Bernie has made many mistakes in this campaign, that i wish he hadnt, but what does "getting paid" mean?

for himself.

of Bill Cosby, who is one of the most recent to be exposed as the exact opposite of what he portrayed. From that experience, I learned a lesson: I no longer ever believe I "know" people I see on TV, even if I like them and see them all the time. You really don't know who these people are. As Obama said in The Audacity of Hope:

"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."

All politicians are blanks screens to one degree or another. That's why when you see over the top hatred OR love for a candidate, you can bet it has little to do with the candidate, and more to do with the person doing the hating (or loving). You can see that situation very clearly when you think of how people felt about Obama in '08 and how it didn't completely mesh with who he really turned out to be, or how he governs. People don't get very excited about moderates...

You meet the nicest people here.

future job offers, book deals, speaking fees...these will certainly be available to all top aids in any campaign, as well as the candidate. I'm going to be most curious about whether Bernie takes speaking fees after his campaign is over. I don't think he was ever offered any before because he wasn't well known.

I mean, really? Is Camp Weathervain really going with this Bernie is a grifter meme? Really?!

People are likely to want him to do speeches after this. Especially campuses I would think. He wasn't a big enough figure before and he isn't as famous as the Clintons, but I'm sure he's going to get lots of great offers. I'm sure he also already did great with his album sales, and book sales from what he's already written, and he has a great forum to keep repeating his message from too.

If you end a campaign with positive donations you can keep them for your other political runs or you can return the donations. Sanders isn't going to rack up a huge fund from this but it's a nasty argument I'm seeing lately. $140 million raised and only $17 million on hand, he's trying to win.

the salaries of his managers. But, if he did, I'd still vote for him.

and building a movement.

Around 30,000 people, many very young out for a rally in Seattle, Washington. It's not about getting paid.

It is about a wonderful, relatively unknown candidate winning hearts and minds and votes one at a time.

This is a grass-roots campaign. It will not end in November.

And many Bernie supporters will not be supporting Hillary in November. I for one will vote for all other Democrats on my ballot but not for Hillary. To me, she is Republican light.

I hope that Bernie's staff is paid. That's what we send our small donations to Bernie for.

Sanders’ team hasn’t completely ignored the state. He’s sought to pick off delegates in small pockets through targeted TV ad buys, like the one recently aimed at the burgeoning Puerto Rican population in Orlando. Sanders visited Fort Lauderdale for an appearance in front of the National Urban League in July, and he will hold three more rallies across the state on Thursday. Some of his national staffers visited Florida to meet with locals late last year, and his team opened three field offices here this past weekend.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-florida-campaign-rally-220502

I'll bet he's surprised at how well he has done. In any case, he and his campaign leadership do not have national election experience to work with. They may have missed a complete understanding of the mathematical strategies that are required to win the nomination. In any case, I believe it is now impossible to win enough delegates for him to become the nominee.

It's been very, very interesting, in any case. People should be paying attention to this primary season as they think about the next one, or the one in 2024. There are many lessons that can be learned.

Having said that, I still going to cast my vote for him. I like what he stands for and hope that the establishment is taking note. This is just the beginning.

Everyone should. There's something else you can do, though, looking forward. I outlined it at the link below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511536305

hardly anybody notices.

It is pretty amazing Bernie was able to get heard at all.

trip in GD. Everything is revolving around the primaries here on DU, I guess.

Oh well.

just like always. President Obama's initiative with regard to Cuba is actually a very big deal. It opens a new era in foreign relations. We just aren't paying attention. That may be the reason, though, for him taking action now, while everyone's chasing that peskly squirrel.

The GOP has the same goals for cuba---> $$$$$$

They sure love their money, don't they?

Can't see the forest for the trees. Everyone seems to be stuck on how many weeds are in the garden while Rome is burning down. I have been here since 2004 and I don't remember DU ever being this removed.

So the tools are available to do a decent job--a lesson I'm taking to heart this year. Keep pushing for what you believe in, hope you don't stop at one presidential election either.

Can't really argue on issues or explain the refusal to release the transcripts or explain the FBI investigation, or all those corporate bribes . er . . . donations, etc so this is the caliber of things you twist your brain around to try to take Bernie down? WOW! How desperate!
I mean, step back and think about it, aren't you embarassed that you have to stoop to this level of desperation?

Sid

interesting post about strategy.

Please feel free to point out anything that is not true.

You can say desperation all you want, doesn't make it so.

Sid

He's a decent guy (as decent as a socialist can be) who wanted to bring new people new excitement and get them voting.

This, of course, requires that you consider his statements that he is in it to win and until the convention to be lies. They were are the start and probably still are.

He has personally run a responsible and non-mudslinging campaign. The Bros he has disavowed, and are nuts and republican shills.

To get the nomination now (without considering superdelegates as having a vote) he would have to win the rest of the states by wide margins.

I have a dollar bet with a friend that he wins California, which is a bit of a stretch, but he is quite popular here. It is mathematically highly unlikely, and politically impossible for him to capture the nomination. Cruz is much closer to Trump. As for Trump, the week he announced I bet my dad a buck that Trump would get the Republican nomination. He though I was nuts and I told him he could have the rest of the field, so he said yes, but he would give me 2 to one odds on payout. As awful as Trump is (I made the bet hoping to lose it, but on my ability to predict sports and politics outcomes), he is better than Cruz. Cruz is the hideous love child of Nixon and McCarthy.

Mrs. Clinton, (she probably wins the NOM.by delegate count)- will have to work extremely hard to satisfy that third/half of D Sanders primary voters.

Not even to mention the 'under 30' new voter crowd, who DID turn-out for Senator Sanders but may return to their more typical stat of 80% don't vote.

nominee, then Sanders has achieved something.

With the chief Republican strategy being Jim Crow style voter suppression, Clinton needs to turn her campaign towards registering more voters in swing states and in states with vulnerable Senate elections.

Wow, there's a tell...

eom

I can't say that this strategy would or would not yield more delegates that the one preferred by the Daily News & the OP, but the notion of building up momentum is a positive. Had Bernie won in Ohio, Ill & MO, his candidacy would be viewed very differently in the media and thus voters in subsequent states.

I am NOT saying that this calculation is accurate. I really have no idea. But it is NOT unreasonable or a sign of 'just going through the motions'

I would add that the many valuable goals that Bernie's candidacy can significantly promote even without capturing the nomination can be maximally furthered by a campaign that is strategized to maximize his electoral impact -- so the dichotomy is a false one.

Bernie Sanders is getting, and following, some very bad advice from his campaign staff lately.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=152760

he has already won the ideological debate.

It's adorable how Camp Weathervane has latched on to them.

indeed.

He's wrong, but that's apparently not stopping him.

Sanders is trying to argue that states where he wins should bind their super-delegates to vote for him. But states that Clinton wins should not, because those super-delegates should ignore their voters and vote for Bernie anyway. Who does Sanders believe this argument will convince?

According to Wikipedia: A supporter of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2008, Anita Finlay ... is currently on the writing staff of The New Agenda, a bi-partisan organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls, as well as Co-founder and writer for the The Daily News Bin, a Pro-Hillary Clinton blog." Although I don't see her by-line on DNB articles, she has frequently links to DNB on both her Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Last edited Sun Mar 20, 2016, 05:03 PM - Edit history (2)

The people running the Bernie Sanders campaign surely know at least as much about delegate math as I do, and most certainly more. So it’s not as if they have some basic misunderstanding of how the math works. Their decision to try to win certain states, even if it means falling further behind in the delegate total in the process, has to be intentional. It feels like a tacit admission that they know they’re not going to win the nomination anyway.

I've said before that Bernie would be likely to beat Hillary or certainly do way better than he's done if he had more time for voters to get to know him. But he has had little time after Iowa.

A key cause of that for example, was only getting 20 mins mainstream news exposure in 2015. That's less than 30 seconds (a short advertisement) per week. Hillary and Trump were in the low hundreds. Ditto for news articles on line in the mainstream newspapers. A bunch of Americans didn't know him. It takes a while to break into the busy lives of a portion of the electorate.

Bernie had one week to campaign in the states leading up to March 15th => not a lot of time for someone substantially less known. He had been to most of those states last fall or in 2016 before Mar 8th.

Bernie made a great effort in South Carolina and all he got was poor results. No matter what he said or did, folks in the south, particularly blacks, tuned him out and were not responding to his efforts. They had settled on Hillary. And his campaign found that out the hard way throughout the south.

A smart campaign and a smart analyst writing articles would know it is a race for delegates as the author of the article pretends he does. They would know Bernie was way behind in those states as of Mar 8th. And they would realize that the campaign would have their candidate and their ad money go where they felt it would do the most good in a week - where they stood to gain the most. As most would know, a key consideration in that decision is where the candidate stands in the polls relative to the geogrpahic area and the demographic mix (and maybe certain hot button issues for that area - like NAFTA in the Rust Belt).

Here's a summary of effort Sanders campaign made in the two resources we can quantify:

Ad spending (millions) and Sanders time spent (days) in the South or North
South $1.7 Sanders (2.5 days) $2.1 Clinton, total delegates 321
North $4.7 Sanders (4.5 days) $3.1 Clinton, total delegates 370

How did Bernie do?

Polls of March 8th vs Vote result
South
-0.3 Florida (Clinton +31.5 a week before, Vote +31.2)
-9.2 North Carolina (Clinton +23 a week before, Cote +13.8)
North
-6.2% Ohio (Clinton +20 a week before, Vote +13.8)
-37.7 Illinois (Clinton +39.5 a week before, Vote +1.8)
-27.x Missouri (Clinton was +28 in Aug 2015, Vote + <1%)

Delegates Sanders gained in the week against projection of delegates by % in polls:
South 11, North 88

Cost per delegate gained South $154,545, North $$53,409 ($68,225 ignoring Missouri)
Delegates gained per campaign day South 4.4, North 19.5

If you're a smart campaign manager, you go where you can flip the most delegates
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/national-results-map?WT.mc_id=2016-KWP-AUD_DEV&WT.mc_ev=click&ad-keywords=AUDDEVREMARK&kwp_0=115245

In Bernie's case, that's exactly what they did.

The author is full of crap.

Lol

has a separate website that is essentially devoted to trashing Bernie.

This is not a very accurate assertion at all. In fact, I think it's just more hit pieces to try to deter readers from taking Bernie seriously. LIS.

Mahalo William!

And that longshot is not lining up for him. Sanders knows this too. He has been in this game for a very long time and he is not stupid. So he is doing the next best thing: dragging Hillary to the left. And he's doing an amazing job of it.