Sanders campaign: $75+m spent on corporate ads; can't pay/keep/maintain/dev campaign infrastructure

[TwilightZone]

That's basically the bottom line. Millions and millions and millions of dollars from the anti-corporate candidate to consulting firms and media corporations, but his campaign is basically running on a skeleton crew because he can't pay them and/or can't keep them around. He wasted millions on ads in states like NY that he was never going to win.

Meanwhile, the self-declared "strongest candidate for the GE" hasn't developed the kind of national infrastructure that is required to conduct a campaign for the Democratic nomination, much less a general election. Here's the kicker - it's everyone else's fault!

This is the revolution? Tad Devine, revolutionary!


Source for $75m: http://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478384978/on-ads-sanders-has-spent-most-but-trump-has-spent-best

[tonyt53]

1. Yeah, pretty well sums it up

[Her Sister]

2. Can he afford Devine, Weaver and Revolution Messaging?

???

[BobbyDrake]

12. Not all at once, clearly.

The irony of Bernie and his supporters being fleeced by the same forces they were ostensibly campaigning against is too hilarious for me to handle sometimes.

[LiberalFighter]

14. Haven't heard or seen Devine in a bit.

So maybe he is out or nearly out of the picture?

[Her Sister]

15. He is the really expensive one!

A million or 2 a month!

Weaver, I believe about 9 thousand a month!

[liberal N proud]

3. Plus a trip to see the Pope

[geek tragedy]

4. he brought all of those people into the process, didn't bother training any of them

to be organizers.

[stopbush]

5. Sanders solution for everything is to throw money at the problem

be it campaigning or healthcare. As long as someone besides him or his legion of "them v us" followers foots the bill.

[Her Sister]

6. Trump 2$/vote because he's gotten about 2 billion dollars worth of free publicity 24/7

If you add that 2 billion dollars I'm sure it wouldn't be 2$ per vote. ANgry angry angry!!!

[TwilightZone]

13. Agreed. He certainly knows his audience, and I don't mean his supporters.

[LisaM]

7. And he wasted tons of money in Washington, a state he was set up (by the caucuses) to win handily.

He ran a ton of ads here for a few weeks, and usually ran the same ad back to back. I'd often see the same ad six times in one night. I suppose marketing people think that's effective or people wouldn't do this, but I don't really like seeing the same ad incessantly.

He also spent a ton of money holding four huge rallies within a three-hour drive of each other within ten days (two in Seattle, one in the Portland/Vancouver, Washington area, and another in Spokane). The last one, held on Good Friday, the evening before the caucus, and during rush hour, was completely unnecessary. Members of his campaign freely admitted that they were trying to set a record for a big political rally by holding it in Safeco Field (they actually didn't have a great turnout). I'm sure it didn't gain them any additional votes and it must have cost a ton to rent Safeco Field at the last minute.

There was no need for it. He'd held his big rallies and people were enthusiastic. It was a caucus on a holiday weekend, so turnout was pretty much guaranteed to be low, and in his favor. The caucus at that point was mere hours away - it was no more than an exercise in ego stroking to hold the rally on Good Friday, and it also got the rush hour crowd and people trying to leave town for the holiday more than a bit peeved at him.

[BlueCaliDem]

8. Dishonest-Donald didn't *need* to spend on his campaign. He got BILLIONS in *free* adverstising,

thanks to U.S. M$M. On the other hand, so did Sanders. He got far more positive reportage than Hillary Clinton, and then decided to spend unnecessary millions more for political ads. His widely reported "yuge" rallies, the fawning of MSNBS and CNN, not to mention the until tens of millions he spent for social media presence and the millions KKKarl Rove spent against Hillary Clinton, should've and most likely has made Bernie Sanders a household name. The reason why he got barely any traction is because he just sucks at campaigning and getting his message out - the kind Democrats want to hear, especially the Democratic Party base (PoC).

So Sanders has no one else to blame but himself. I, for one, have zero sympathy that he's lost.

[Surya Gayatri]

9. My favorite Bernie logo...LOL!

[Her Sister]

10. Trump votes with the added free media = $ 221.75 per vote!

5. So much for #NeverTrump

That estimated $2 billion may be a big reason why the anti-Trump ads didn't seem to dent his support. Wesleyan estimates that the anti-Trump forces spent $24.2 million on TV ads — nearly $6 million more than the candidate himself spent.

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478384978/on-ads-sanders-has-spent-most-but-trump-has-spent-best

24.2 millions - 6 millions = 18.2 millions How much Trump spent.

18.2$ divided by 2$ = 9.1 million votes Trump got

Two billion (2,000,000,000) plus 18.2 million (18,000,000) = 2,018,000,000

2,018,000,000 dollars divided by 9.1 million votes (9,100,000) = $ 221.758241758 per vote!

[George II]

11. Well, that makes sense.....

Close aides and advisors reportedly get about 15% commission on all money spent on advertising, but the infrastructure guys only get hourly wages.

So those making the decisions on how to spend have a lot more to gain by spending on advertising.

[Cha]

16. Yeah, .. self-proclaimed strongest candidate for the GE... because he says so. By now we know

burnie sanders says a lot of things and it doesn't mean anything.

Thanks Twilight~