Sanders Conceding South in Super Tuesday Spending

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday February 23, 2016 · 11:02 AM PST

2016/02/23 · 11:02

Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont,, left, and Hillary Rodham Clinton laugh during the CNN Democratic presidential debate, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2015, in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher)

After being outspent 2 to 1 in Nevada television advertising by Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton is poised to outspend Sanders on television advertising leading up to Super Tuesday by approximately $800,000, according to NBC senior political analyst Marc Murray. Where the candidates are spending money is very different, and potentially significantly telling about the state of the race.

Murray notes,

Clinton and her Super PAC are up with ads in Alabama ($416,000), Arkansas ($43,000), Colorado ($540,000, Georgia ($295,000), Massachusetts ($543,000), Minnesota ($386,000), Oklahoma ($378,000), Tennessee ($421,000), Texas ($586,000), Vermont ($7,000) and Virginia ($452,000).

By contrast, Sanders is up in Colorado ($1.2 million), Massachusetts ($650,000) Minnesota ($680,000), Oklahoma ($690,000) and Texas ($32,000)

While it is possible Sanders comes in with late ad buys still, it is worth noting he is pouring all of his resources into only 5 Super Tuesday states and not advertising at all in the remaining 6 primarily Southern contests.

On twitter, the New York Time’s reporter Nate Cohn called Sanders decision to skip the Southern states “bizarre” and questions what the Sanders campaign is trying to accomplish:

@Nate_Cohn Lends credence to theory that he's playing for a convention speaking slot (maximize strongholds), not to beat HRC
— Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics) February 23, 2016

.@mmurraypolitics i mean, it's not a strategy to maximize delegates. that's clear.
— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) February 23, 2016

NPR’s Tamara Keith notes what appears to be Sanders’ strategy from where he is concentrating his resources:

@tamarakeithNPR @mmurraypolitics it's definitely a strategy to maximize wins; the goal = another ?
— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) February 23, 2016

If Sanders can win some of the states he is concentrating resources into like Colorado, Minnesota or Massachusetts, Keith is correct that he can point to those wins as reason to to stay in the race.

The problem Sanders faces according to Nate Silver is the following; based on demographics of those three states Sanders not only needs to win them, rather he needs to win Colorado by about 13% , Massachusetts by about 10% and Minnesota by about 17% to be on target delegate wise (targets he is unlikely to meet).

David Wasserman at the Cook Political Report concurs noting if Sanders has a path to the nomination he should be winning 58% of Massachusetts pledged delegates, 65% of Minnesota’s, and 62% of Colorado’s. It is also worth noting Sanders hasn’t hit Silver’s targets in the first 3 contests, and only matched Wasserman’s target in New Hampshire. Wasserman’s scorecard says Sanders should have a 2:1 delegate lead after the first 3 primaries.

Sanders is intently focusing on 5 states on Super Tuesday: Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Vermont. The mathematical issue is while those 5 states award 288 delegates, the remaining Super Tuesday states award 571. Pouring resources into winning a few specific states is a great strategy towards prolonging a candidate’s relevance. However, it isn’t that great of a strategy for winning a proportionately awarded delegate race.

This content was created by a Daily Kos Community member.

Make YOUR voice heard!

Comments are closed on this story.