy and stupid, but I suppose, to a "conservative" (and he writes that right on the ad, just so people can be sure!) voter, he does sound like a mature adult. The rest of the field sounds like idiot children, so I can see why he went from zero to not fourth, not third, but SECOND place (who knew?) in a hurry, and his upward trajectory continues apace.

Sometimes, people run ads not to gain name recognition, but to articulate a specific policy, to remind people of stances, to reaffirm or establish alliances with specific groups, or to just keep the name out there. Sometimes, it's all about an issue--this happens more in the general, when the money really starts getting thrown around. Ad buys vary depending on the message that's being transmitted.

I disagree that ads can't change minds--for example, that "bear that shit in the woods" ad was a real game changer.

A successful candidate has to have rapid response capability. If candidate B accuses candidate A of having sexual congress with goats or some other awful thing, then candidate A can't go from talk show to talk show saying "No, that's not right" or send out an email or twitter blast--that kind of "social media" pretty much goes to the diehards, and not the fence sitters or the less enthused. A loud and aggressive--and IMMEDIATE-- response is sometimes called for--and having a deep pile of cash for media is important to put the ad out fast to refute that kind of game.

[RichVRichV]

65. We're in uncharted territory.

We've never had a major election (since tv became popular) where another form of media could compete with television. One way or another we're going to find out which one (tv or internet) is going to be the dominant media going forward in politics. If the internet wins out it's going to be a paradigm shift in politics.

One thing is known, tv viewership has peaked (lots of people are unplugging) while internet usage is still gaining. So it's now or never for tv to hold on as king of political media.

[MADem]

66. 2008 was an opening salvo; 2012 was pretty sophisticated but there was an incumbent running

which has its own elements.

I would not be quick to over-rely on the power of the internet. I certainly think it will be a factor, but every election cycle, on-or-off-year, I bring people to the polls, mostly older people, and while they know the difference between internet and intercourse, they aren't doing much of either these days.

A lot of people are "cutting the cord" from cable, but that doesn't mean they are unplugging. They are switching to OTA television, and getting a free HDTV signal that is often superior to the quality of the picture they got from their cable company. I could get over 20 channels from my location, including three "PBS" affiliates (2 local and one "World&quot and maybe ten to twelve of them are worth watching--networks and spanish language and rerun channels. I wouldn't have to do without the evening news or a late night talk show without cable at all if I dumped cable--I'd have to say goodbye to the CNN/MSNBC/Fox 'newsfotainment' tier that I don't watch anyway (unless, like recently, they were having a debate) but day-to-day, I wouldn't be suffering for lack of media.


Lots of people still like to lounge on the couch and watch the gogglebox--not everyone likes to crane over a tablet and watch a "personal" series of images.

[RichVRichV]

75. There's another technology conspiring against tv ads.

That is dvr's. They're becoming common in more and more homes. I can say that I prefer to pre-record my shows specifically to skip ads. In fact I wait a full hour before watching my nfl team on Sunday's just so I can fast forward through all the extra stuff. If I time it right my recording and the live game ends right around the same time. It's hard for ads to have an effect when they're running in double time with no sound.

The technology gap is largely generational. Younger people prefer all the newer techs while older people still rely on regular television more. I think that's why Republicans are getting older and older. Thier old tricks with television are more likely to work there.

[MADem]

76. They plan for that, some of the ads.

That's why they put LARGE letters with simple themes spelled out....e.g.

C U T


T A X E S


and long slow motion pictures of the candidate that look fine in double or triple time.

Even skipping through a political ad, you'll take the written point.

It's a sneaky game. The GOP is really good at it.

[delrem]

37. Can you define the term 'lame' for me please?

Do you really expect that forbidding Sanders to do TV spots would be considered credible, in even your own universe?

[MADem]

39. Who is "forbidding" anyone from doing TV spots? nt

[delrem]

42. who is even asking about it?? nt

[MADem]

47. That IS what this thread is about--traditional media v. new lines of communication (social media).

If people don't want to discuss the issue, they're free to pass by the thread.

I don't understand the need to hurl personal invective at anyone offering anything that sounds--even lightly--like a critique, though.

This thread is very telling.

Not in a good way, either.

[arcane1]

40. To answer this tired meta bullshit, 99.9999999% od Sanders supporters are not saying any such thing.

So you're basically playground-taunting a mere handful of people, over a non-existent issue.

[delrem]

44. What else are they to do, since they can't debate on issues?

[sabrina 1]

50. Amazing isn't it? No NEGATIVE ads have ever come from a Bernie campaign.

No one I know has said there will be NO ads, there will be no NEGATIVE ads.

I'm sure Bernie's ads like his speeches will be issues oriented, not personal attacks.

[arcane1]

52. When the post starts with "Perhaps the Sanders supporters should..." then you know it's bullshit .

The first attempt to use Super-PAC money to red-scare people was a colossal failure, and we are witnessing the Clinton team attempting to play defense. Poorly.

[sabrina 1]

48. No, you were told that NEGATIVE ADS will not be coming from the Sanders campaign.

They will be ISSUES ads. Big Difference, eg, in what we see from those candidates funded by Corporate Donations.

Bernie's ads will EDUCATE the people.

No one I know said there would be NO ads, Bernie has never run a NEGATIVE ad, never said he didn't RUN ads.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. It must be frustrating to some that Wall Street blood money

seems to no longer have the purchasing power it used to.

[arcane1]

56. A little bit cocky and a little bit sloppy n/t

[Scootaloo]

62. How much of your monthly budget goes towards straw, Brooklynite?

[AgingAmerican]

73. Thanks for your 'concern'

nt