2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMaddow: Sanders "not competing" in Super Tuesday states is "bull".
Yup.
This primary isn't over, not even close, but this press release by Tad Devine is ridiculous.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)Clinton is national figure while Sanders is regional at best. She outspend him $4M to $3M in these states. If he was going to have any chance he should have spend double her spend.
For example he spend $1M+ in just Washington state. I think he spend like $4M in NV.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)I listened to the state of the race after March 15th and the original goal was to win Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada to have momentum into the southern states but since that failed plan B is what is going on ever since.
kcjohn1
(751 posts)Look at the image.
He spent $0 in GA, AL, AR, TN, VA and $30K in TX.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Really?
One of the swing states and he just gave it up... That's supposed to make him seem more electable to me?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Just saying...
http://virginiansforbernie.com
kcjohn1
(751 posts)ALL campaigns will have campaign office and staff in all the states.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Hillary won 74 out of 75 counties, mostly because of her 12 years as the state's First Lady.
But Bernie did have offices in Little Rock and Fayetteville, so he obviously spent money in the state.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:58 PM - Edit history (1)
states he didn't care about
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)He contested southern states all right, he just didn't do well.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)He poured lots of resources into SC to no avail. That's presumably what prompted him to cut back on certain states thereafter, and put most of his energy into states where he felt he could likely get a better result for his investment of time and money.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)noamnety
(20,234 posts)I stopped watching MSNBC.
Has she turned into one of those "reporters" who reports on polls and strategies and tweets instead of the issues?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)TheSocialDem
(191 posts)only
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)You can see how his twists the data, tries to create a selling point. Bernie manipulates the reasons for the numbers, attempts to verbalize a long term momentum, when his momentum has already passed its prime. Very important to keep that money rolling in for the family paychecks.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)"Poof"
Maybe Tad is the Clinton mole I've been hearing so much about?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Yavin4
(35,445 posts)fill the room with bodies. He does not do so well in primary states where people can just show up and vote. Most of Hillary's supporters don't have 4 hours to spend in a caucus room.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)to benefit from her economic policies. Hopefully, she has some policies that haven't changed in the last 3 or 4 days.
Gothmog
(145,481 posts)This is a good report on the silliness of the Sanders campaign claim http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/bernie-sanders-campaign-offers-awkward-take-state-the-race
Its easy to imagine folks from Team Clinton saying they werent exactly going all out to win in Idaho and Utah states Sanders won easily but competitive candidates for national office dont get to use that as an excuse when things arent going as well as theyd like.
At its root, Devines argument is that Team Sanders identified a series of early, delegate-rich states, but they chose not to bother with them. Thats not just a bad argument; its the kind of message thats probably going to irritate quite a few Sanders supporters who expect more from their team.
Making matters slightly worse, Tad Devines pitch isnt altogether accurate. In Virginia, for example one of the eight primaries in which he says Team Sanders chose not to compete plenty of campaign watchers know the senator actually made an effort in the commonwealth and lost anyway. The senator also campaigned in Texas, which is another one of the states Devine said the campaign wrote off.
As for the argument that Sanders wins in every place that we compete with her, even taken at face value, its not an especially compelling argument: Team Sanders made a real effort to win in states like Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, and Massachusetts, but he lost in each of them.
Dont be too surprised if Devine walks back his comments today. Its just not a message that does Team Sanders any favors.
Update: Devine also said the Sanders campaign chose to compete for state victories, rather than compete for delegate victories. I have no idea why the campaign would deliberately choose to compete by the wrong metric that would lead to defeat, but if I were a die-hard Sanders backer, this kind of rhetoric would be incredibly frustrating.
This excuse is so very weak
As for the argument that Sanders wins in every place that we compete with her, even taken at face value, its not an especially compelling argument: Team Sanders made a real effort to win in states like Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, and Massachusetts, but he lost in each of them.
Dont be too surprised if Devine walks back his comments today. Its just not a message that does Team Sanders any favors.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)establishment to deliver votes.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)have been a problem if he tried to compete in ALL states.
This isn't brain surgery.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)HOWEVER, while everyone realizes that is the smart campaign strategy after realizing it wasn't going to be a competitive southern primary (polling leading up to SC had to have informed them of that, see also post #23), you can't actually say out loud you deserve the nomination due to not competing. Devine's statement was idiotic.
It just sucks that (in my view) a fundamentally dishonest and corrupted candidate has near-universal acceptance.