Sanders campaign to lay off hundreds of staff and go all-in on California
72 replies, posted
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign.html[/url]
[quote]Senator Bernie Sanders is planning to lay off “hundreds” of campaign staffers across the country and focus much of his remaining effort on winning California, he said in an interview Wednesday.
The Vermont senator revealed the changes a day after losing four of the five states that voted Tuesday and falling further behind Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Despite the changes, Mr. Sanders said he would remain in the race through the party’s summer convention and stressed that he hoped to bring staff members back on board if his political fortunes improved.
“We want to win as many delegates as we can, so we do not need workers now in states around country,” Mr. Sanders said in the interview. “We don’t need people right now in Connecticut. That election is over. We don’t need them in Maryland. So what we are going to do is allocate our resources to the 14 contests that remain, and that means that we are going to be cutting back on staff.”
When asked how many people would be let go, Mr. Sanders didn’t give an exact number but did say many people would be affected.
“It will be hundreds of staff members,” Mr. Sanders said. “We have had a very large staff, which was designed to deal with 50 states in this country; 40 of the states are now behind us. So we have had a great staff, great people.”[/quote]
I mean it makes sense on a strategic level to do that. Too bad that the contest didn't play out more in his favor, but I guess that's overall the will of the American voting public (barring all the irregularities).
Sad to hear that, but he's right; those primaries are over now.
Well, there goes the election.
I don't really understand the California Strategy, even if he does win California its likely going to be by a small margin.
There's no need to have 100s of staff in New England, Michigan, Ohio, etc. It's not like they don't have the money to pay them, but like 70% of the primaries are over already. No need for a 1000 man national operation right now.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;50214724]I don't really understand the California Strategy, even if he does win California its likely going to be by a small margin.[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing at this point he's just trying to make Hillary work for her win, even if a little.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50214783]I'm guessing at this point he's just trying to make Hillary work for her win, even if a little.[/QUOTE]
He's been doing that the entire time. Why else do you think she'd be acting the way she has been this whole time? For that matter, why else do you think the party itself would be reacting like this?
I honestly believe if everything was run truly in a fair manner Sanders would have already cinched it by now.
Honestly this election (being my first where I can vote) has just completely opened my eyes to how flimsy and broken our voting system is and the election season overall. The great heaping piles of shit in the news, one after another, have really made for a ridiculous learning experience. It was especially interesting to be living in Brooklyn and witnessing FIRSTHAND the effects of voter suppression.
I live in Williamsburg and when I went to go vote, some old lady had stopped me, shouting some nonsense (or what I believed to be nonsense) about how she couldn't vote because they had her down as republican. She said I need to watch out. I was beyond confused so I said "okay" and voted like normal. It was only until I got home and saw the scandal unfold that I realized EXACTLY what she was talking about. I mean like, shit that was as real as it gets. It's scary man.
[QUOTE=KingKombat;50217107]Honestly this election (being my first where I can vote) has just completely opened my eyes to how flimsy and broken our voting system is and the election season overall. The great heaping piles of shit in the news, one after another, have really made for a ridiculous learning experience. It was especially interesting to be living in Brooklyn and witnessing FIRSTHAND the effects of voter suppression.
I live in Williamsburg and when I went to go vote, some old lady had stopped me, shouting some nonsense (or what I believed to be nonsense) about how she couldn't vote because they had her down as republican. She said I need to watch out. I was beyond confused so I said "okay" and voted like normal. It was only until I got home and saw the scandal unfold that I realized EXACTLY what she was talking about. I mean like, shit that was as real as it gets. It's scary man.[/QUOTE]
I think it's important to register to vote ASAP in the upcoming states otherwise this might happen here as well.
[QUOTE=Crazy Knife;50217129]I think it's important to register to vote ASAP in the upcoming states otherwise this might happen here as well.[/QUOTE]
Remember those voter ID laws.
Now we have a large scale reason to enact them. 10 outta 10.
[QUOTE=KingKombat;50217107]Honestly this election (being my first where I can vote) has just completely opened my eyes to how flimsy and broken our voting system is and the election season overall. The great heaping piles of shit in the news, one after another, have really made for a ridiculous learning experience. It was especially interesting to be living in Brooklyn and witnessing FIRSTHAND the effects of voter suppression.
I live in Williamsburg and when I went to go vote, some old lady had stopped me, shouting some nonsense (or what I believed to be nonsense) about how she couldn't vote because they had her down as republican. She said I need to watch out. I was beyond confused so I said "okay" and voted like normal. It was only until I got home and saw the scandal unfold that I realized EXACTLY what she was talking about. I mean like, shit that was as real as it gets. It's scary man.[/QUOTE]
I guess that was voter suppression by the Sanders campaign. Brooklyn was exspected to go heavily Clinton and did so, your area specifically was overwhelmingly Clinton.
[QUOTE=TestECull;50216035]
I honestly believe if everything was run truly in a fair manner Sanders would have already cinched it by now.[/QUOTE]
Is it that hard to believe that maybe people just don't agree with you?
[QUOTE=Bazsil;50218158]Is it that hard to believe that maybe people just don't agree with you?[/QUOTE]
It's a valid assumption. Sanders appeals to independents more-so than democrats. There are 29 states where the primaries are closed, preventing independents from voting for him unless they change party affiliation, which often closes absurdly early, before people can truly get to know Sanders.
Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida, all huge delegate states, are on that closed primary list.
It might be disingenuous to say he'd have clinched it. But, he surely would have a far smaller gap at this point in the race.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;50218259]It's a valid assumption. Sanders appeals to independents more-so than democrats. There are 29 states where the primaries are closed, preventing independents from voting for him unless they change party affiliation, which often closes absurdly early, before people can truly get to know Sanders.
Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida, all huge delegate states, are on that closed primary list.
It might be disingenuous to say he'd have clinched it. But, he surely would have a far smaller gap at this point in the race.[/QUOTE]
The thing about primaries are, they're designed for the party to pick their nominee.
[I]The party,[/I] not anyone who decides to go to the poll in the morning. Closed primaries are designed to keep non-Democrats and non-Republicans out of affecting their nomination process which is completely fine because it's the "Democratic and Republican" parties, not the "Non-Democrats and Non-Republicans" parties.
For voting for anyone, that's for the general election.
Party elections should be as democratic as any other election. Just because you're a party doesn't give you some sort of free pass.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;50218259]It's a valid assumption. Sanders appeals to independents more-so than democrats. There are 29 states where the primaries are closed, preventing independents from voting for him unless they change party affiliation, which often closes absurdly early, before people can truly get to know Sanders.
Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida, all huge delegate states, are on that closed primary list.
It might be disingenuous to say he'd have clinched it. But, he surely would have a far smaller gap at this point in the race.[/QUOTE]
Clinton won 13 of the open primary states. Sanders won 5.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=bdd458;50218571]Party elections should be as democratic as any other election. Just because you're a party doesn't gove you some sort of free pass.[/QUOTE]
It's currently a constitutional right under free speech for parties to be able to do this, unless the Supreme Court decides to overturn it, it won't change.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50218530]The thing about primaries are, they're designed for the party to pick their nominee.
[I]The party,[/I] not anyone who decides to go to the poll in the morning. Closed primaries are designed to keep non-Democrats and non-Republicans out of affecting their nomination process which is completely fine because it's the "Democratic and Republican" parties, not the "Non-Democrats and Non-Republicans" parties.
For voting for anyone, that's for the general election.[/QUOTE]
I get where you're coming from with this, but we live in a country where the president can only be one of those two parties. If we want to keep saying we're a democracy, we should let the people choose their presidential candidates, not the party. The other way around just shoehorns people into the general and if the public doesn't like them, too bad; there's no way the public can get who they want because the parties choose. At least that's how I'm interpreting your argument.
[QUOTE=lope;50218580]I get where you're coming from with this, but we live in a country where the president can only be one of those two parties. If we want to keep saying we're a democracy, we should let the people choose their presidential candidates, not the party. The other way around just shoehorns people into the general and if the public doesn't like them, too bad; there's no way the public can get who they want because the parties choose. At least that's how I'm interpreting your argument.[/QUOTE]
When he says the parties choose he doesn't mean party leadership. The party is comprised of it's members, who choose who they want to represent them, hence the purpose of a primary, to let party members choose their representative, not to let outside influences choose the parties candidate for them. There is nothing stopping anyone else from running and winning, but parties and coalitions will always naturally form in any system.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50218530]The thing about primaries are, they're designed for the party to pick their nominee.
[I]The party,[/I] not anyone who decides to go to the poll in the morning. Closed primaries are designed to keep non-Democrats and non-Republicans out of affecting their nomination process which is completely fine because it's the "Democratic and Republican" parties, not the "Non-Democrats and Non-Republicans" parties.
For voting for anyone, that's for the general election.[/QUOTE]
This would be all well and good if the system wasn't locked down to those two parties, pretty much instantly disqualifying anyone who runs as a third party.
[QUOTE=bdd458;50218571]Party elections should be as democratic as any other election. Just because you're a party doesn't give you some sort of free pass.[/QUOTE]
what?
they don't owe you or anyone else shit
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;50218597]what?
they don't owe you or anyone else shit[/QUOTE]
The people running the country doesn't owe the citizens of the country shit? Really?
I would make up candidates to further explain my point, but unfortunately Bernie and Hillary are perfect examples. [I]50% of democrats[/I] prefer Bernie Sanders, and that number has been constantly rising since his campaign began. However, Hillary has received [I]overwhelming[/I] support from within the party. Now, under constitutional law, the party can say screw the other 50% of the public, and nominate Hillary. That's 22.5 million people, and possibly more as the election draws nearer, being screwed over because the party decides to nominate someone using unfair means, like the supers. I do not like the idea of super delegates, but I know why they exist. I don't know any alternative to them, so maybe I'm not fit to criticize them, but I still do not like the idea of a party comprising of 43 million people giving only a handful of people such huge influence over election. Add on top of this the fact that the leadership is corrupt, and does favor one candidate over the other, and you get a pretty predictable outcome. I listed all the ways the DNC helped Hillary through shady and some illegal means in a different thread. In my opinion, people should be allowed to vote in any primary they choose, but only one. Meaning a Republican can vote for Bernie Sanders in a Democratic primary, but forfeits his ability to vote for Trump or Cruz in a Republican Primary. This will give independents full freedom to vote for whoever they want, and prevent people with opposite ideologies from attempting to "sabotage" a party, since they'd be abandoning their party.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
Also fuck registration deadlines why are those even a thing
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;50218597]what?
they don't owe you or anyone else shit[/QUOTE]
I don't know if you've looked at the government recently, but its members are made up of people who belong to these things called "parties".
Quite frankly, part of my belief is that if everyone was able to choose who they best think would represent them in all parties politics would be far less polarized and far less partisan.
He's a job creator
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50218631]He's a job creator[/QUOTE]
Do you expect him to keep all these people employed and campaigning for the 2016 election in 2017 when Trump or Hillary becomes president because he's a job creator?
It's not like he's moving his campaign office to China and paying 11 year olds 9 cents an hour to call Californians. The people who got layed off couldn't help him anymore and weren't doing much of anything
[QUOTE=lope;50218614]I would make up candidates to further explain my point, but unfortunately Bernie and Hillary are perfect examples. [I]50% of democrats[/I] prefer Bernie Sanders, and that number has been constantly rising since his campaign began. However, Hillary has received [I]overwhelming[/I] support from within the party. Now, under constitutional law, the party can say screw the other 50% of the public, and nominate Hillary. That's 22.5 million people, and possibly more as the election draws nearer, being screwed over because the party decides to nominate someone using unfair means, like the supers. I do not like the idea of super delegates, but I know why they exist. I don't know any alternative to them, so maybe I'm not fit to criticize them, but I still do not like the idea of a party comprising of 43 million people giving only a handful of people such huge influence over election. Add on top of this the fact that the leadership is corrupt, and does favor one candidate over the other, and you get a pretty predictable outcome. I listed all the ways the DNC helped Hillary through shady and some illegal means in a different thread. [B]In my opinion, people should be allowed to vote in any primary they choose, but only one.[/B] Meaning a Republican can vote for Bernie Sanders in a Democratic primary, but forfeits his ability to vote for Trump or Cruz in a Republican Primary. This will give independents full freedom to vote for whoever they want, and prevent people with opposite ideologies from attempting to "sabotage" a party, since they'd be abandoning their party.
[editline]28th April 2016[/editline]
Also fuck registration deadlines why are those even a thing[/QUOTE]
That's already what an open primary is.
Also Superdelegates are a non-issue, it's just a show of party support. Clinton has 55.5% of party support. Sanders has 46% of party support. If Sanders was in Clinton's position right now he'd have those Superdelegates instead of her, they won't jump a 10% gap like that.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50218652]That's already what an open primary is.
Also Superdelegates are a non-issue, it's just a show of party support. Clinton has 55.5% of party support. Sanders has 46% of party support. If Sanders was in Clinton's position right now he'd have those Superdelegates instead of her, they won't jump a 10% gap like that.[/QUOTE]
I still think they're an issue. Why not let purely the people decide? Why give a candidate who's only slightly leading a massive boost in delegates? Not to mention you're operating under an assumption that these super delegates, these individual people, wouldn't accept bribery, or other forms of influence. Not saying it's happening, I'm just saying the current system makes it easy.
[QUOTE=lope;50218665]I still think they're an issue. Why not let purely the people decide? Why give a candidate who's only slightly leading a massive boost in delegates? Not to mention you're operating under an assumption that these super delegates, these individual people, wouldn't accept bribery, or other forms of influence. Not saying it's happening, I'm just saying the current system makes it easy.[/QUOTE]
It hasn't happened yet, they've always switched to support the leading candidate so far, you can pretend they're not there for the actual primary results.
Even Bill Clinton has already said he'd switch if Sander's gained the lead, it's just how they work.
If they were to ever go against the general vote it would destroy the party and they know that.
Also, according to RCP the current numbers (RCP Average) is 49.5% Clinton, 45.8% Sanders. That's a 3.7 point gap, not a 10 point gap.
With the number so damn close, Clinton [I]still[/I] has an [I]40 to 3[/I] delegate lead over Sanders.
Shouldn't the supers at least be slightly more 50/50 to represent the general public's views of who should be nominated? or is it the second one delegate has a 1% lead over the other they all jump boat
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.