Bernie Sanders has every right to lay off staffers.

[MineralMan]

No question about it. Campaign staff people are not permanent employees, and work only as long as they are needed. When they are no longer needed, the campaign saves money by laying them off. There's no question about that, and nothing wrong with it, either. He should not be criticized by anyone for doing so.

The question is: Why lay off staffers, instead of moving them to the next battleground state? Possibly the travel costs are too high to make it economically advisable to pay travel expenses, only to have to pay again to send them home.

But, the more likely reason is that Sanders is simply scaling back his campaign and doesn't need so many people working for the campaign. That's the only reason that makes sense. If the campaign wouldn't have any work for them to do, it makes no sense to keep them on the payroll.

Sanders is a savvy politician, and there's no question about his being able to see where his primary run is going. He has more primaries coming up and needs to make at least a token effort in the remaining states to maintain his relevance at the convention at a high level. But, he can do that without an extensive staff. All he has to do is make appearances and get some press coverage. He has enough momentum to bring his supporters to the polling place and make a respectable showing in those primaries.

So, he simply no longer needs a fully staffed campaign. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, does, because she's going to be campaigning in the general election campaign. She's moving staff people from states where primaries have already happened to states that will be swing states in the general election. She still needs a strong, experienced staff to take her through November.

In fact, she'll be hiring more staff as we get closer to November, not "releasing" her current staff.

A winning campaign requires staff personnel, familiar with the campaign, who can get the ball rolling in key states for the general election. A campaign that is about to end in July, however, does not need more staff. It needs less staff. And that's why Sanders is laying off line staff members now. He's not going to be fully staffing the states remaining in the primary race and, once the convention is over, he's not going to need any campaign staff at all. So, why not get started with trimming down the payroll?

That's my opinion. Thanks for reading.

[brooklynite]

1. I agree that it's a practical decision...it's just not a good political one

It runs counter to his "I'm still in it to win it" message.

[MineralMan]

3. I'm not sure that matters at this point, really.

Once it becomes clear that a primary race will not succeed, how things look politically are really irrelevant. Bernie still has his Senate seat, and will probably be elected if he runs for it again when his term ends. He ran for President. He appears not able to become the nominee. He knows that. He's a career politician. Sure, he's saying that he's still in it to win. Why wouldn't he? He'll pick up some more pledged delegates and will be influential at the convention. He will be able to get some concessions on the platform and may be able to move Hillary a little more in his direction.

So, he's dealing with a continuing primary, rather than simply suspending and going to the convention with what he has. He'll add to his delegate count by doing what he's doing.

But, he knows. He knows.

[kstewart33]

6. Bernie is conserving for his big push in California.

He wants to make a big splash in that state. If he could win, the victory and all the media reporting it, would give him at least some momentum heading to the convention.

[MineralMan]

7. I doubt if he's counting on winning in CA.

The bandwagon effect will almost certainly help Clinton there, and the state was never secure for Sanders in the first place.

Hillary is going to win Indiana, New Jersey and California, I'm almost certain. That will put her well over the majority among pledged delegates. She may have that even before California.

Bernie's winding down. He knows what the Convention will do. He's a smart politician. He needs to preserve a respectful finish, though, so you'll see him in California, for sure.

[PowerToThePeople]

2. I thought you were pragmatic?

Seems he is making a wise choice imo.

Come June, he can scale his staff as needed.

Hopefully, scale UP.

[MineralMan]

4. I am being pragmatic, and so is Bernie.

He knows where this is going, and is scaling back, since he does know. I certainly don't blame him. Flogging dead horses never leads to any good result.

[PowerToThePeople]

5. I agree on his being pragmatic

But, that is where our agreement ends.

He is still in it to win it. But, reality of budgeting says that if he is not the nominee his campaign should not be in the red.

It is a mission, but not a suicide mission.

[Gothmog]

8. It appears that without a false hope of the nomination, Sanders small dollar donor base is drying up

[MineralMan]

10. Is it? I haven't been following his donations for quite a while.

I wouldn't be surprised if they had dropped of after this past Tuesday. But I haven't taken the time to check.

[Gothmog]

12. After every major event we got announcements that Sanders has raised XXX$ since midnight

Those announcements stopped after the New York primary.

[MineralMan]

13. I did notice that, yes.

In fact, I haven't seen a fundraising report on DU for a while. Enthusiasm wanes when success dwindles. That's for sure.

More to the point, enthusiasm also brings people to the polls. Some will simply not bother in the later primaries, I'm sure, if they don't see a path toward victory. That's a real phenomenon in every election. People vote when they think their candidate can win. They don't once it's clear that won't happen, at least in large numbers.

That's why I think California will go at least 55% for Hillary.

[bkkyosemite]

9. FEC Filings for Bernie Tonight Please Donate

[MineralMan]

11. Why do the FEC filings matter?

He either has the donations or he does not. The FEC just wants the numbers. It doesn't care what they are.

[Gothmog]

14. The FEC numbers will confirm why there have been no announcements of Sanders donations since NY

Prior to the New York primary, we had regular announcements that Sanders had raised ### million dollars since midnight. These announcements stopped after the results of the New York primary. Remember Sanders told his supporters that he would win New York and that would be what was needed for him to be the nominee.

[MineralMan]

15. I suppose so. I'm sure it's too late, today, to make that FEC

report change much.

[bkkyosemite]

16. Donate any way. My email said tonight. It's 12:31 PM here

You Hillary supporters really want to marginalize Bernie and his supporters. We will continue to donate how many we are to him until he is done with his campaign.

[MineralMan]

17. I encourage you to donate as you choose.

I've never suggested that people not donate to the Sanders campaign. I would never do such a thing. He's had remarkable success with small donors. No question about it.

[obamanut2012]

18. They were promised employment until June 1

And, their severance didn't include all time until then, which is the only problem I have with the layoffs.

[MineralMan]

19. Ah, I didn't realize that. I'm very sorry for those staffers,

who are now going to be looking for work. It's sort of an iffy job in general, though. Lots of hard work, crappy pay, even at $15/hr. A person needs to be committed to a candidate to take a campaign staff job, I think. I'm sure those who have been laid off are as disappointed about the reasons for the layoff as about being laid off, really.

I've only been a paid campaign staffer once, and that was decades ago. It was a labor of love, really, and I didn't do it for the paycheck, although that helped, too.

There's plenty of disappointment going around with regard to the Sanders campaign right now, I'm sure. Everyone wants to be on a winning team.

[wendylaroux]

28. I am sure your heart bleeds for them

[obamanut2012]

30. It does, and I have no idea why you are being so snarky to me

I'm sorry you don't think they deserve those extra 2.5 weeks of severance. That' cold tbh.

[Gore1FL]

20. I am sure Bernie appreciates your concern trolling. nt

[MineralMan]

21. Why would I care what a political candidate thinks about

what I post on DU? Do you suppose Bernie Sanders reads GD ?

I'm writing my observations and opinions on this website. If I want to address a candidate, I'll do it in a different way completely.

[Gore1FL]

22. Yeah, now that I think about it, I doubt that's really who you were trolling.

Have fun under the bridge. Avoid billy goats.

[MineralMan]

23. Calling other DUers trolls is a chancy thing, really.

That's especially true for posters who have been on DU for a long time and are frequent posters.

If your insult gets alerted, though, it wasn't me who sent the alert. Accusations of trollery often do get alerted, though, so...

[Gore1FL]

24. I have been here since early 2001. Get in line.

If someone alerts on a post of someone calling out someone with a clearly trolling OP, then they really need to find a hobby.

[MineralMan]

25. Yes, I know you have.

I am in line. I've been in line since 2008. You've been here longer than me, so you know that calling people trolls often gets posts hidden. Why? Because it's an insulting personal attack. You don't like my posts. They express opinions with which you disagree. Disagreement is not evidence of trolling, actually.

I can't remember what you post, though, as OPs. I could search, I suppose, but I'm not really motivated to do that.

[Gore1FL]

29. You are being a concern troll now. If you don't want to be called a troll then don't be one.

Otherwise take it as a compliment.

I don't care.

Here is some advice:
Eat the two smaller billy goats first. When their big brother comes, show him the bones. He will be so distraught it should put hinm in a weakened state. At that point you should be able to overpower and eat him too.

[Corporate666]

26. "not permanent employees"

There is no such thing as a permanent employee. Employment, unless by contract, is generally at will.

A company can lay off a worker exactly the same (and just as fairly or otherwise) as an employee may quit. Neither side is bound to the other and provided the employee is being paid a wage they agreed to for the work done, there is nothing that requires a continuance of the work relationship past the point that either side desires for it to exist.

The beef with Sanders is that it's April and he said these people would be working through June. So he is going back on a promise he made. I am sure it wasn't a binding commitment (although verbal agreements are binding - just it was likely informal and not an actual commitment)... but nevertheless, he told these people he would do something and then he didn't follow through, and ended up stiffing them.

It's true he needs to "right-size" his campaign. Really, he should size it to zero, as he has already lost the nomination, but the mature, ethical and honest thing to do would be to pay the workers as he had agreed through June and suck up the fact that he didn't really need them.

It's hypocritical of him to ditch workers when they are no longer beneficial to him, in contradiction to a commitment he made. Really not much different than what he bashes Immelt for.

[cloudythescribbler]

27. this is the kind of issue for which only (perceived) 'idealists' are slammed, NEVER in good faith

There are a host of examples of things that people routinely criticize progressives, "do-gooders", socialists, 'idealists' etc for that NO one else would ever mention about others doing the exact same thing. Supposedly it is concern about hypocrisy, as it happens more or less exclusively on the part of those who do not authentically believe in the supposed principles that the supposed betrayal of which they purport to be calling out. It is merely an expression of sneering at the progressivism, socialism, idealism, etc itself, by insisting that 'even you folk don't live up to your unrealistic principles'. This is why in particular circumstances, time after time after time, the utter impracticality of the supposed principles in the particular circumstance NEVER dissuades trolls of this variety. But those who truly believe in the principles involved if they have even a wisp of intelligence recognize that the application of the general principles obviously is in the context of concrete circumstances -- orthodox Jews, for example, recognize that if a baby is ill, say a 'blue baby', circumcision, normally ABSOLUTELY required to be at a certain time (the eighth day I believe) can be rescheduled.

The ridiculous application of "principle" where it is completely counterproductive and truly inapplicable (campaign jobs are by their intrinsic nature temporary and conditional, and anyone who fails to understand that, or who thinks like the trolls who criticize something like this, lacks the good sense for it ever to be wise for any progressive to hire them to work on a campaign any case.

But what is important is not to rehash the obvious reasons that the campaign reasonably has to make these calls, but to recognize the broader type of trollagerie involved, and to respond accordingly

[Adrahil]

31. I agree. He sees the hand-writing in the wall.

No candidate who expects to complete in November would be eliminating staff at this point.

[B Calm]

32. Bernie has laid off staffers in states that have already voted and will be called back

when he wins the candidacy. Makes total sense to me.

[Surya Gayatri]

33. Lesson in contrasts...the staff cut-backs say it all.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, does, because she's going to be campaigning in the general election campaign.