On DU, we're all pretty much political junkies.

[MineralMan]

There are maybe 2500 of us who regularly visit DU. Out there in the real world, we're a tiny, splinter minority when it comes to voting, even in primary elections.

We click links to sites like mediaite. Nobody else does. We see all of that clever analysis of candidates and references to things that they did 20, 30 or even more years ago. Nobody else does.

The vast majority of primary voters, and even more general election voters clicks their TV remotes or their bookmark to Facebook. They aren't seeing all the stuff we're seeing, and they don't want to, frankly. They're seeing campaign ads on the broadcast network news hours in the morning, at dinner time, and late in the evening. They don't watch MSNBC, even if they're Democrats.

They will decide who to vote for based on completely different criteria that we will.

Candidates who understand the rest of the voters will do better than candidates who focus on DUers and others like us.

Right now, in the Super Tuesday states, and for the past month or even two months, they've been seeing ads from Mike Bloomberg on their TVs, and they do watch those TVs. They haven't seen ads from the other candidates, because they've been busy trying to win a few delegates in Iowa and New Hampshire.

They see what happened in Iowa. They see the candidates bickering at each other in New Hampshire. Then, while they're watching that on ABC, NBC, CBS or even the local Fox affiliate, they're seeing well-produced ads on many important issues from Mike Bloomberg, who isn't calling anyone names, except for Donald Trump.

We do not represent those voters. We do not even know those voters. They are the ones who will decide, though, who becomes the Democratic nominee.

We will not.

[redstatebluegirl]

1. I love your insightful posts.

[MineralMan]

3. You're too kind!

[RKP5637]

2. Well Said!!! K&R!!! n/t

[MineralMan]

4. Thanks.

[IrishEyes]

5. Me? I'm not a political junkie. I can quit anytime.

I'm going to right after this election. Okay, maybe not.

I agree with what you said. Good points.

[MineralMan]

6. Yeah, me neither.

[LanternWaste]

7. Is anyone arguing DU is representative of the nation's voters as a whole?

[MineralMan]

9. I don't know. But, that has nothing to do with my post.

I wasn't claiming that at all. I was just making a point, you see.

[Liberal Jesus Freak]

8. I rarely post.

Compared to the well-informed and insightful DU posters, I feel a little ignorant. Then I wander out into the real world and discover how over-informed I really am 🤷🏼?♀️

[Mean Gene]

26. +1 NT

[In It to Win It]

27. +1

[DanTex]

10. Which explains why Bernie is leading the actual polls, even though he's third place at 11% on DU.

[MineralMan]

11. Yes, in a way, it does.

Right now, he has about a quarter of the popular vote, apparently. There are a lot of candidates out there, so...

Think about this: What if 25% is his peak? What happens when a bunch of candidates drop out, eh?

[musicman65]

20. Yes I wish

to know more than I do,however,we hope Joe pulls ahead of this mess,so we can all rest assured

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Fair qustion, but I think winning begets winning

One thing that is used to hold back Sanders by some is the claim that he "can't win" against Trump. Sanders scoring victories and rising in the polls (even if that rise is gentle but steady) feeds into his positive electability argument, which to an extent is a gut thing. If more people seem to be coming over to Sanders it creates the classic bandwagon effect; the air of a winner, someone who emerges victorious in combat. I don't believe 25% is anything close to a hard ceiling for Sanders.

In reverse this is what Biden is having to deal with now. Momentum, positive or negative, has real consequences.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Right now Sanders and Buttigieg in particular have the money needed to run TV ads also

They can't blanket the airwaves nationally the way that Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions can, but they can get ads up in each state as they approach. Sanders especially, with his replenishing monthly supply of small donors, will be seen by those you speak of also.

[MineralMan]

13. But he'll be playing catch-up.

The Bloomberg ads are already running, while everyone is focused on New Hampshire.

Bernie will have a couple of different ads. Bloomberg has dozens. Bernie will selectively put his ads on some media outlets. Bloomberg's ads appear multiple times during the news hours, reaching likely voters.

Bloomberg will advertise in red states, because they also send delegates to the convention. Bernie will not in most of them.

Bloomberg is running a 50 state primary campaign. Nobody else is.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I recognize that

And Bloomberg is still playing catch up in the polls. I predict that if Sanders pulls off a clear victory in NH tonight (especially if Warren polls well off the pace) that he will see an explosion in his fund raising tomorrow. Bloomberg won't have the airwaves virtually to himself that much longer with Super Tuesday coming up fast.

Bloomberg up until right about now has been on the receiving end of virtually 100% positive publicity all on his own terms. He has not even appeared before a debate podium, he has scripted every word and not had to respond directly to any criticism, let alone face a tough interview. That is about to change also.

[HarlanPepper]

18. Yeah Bloomberg will always be able to outspend him.

He can match and double every single $18 donation in perpetuity.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Outspending is not the same thing as having a media monopoly

Given the choice of being the one who has an unlimited budget vs one who can still get their message out but can't carpet bomb it, sure, I would pick the former. But I have seen it said by those more knowledgeable than me that media saturation is a real thing, and once you reach that point returns rapidly diminish for additional advertising. One does not have to match Bloomberg dollar for dollar, one needs enough of a media presence to get their message seen.

[HarlanPepper]

23. I guess I think your premise is flawed.

As Bloomberg begins to be more a part of the campaign by participating in the debates and doing things other candidates do, like bus tours, and retail politics, media interest in him will expand. Some of that might be negative attention, though. In my view the case that Bloomberg’s media profile will shrink moving forward rather than grow,which is what you seem to be arguing, doesn’t make a lot of sense.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. I agree it will grow, but it will become more mixed vs having been almost 100% positive before

Mostly I was saying that he is at a peak now in regards to virtually having the national paid airwaves to himself.

[HarlanPepper]

25. Agreed.

BTW, Tom, while I am not a Sanders fan, I appreciate your posts here and how you advocate for your candidate. Many of us could take a lesson from that.

[Ferrets are Cool]

14. I've been saying it for a long time.

Just not as eloquently

[MineralMan]

15. I think a lot of people recognize that. Some, however, don't.

It's a complicated equation, and none of us have all the numbers to plug into it.

[Pacifist Patriot]

17. Exactly. Anyone who saw the woman in Iowa who didn't know Mayor Pete was homosexual...

and thinks DU is representative of voters should look at that video clip again. She is probably more representative of the electorate than we are. I don't like to think so, but have had too much personal interaction with similarly low information voters to assume otherwise.

It's one of the reasons mobilizing to canvass is so damned important. Sometimes it really is the most recent candidate they had any information about or had any sort of contact with that gets their vote.

[samplegirl]

19. Well one thing for sure we all read

real news daily. We debate and bring awareness.
It gets exhausting at times... but we all have that same need for truth!