Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Bernie appreciation thread [View all]BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)9. And if I'm a future candidate, I'm much more likely to model after the campaign
that won. Slate had a great analysis of how conventional the revolution's campaign ended up being.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/how_bernie_spent_his_millions_was_anything_but_revolutionary.html
Bernies Fundraising Was Revolutionary. How He Spent His Money Was Not.
What did $220 million buy? Ads, consultants, and a dispiritingly conventional campaign.
But what did that money buy, exactly? Where did all those $27 checks go? A close examination of public records and interviews with campaign finance experts and grass-roots organizers suggests that, in some significant ways, a campaign that took in money like folk bandits wound up spending it like drearily conventional pols. In April, the campaign had a burn rate of 143 percent, meaning it was spending nearly half as much again as it was bringing in. A great deal of that money bought a blast of commercials preceding caucuses and primaries across the country, one effect of which was to enrich a small group of Democratic consultants whose compensation is tied to media spending. Disclosure forms examined by Slate suggest the campaign contracted with a front companypossibly created to obscure who made what off the Sanders movementand in one cozy arrangement, effectively shared a third-party vendor with a pro-Bernie dark money group.
What did $220 million buy? Ads, consultants, and a dispiritingly conventional campaign.
But what did that money buy, exactly? Where did all those $27 checks go? A close examination of public records and interviews with campaign finance experts and grass-roots organizers suggests that, in some significant ways, a campaign that took in money like folk bandits wound up spending it like drearily conventional pols. In April, the campaign had a burn rate of 143 percent, meaning it was spending nearly half as much again as it was bringing in. A great deal of that money bought a blast of commercials preceding caucuses and primaries across the country, one effect of which was to enrich a small group of Democratic consultants whose compensation is tied to media spending. Disclosure forms examined by Slate suggest the campaign contracted with a front companypossibly created to obscure who made what off the Sanders movementand in one cozy arrangement, effectively shared a third-party vendor with a pro-Bernie dark money group.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
38 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Not disparaging him over principles. I'm disparaging him because he's an idiot w/ verbal diarrhea.
BobbyDrake
Jul 2016
#35
I like Dr West. Some don't like that he speaks a number inconvenient truths.
avaistheone1
Jul 2016
#38
"I think you have to concede". I probably could have stayed out of this thread but for this comment
seabeyond
Jul 2016
#8
And if I'm a future candidate, I'm much more likely to model after the campaign
BobbyDrake
Jul 2016
#9
Yes Logical, it really really bothers me an Independent comes into our party and tries to own
seabeyond
Jul 2016
#31
He was and is still a class act! Thank you Bernie for helping to make the Democrat party
secondwind
Jul 2016
#16
"Nope", another classy Hillary fan. Thank goodness most of them are not jerks. nt
Logical
Jul 2016
#27