2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary's Campaign Is Sinking Fast based on Dollars Spent
Sanders has been steadily gaining while spending only 1/3 of what Hillary's campaign has.
To date, from OpenSecrets, Hillary's campaign has spent $44 million, while Sanders has spent $14 million. Furthermore, Sanders has nearly as much cash on hand as Hillary's campaign. Given the current momentum, Sanders is tracking to win Iowa, New Hampshire and now, a report comes out from politico, Nevada is a strong possibility, with key Clinton supporters switching sides to join Sanders:
Bilbray said in October she was planning to support Clinton. But she changed her mind after a friend dragged her to an organizing meeting hosted by the Sanders campaign.
Hillary needs to shake her campaign up if she's going to stop the Bern... and it's really a bad time in the campaign to be doing this. Seems like Mark Penn may really be running things again... just like he tanked her campaign in 2008.
For details: Hillary's open secrets page: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019
Sander's open secrets page: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000528
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)It's not like it's being burned up in caviar dinners for everyone - even if folks want to believe so.
She and her team learned a hell of a lot the last time around and they're not screwing around, as much as some want to view it that way.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)You might want to do a little research on her expenditures. She's spent over $20 million on advertising and polling.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)So your point is..................................?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)As the OP states, she's going the wrong way. No one watches TV and her ground game is a waste because people don't like where she stands,
Bernie tho, the more people get to know him, the more fired up they become.
brooklynite
(94,495 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)Poll is a tie and one person in Nevada switching isn't enough to change the substantial lead she holds there.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)that's plural. Even though the article only discloses one big name, it does use the plural form, meaning there are many more.
Sanders is consistently gaining throughout his expenditures, while Clinton is not (at 3 times the cost).
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)brooklynite
(94,495 posts)...if there was concern about cash on hand, I'd hear about it.
There isn't.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)NH is a legit toss up.
And Clinton is bringing in a ton of money and actually using some of it. You know, on the campaign
And she is up by 20 in Nevada.
But other than that, I'm sure your post is fine.
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)Candidates totals for 2015 for raised, spent, and cash on hand are:
HRC - 112, 74, 38
SBS - 73, 45, 28
So SBS has spent 60% of what HRC has spent, not 1/3.
comradebillyboy
(10,143 posts)in an attempt to catch up with Hillary there.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)If she has too little Cash On Hand, then so does he.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Bernie has been able to do more with less.