The Sanders Strategy Session Conversation That Didn't Take Place Last Year

[MineralMan]

Campaign Manager: "Let's think about New York and the other closed primary states. If we're going to appeal to Independent voters, we're going to need to get them re-registered as Democrats before the deadline in each of those states? Otherwise, they'll be locked out of voting in states we're really going to need for the nomination."

Candidate: "That's a good point, and we need to get started on that yesterday. Who can we get with a lot of experience in voter registration drives? Get back to me right away on plans for this. Let's make this a top priority."

[Bluenorthwest]

1. What Conversation Could Have Stopped This:

The answer is none. She knew better years ago and has either forgotten or just wanted to praise the Reagans at the expense of LGBT both living and dead. It is inexplicable outside a diagnostic scenario.

[MineralMan]

2. I think that independent voters in NY probably

outweigh that issue by quite a bit, in terms of the nomination race. You're right, insofar as that being an issue that potentially could hurt Hillary, but I'm not seeing a lot of discussion about that, even here on DU.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Her supporters won't discuss it, they dimiss it as you do right here and now.

A NY primary is more important to you than the facts about tens of thousands of Americans dying while our government laughed about it. More important to polish the image of the Reagans than to tell the truth about AIDS.

If Bernie had said George W Bush was the man who lead us to protect New Orleans during Katrina, her supporters would have had a classic hissy fit. But mocking the deaths of tens of thousands? That's fine with them.

The fact that her supporters are so comfortable with this outlandish bullshit pack of lies is a big problem for me. I don't really feel any connection to people who believe that way. I sure don't trust such bigoted and misinformed persons.


She said that on National TV and none of her supporters cared. But you all carry on making up shit to claim about Bernie. You are here writing fictions and satires instead of dealing with your own candidate's ghoulish bigotry.

[MineralMan]

4. There are a number of things I wish Hillary Clinton had not done or said.

That's one of them. I've never seen a candidate with whom I agree all the time. I never expect to, either.

My take on this is that you don't really know me very well. But, that's OK. This primary campaign season isn't really about me, in the first place. There is no way it can be made to be about me.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. And there you dismiss the issue again, attack me for 'not knowing you' but you can't manage

to stand up and admit that your candidate says outlandishly bigoted things while promoting Reagan as heroic for doing the exact things he failed to do.

It's not about me. It's about your candidate's lies or worse, her lack of memory. She has heard many times the truth of Reagan from those who lost children and spouses. She knew it then. But she denies it now. The reasons for that need to be explored but her supporters do not care. They want to write parodies about Bernie and blame LGBT for caring about a virus that will kill over 100,000 people this month alone.

Transparent people are very easy to know.

[MineralMan]

13. Again, this thread is not about me. It is about

campaign strategies. Your attempt to make it about me is misplaced, I think.

[oasis]

31. The Bernie campaign's failed NY strategy should get a long look.

Your OP is right on point.

[Justice]

35. A very long look

[randome]

29. It was a mis-speak and she apologized for it later.

She sometimes doesn't do well with off-the-cuff remarks and this was one of those times. Big deal. Her intentions are what matter most. Or at least they should.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[JoePhilly]

6. As we can see by the results ... the discussion the Sanders camp needed was more critical to his ...

... success than the rather unusual issue you throw in from the sidelines.

btw ... a former first lady, who has been maligned and smeared for the last 2+ decades, tried to say something nice about another former first lady who had just died. And she messed up. There is a reason no one is losing their minds over it.

Meanwhile ... Bernie fans are angry about rules that have been in place for a very long time.

His campaign, if it knew he'd need independents to switch (which maybe they did not consider) would have needed some mitigation strategy. They did not create one. I suspect they didn't create such a plan because they planned to FLIP existing Hillary supporters to Bernie.

Which really has not happened. Turns out smearing Hillary supporter hasn't been a good way to flip them. Which is why Bernie needs open primaries to have any shot now.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Tried to say something nice. Right. And there you are, dismissing, excusing and denying.

As I said to MM above "Her supporters won't discuss it, they dimiss it as you do right here and now."

It is a massive hypocrisy. The fact that you don't understand NY has had election issues for years is not my problem. NY has some of the worst turnout in the country. So far this cycle only Louisiana has lower turnout.

How many NYers voted in their own Mayoral primary? 20% Two out of ten eligible voters. That's a systemic problem for all candidates and for the advancing of issues.

[JoePhilly]

11. I did discuss it. You just aren't listening.

The fact that NY has low turn out is a reality primary candidates need to deal with.

The candidates did not create the problem but they do need to deal with it in their campaign strategy.

And they needed to do that long before this past Tuesday.

[randome]

30. Even the die-hard Sanders supporters aren't mentioning it much.

And from the crowd that thinks she laughs funny and dresses like Chairman Mao, that says something, I think.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[KittyWampus]

10. Still not acknowledging Sanders' voting for the homophobic marriage resolution?

Nor the thousands of people with AIDS the Clinton Foundation has helped?

Figures.

Incredible you still try to play the "hypocrite" card on DU.

Whether it's about another DU'er OR a politician.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Rob_Flaherty/status/696046787094843392

[brooklynite]

33. This was on the news; this is on YouTube

The voters in NYS didn't care; the voters in PA, MD, DE, CT and RI won't care next week.

[Jitter65]

5. Maryland. How is this for getting good voting information to your supporters and all voters?

https://voterservices.elections.state.md.us/VoterSearch

Makes voting so much cleaner and easier.

[MineralMan]

12. Most states, if not all, have such a web page or site.

Sadly, most voters have other things on their mind that seem more important than visiting those sites and making sure that they're registered and that their registration is up to date.

That's why candidates for office often make a strong effort to encourage their supporters get registered in time to be able to vote in upcoming elections. I know that's true, because I've worked on many such candidate-sponsored voter registration drives.

In presidential primary races and in general election campaigns, candidates set up offices in every state that they believe is important to them. Smart candidates make sure those offices have a strong voter registration strategy and carry it out.

Personally, I believe that voter registration should be automatic and that ever state should have election day registration. My own state of Minnesota has same-day registration, and voters can also register when they renew their drivers' licenses or vehicle tabs each year. Voters can also register to vote in any city hall or anyplace where they do business with the government.

Still, voter registration drives are common, even in our state. They're surprisingly effective, too. I do canvassing of voters in my own precinct for every election. While doing that, I ask everyone I speak to if they are registered to vote, and have voter registration forms available for anyone who is not.

As we saw in New York, the issue of being registered as a Democrat to be able to vote in the Democratic primary became very important to the Sanders campaign. It may have played a large role in his losing that state's primary. That's why the conversation I imagined in my opening post should have taken place at the very beginning of Sanders' run. Had it taken place and the problem recognized, a voter registration or re-registration drive in New York might have changed the outcome.

Sadly for the Sanders campaign, that did not happen. Inexperience on the part of his campaign manager, who is not familiar with running a national campaign, led to a serious lapse. Hence, my post on the subject.

[hill2016]

16. Back in Oct

he probably never expected to have a serious shot at the nomination. Plus he probably didn't have the resources and manpower in every state

[MineralMan]

19. Both of those things may well be true.

Many factors can cause a presidential primary run to fail. Personally, I think that Sanders' choice of a campaign manager is one of the main factors that contributed to the results that are becoming obvious. Weaver has no real experience in national politics. He is a local campaign manager. Vermont's entire state election process is equivalent to a minor local race in larger states like New York.

Make no mistake, Senator Sanders has exceeded all expectations, probably including his own, in this primary race. However, in the end, his efforts seem doomed to failure. That's too bad. What I'm saying is that the reasons he will not win date back to the very beginning of the campaign. Who knows what might have happened, had the campaign had leadership with true national competence from the beginning?

It's too late now to correct that, really. The die was cast early on, and the game is close to being over now.

[brooklynite]

34. Here's what it takes to run a voter registration campaign

1. voter registration forms

2. pens

3. a table

4. a chair

5. a volunteer

[Bread and Circus]

9. Definitely agree with your point but can you admit it's a bit underhanded to have the first DNC...

...sanctioned debate held AFTER the deadline registration date in NY?

To me, it is one example of rigging the Primary in favor of Clinton.

2008 season - first debate 4/26/2007

2016 season - fisrt debate 10/13/2015

By 10/13/2015 The Republicans already had 2 debates.

So how fair is it for the Democratic Party to have registration deadlines to vote in a primary when they hadn't even started debates yet?

How democratic is it for the Democratic Party to exclude Independents from voting in a Primary then turn around and say in the same newscycle liberal Independents better vote for Clinton in the fall?

How democratic is it to lord the "superdelegates" over the collective conscience of the electorate for the past 9 months when we find out those "superdelegates" were bought and paid for by a handful of Clinton's Israel First billionaire supporters who gave millions to buy those "supers"?

And on and on...

[MineralMan]

15. When the debate occurred isn't really relevant.

This is a campaign issue, not a debate issue. The dates for changing party affiliation in NY are known, and there's no reason to ignore them. Rather, there is much reason to make those dates a priority in a state with as many delegates as New York. Any presidential primary candidate needs New York.

The debate schedule and the re-registration deadline are two separate, unconnected things.

[Bread and Circus]

18. It is very relevant and you know it.

Holding off on things like the debate schedule were purposefully designed to keep Sanders at a disadvantage. People who would have learned about him at an earlier debate would have had more awareness to take measures to be able vote for him in a more timely manner.

You know this. You aren't stupid.

[MineralMan]

22. No, I'm not stupid. I'm analyzing something after the fact.

One aspect of this campaign is all I'm addressing. There are many other aspects, of course, but I chose to address this particular one in my original post.

The question of the timing of the debates has been discussed at length on DU many times. That's not the subject of this thread.

Most voters do not think about voting much or often. That's why they're sometimes surprised that they're unable to vote on election day. They're not stupid. They're distracted by their daily lives. Campaigns need to make sure they remind voters about those things. I have no doubt that if you asked 1000 voters in New York about the deadline for changing party affiliation in their registration, you'd probably get fewer than 1 who knew the date. Only the most politically aware people know that kind of detail.

Successful campaigns are run by politically aware professionals. The Sanders campaign, apparently, isn't going to be one of those. Did the debate schedule make a difference? Probably. But not in the passing of the deadline for changing party affiliation in New York. That's a separate issue. Successful campaigns take note of such things and plan for them.

The Sanders campaign did not do that. The results of that lapse are now known.

[Bread and Circus]

27. The Sanders camapign had shortcomings but they got way further than anyone ever expected.

Along the way he raised $182,000,000 dollars, not the sleazy kind either.

So to act like his campaign was ineffectual is ignoring a lot of the reality of the situation.

Sanders should be at 3% not 48%

[Justice]

37. Registration deadlines to vote in a primary are NY law, not set by Democratic Party.

[Bread and Circus]

38. Straw Argument. Delaying the debates was coordinated to

Delay exposure of candidates other than Clinton.

Can you people admit to anything?

Jesus fucking christ.

[Lucinda]

17. Mostly true I think! They did sent out mailers to one non mainstream group in NY way early

Cant rememeber the name of the party.
They just didnt think big enough.

[MineralMan]

23. Probably the Working Family Party.

Not enough, apparently.

[Lucinda]

26. That sounds right! I think that might have been the one I was thinking of...and yep

way not enough!

[morningfog]

20. It should have. I didn't, probably for a couple reasons.

I don't think anyone, including the Sanders' campaign, expected him to be anywhere near as competitive and popular as he is now.

I don't think they have a reason to know that much of his support would come from new voters, independents and cross-over voters.

However, a serious campaign should have begun with a plan to be competitive everywhere and to ensure potential supporters could vote everywhere.

Remember, he was essentially all in in Iowa. After IA and NH, he was still in a "can he actually compete" position. His resources were limited and he was not well known. He made strategic decisions as the race developed, focusing more on some regions than others. All of the decisions were just to stay alive and left little room for long term planning.

[MineralMan]

24. Those and other reasons.

Yes, the focus was all on IA and NH. You're right. The campaign was too small at the beginning and led by someone with no national campaign experience. Much leads back to those facts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Two points.

Back when that conversation would have had to take place Sanders had much more daunting and immediate tasks to attend to, building a national campaign structure from scratch from the bottom up. We are talking about the Summer of 2015 (if he wanted to organize for NY's deadline). Unlike Clinton he didn't have a sophisticated national network of supporters already in place etc. etc. If he didn't get a fund raising machine and ground games going in Iowa and NH he was dead on arrival.

Plus back then there was no way he could known whether or not his message would resonate more strongly with Independents than Clinton's did. Bernie had never campaigned outside of Vermont at that point.

[MineralMan]

25. Yes. Exactly.

Bernie Sanders is a local candidate from Vermont. Vermont is a very small state with a low population. Campaigning there can be done on a personal level, and his early campaign staff only had experience with such a local campaign. There are, of course, campaign management experts with national experience. Probably, one of those should have been retained at the very beginning. They're used to thinking strategically about such details.

That's why it's so difficult for candidates with only local experience to field a successful presidential campaign. That's why we keep electing Presidents with existing national recognition and support. Bernie Sanders has way outperformed in 2016. It has been a surprise to me, and to many others, as well.

In the end, though, inexperience and a slow start are taking their toll at this point in the primary race.

[IamMab]

28. No, that excuse doesn't fly. Tad Devine has worked on FIVE presidential campaigns so far, and he's

been with Bernie since Day One.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. So?

I'm not saying Bernie had no professional support. But no national apparatus remotely comparable to what Hillary had. His team did pretty damn well taking him from a "fringe candidate" to a major contender against the woman the whole world always assumed would be the Democratic nominee. They had ground to make up and that takes time.

[Samantha]

42. Bernie Sanders was never a fringe candidate

The people who know him best are those people in Vermont. He has an 86 percent approval rate there. He gets about 25 percent of the Republican vote. When asked why they vote for a Democratic Socialist, those very Republicans say the same thing: we don't agree with everything he says, but he always tells us the truth. The planks in Sanders' campaign platform are for the most part positions many, many Americans support.

Sam

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. I agree Sam, I should have said "regarded as" by the media...

Well said.

[Samantha]

45. Ok, it is a good thing you straightened me out on that!

See you around.

Sam

[Skwmom]

36. Ignoring the fact that he had a press black out and did not have the name recognition.

[MineralMan]

39. No. I'm not ignoring that at all.

Neither of those is part of what I'm discussing. Separate issues. This original post is about one thing, and only about that thing.

[forjusticethunders]

40. "Strategy"

Out of many reasons I ended up voting Hillary, that one is part of it. The campaign itself is in many ways a job interview for the presidency, and Bernie bombed it, over and over and over and over again. It's about hiring the right people (not perennial loser Devine and Reddit brogressive Jeff Weaver), formulating a strategy based on real data, communicating with voters on all levels and listening to their needs and concerns. Making everything focused on rallies and online excitement was a LOSING STRATEGY, one because rallies = / = votes, and two, rallies like that tend to create a false impression of where your campaign is at, and leads to thinking like "I'm losing because the process is rigged", not "I'm losing because I'm doing something wrong".

Of course, Bernie had some real, fundamental issues beyond just his campaign (ideological purity and selfishness, no real connections with POC from his time in Congress outside a few instances like the Florida emergency meeting, poor communicator on a personal level) but he could have overcome them, but he didn't, if anything it got worse. Bernie needed to tie Latinos at worst nationally if not outright win (for example he did well in the Mountain West among Latinos, but Texas and New York...ughhhhhhhh) and he needed to get AT LEAST 35-40% of the black vote (which I think was feasible for him based on polling if he wasn't so damn tone deaf on our issues so often especially since Hillary honestly wasn't doing much better, but she's built up so much political capital with African Americans because the Clintons were the light at the end of the tunnel after the Reagan/Bush years that it didn't sink her the same way it would have sunk another candidate, honestly I should write an OP wrt Bernie and the black vote).

Anyway, since Bernie is losing the primary essentially because he's losing black people 80-20 nationally, that was a failure in strategy. Yes he needed the early caucuses for momentum, but he was going to face a bloodbath on Super Tuesday and he needed to do as much damage control as possible, and he didn't.

Strategy also goes into preparedness. It's really amazing how he walked into that NYDN interview and didn't sound prepared. Yes it wasn't AS bad as it was portrayed, but in this day and age, you need to be detail oriented and concrete; that approach might win a GOP primary but not a Dem primary. A lot of us, myself included, have kind of bought into the whole "If Canada can do it, why can't we", and while we *can* do it, there needs to be a clear path, consideration of the political environment, sure tearing it down and starting over might be bette in the long run, but it's also dangerous and disruptive to real people and real lives, and that lack of consideration for that disruption seems to always bedevil leftist movements.

The nomination was there for a progressive challenger, but Bernie screwed it up, and what's worse, the "movement" is defensive and childish and refusing to accept that fact, which will make future progressive challenges more difficult.

[Jim Lane]

41. Anecdotal refutation

One day in early October, I had a chat with a Bernie volunteer at a voter (re-)registration table on the sidewalk outside Grand Central Terminal. He had a big sign up about the looming deadline.

Therefore, everything you say is false.

OK, that last bit is a slight exaggeration for humorous effect. The serious point is that there was an effort to address the absurdly early deadline, including posts on DU.

We can't assume that the Sanders strategy session conversation didn't take place last year. As others have noted in this thread, the Sanders campaign was facing multiple demands on its very limited resources. Sanders's problem wasn't that he was inept at campaigning. His problems were that he hadn't been running for President for the past several years, that he didn't start out with near-universal name recognition, and that he didn't start out with the early fundraising edge that comes from having a few big donors rather than many small ones.

The specific task you identify also had its own problems. Last October, most people weren't thinking about the April primary. That made it harder to recruit people for this project and made voters less likely to respond.

You want a "what-if" that might have changed things? In the months preceding New York's deadline, when Clinton was campaigning full-time, Sanders was still spending significant time on his Senate duties. If he had gone full Rubio and given priority to meeting people in Iowa, he could probably have posted an Iowa win (albeit narrowly) instead of a "well, he made it close, anyway." That might have flipped zero delegates but would have been a big psychological boost, and generated a valuable increase in media coverage. Admittedly, this is all hypothetical, but my guess is that the Iowa strategy would have improved his odds of winning the nomination more than your New York strategy would have.

[Aerows]

43. It's not over yet

and every day Hillary Clinton has to debate a fellow Democrat, has an investigation of her conduct with regards to the servers, on top of all that is desperately running a campaign.

Hillary is a *weak-ass* candidate. Republicans are just waiting for her to get the nomination.

Then the unloading will begin.

I care about the Democratic Party, MM, regardless of how pro-Bernie I might be. DWS and HRC are running it into the ground.

Minnesota smug is likely a good look for you, but everybody pissed at election fraud truly is a great look for me.