Sanders campaign to spend $30 million on TV ads in first 4 2020 states, California

[highplainsdem]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/469380-sanders-campaign-to-spend-30-million-on-tv-ads-in-first-4-primary-states

Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) campaign will spend $30 million on TV ads in the first four 2020 presidential voting states and California, The New York Times reported.

The newspaper noted that the announcement aligns Sanders, who has so far focused on a grass-roots efforts, with more conventional campaign methods that could connect him with older voters

“He brings regular people into the process who are not currently participating,” Sanders adviser Jeff Weaver told the Times.

“You need to be reaching people in a nonpolitical space," he added. "To find people who are not going to caucus, you have to be in spaces where they are, and that’s on television.”

The ads will reportedly be developed within his campaign organization and shown in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina and California.

-snip-

[still_one]

1. As a Californian, I say he should put that money to better use.

California made it clear in the past that his support does not expand beyond his base

[HerbChestnut]

4. He received 46% of the vote in the 2016 California primary after the race was basically over, and...

the press had declared Hillary the nominee the night before. Bernie has a very good chance to win California this time.

[George II]

5. 2016 is 2016, why bring that up incorrect sour grapes now?

[Hortensis]

6. Yes, but who can help wondering about the 2016 counts and

their integrity as next November fast approaches and our intelligence services say Russia is revving up repeats of all the techniques that worked so well then? I only wish comparisons with 2016 were not extremely relevant.

[HerbChestnut]

9. What was incorrect about what I said?

I bring it up because the OP is trying to imply Bernie shouldn't advertise there, which is ridiculous considering Bernie's performance there during the last primary. Also, no sour grapes here. 2016 is water under the bridge.

[George II]

10. You may want to do so, but I'm not interested in refighting the 2016 primary....

...If you don't think it was incorrect there's nothing I can say will change that.

[HerbChestnut]

12. Ok, George.

[George II]

2. "Looks like he's getting nervous."

[highplainsdem]

3. I think this is a clear sign Sanders is not about to concede the left wing of the Democratic Party

to Warren, no matter how much some of her supporters keep hoping he'll just drop out and endorse her.

And his comments about her MFA funding plan indicate their non-aggression pact is over.

[Sloumeau]

7. Excellent! Let Sanders and Warren slug it out. :)

[George II]

11. Let them fight over the left wing of the party - it's only about 20-30% of the party anyway.

[Sloumeau]

8. highplainsdem, thanks for this posting.

I think this means that Bernie Sanders realizes that if he does not get ahead of Warren in the first four states, he probably never will, and then people will be pressuring him to drop out so that "Warren can have a better chance". If Bernie wants to win the Presidency, this is probably the best plan for Bernie. However, this is also good news for Biden. Warren will probably want to up her spending to counteract Bernie, and the more money those two blow early, the less they will have for after the first four states.

Spend you two! Spend!

[Joe941]

13. That's a smart strategy. Its important to build momentum in the first few states.