Overall, based on 6/30/15 FEC filing, I’d say his team is ticking off all the right boxes.
He ended the quarter with $12 million in cash which in comparison with the other campaigns, other than Clinton’s, is very good. From a cost perspective, one negative may be the high percentage of contributions that are filtered through Act Blue. On the plus side, it may be more convenient for donors and the money gets to his campaign quickly. On the minus side, there are not insignificant “merchant fees.”
On a related note, and before continuing with an assessment of his receipts and spending) is the Bernie Sanders Store. It’s straightforward and basic T-shirts, mugs, buttons, bumper stickers, and signs. One attractive (enough) and simple design in two different color styles. The Hillary Clinton Shop has a wider variety of stuff. Unattractive unless one likes her H-arrow logo. (Difficult for me to believe that anyone wants a “Grillery Spatula” or faux crosstich pillow, but I pretty much loathe this sort of campaign or corporate promo junk.) The major difference between the two stores is the price. A Sanders’ T-shirt is $15 and the price of Hillary apparel starts at $25.
Receipt disclosures inform us that more than 250,000 people have donated to his campaign. The bulk of the donations were less than $200. Scrolling through the itemized donations, few are for $500 or more. Maxi $2,700 donations are few and far between. (They are numerous and prevalent in Hillary’s itemized donations.) It’s not possible to determine if these early donors have dug as deep as they are capable of during this election cycle to jumpstart Sanders’ campaign. Or it reflects their personal financial limitations during the second quarter. And/or being cautious until they can see how viable Sanders can become with Democratic Party primary voters and how well he can run a campaign. What makes this more like Dean’s 2004 campaign than Obama’s 2008 is that Sanders will not be getting big money support from Wall St. and other industries. It’s more or less the little people that he is dependent on. Many of whom still recall the significant amount of dollars from little people that seemingly disappeared in Howard Dean’s campaign. Thus, those who support Sanders would be wise to watch how their dollars are being deployed.
So, what’s to like in the disbursement section of Sanders’ FEC filing? People. In Iowa, NH, SC and a few other states in addition to the VT headquarter offices. More hires, physical location offices, and equipment are essential to get in place during the next quarter.
Possibly most impressive is that out of the $3 million in expenditures, $1.265 million was for “Digital Consulting & Ad Buy.” If his team has begun the process of placing TV “ad buy” orders, this demonstrates they know what they’re doing. Getting this in place as early as possible both costs less and can lock in the better airtime slots. (Of course, the quality of the ads is the most important key in effective TV advertising.)
Assuming that Sanders is attracting excellent talent and can easily scale up his operation to the level required to get through Super Tuesday in solid enough shape that he’s a real contender, what are the financial markers that should be seen in the next two quarters?
To assess that requires making a few assumptions. 1) Will not accept federal matching funds. Two reasons, the in-state and total primary limitations may be too constraining and a lag time between securing the nomination and the DNC convention can hobble a campaign. (While both conventions are scheduled for the end of July as they were in 2000, Gore was hurt by the early wrap up of the primary.) 2) Monthly operational costs not dedicated to specific primary/caucus efforts will be $2.5 million/month. 3) Savvy media buys like we’ve never seen before. 50/50 spending ratio for ground and ad buys in IA, NH, and SC.
The 2016 primary schedule is daunting but less so than it was in 2008. It does mean that most of the ducks through March have to be in their rows by 12/31/15. Putting a price tag on that:
- $22.5 million for Operation Central budget July through March
- $8 million Iowa
- $6 million New Hampshire
- $7 million South Carolina
- $4 million Nevada
- $15 million — half the cost of Super Tuesday
Total $55.5 million. Round up to $60 million to include $4.5 million contingency fund.
With 6/30 cash on hand of $12 million, not less than $48 million must be raised during the next six months. Gonna need a lot more donors. Tall order, but doable. Over half a million people donated to Howard Dean. Sanders needs to do somewhat better than that. And more donors contributing smaller amounts would be more robust than fewer donors making larger contributions. Either way, his campaign will need to generate $8 million/month for him to be competitive.
Last item. Team Sanders has released a five minute introductory video. The format is conventional. Structurally not different from what we’ve seen countless times from candidates for state and federal offices. Yet, it does (mostly) avoid the saccharine tone, imagery, and music that we’re accustomed to seeing and that make them so boring. It’s well done and clearly put together by people that know what they’re doing. And without much effort could be chopped up into ten effective thirty second ads. I’d still prefer that his campaign get more creative and quirky to capture more attention with each TV spot. Will have to maximize quality because the competition has the money to buy quantity.
….
….
Stay tuned.
Update: Bernie Sanders — July 29, 2015 — Nationwide Meet-Up
Glendale, CA
Everyone, we are pleased to announce that we have secured a new location for our July 29th Organizing Meeting! As many of you know, we began planning this event with the expected turnout of around 30 people. We now have approximately 180 people ready to make July 29th the beginning of a major turning point in US history! Bernie has over 2,500 confirmed locations and 80,000+ RSVPs; July 29th will mark the beginning of a massive mobilization of the citizenry to take our country back.
Americans for Bernie Sanders
Boston, MAOur Mission: To transform America and American politicsOur Goal: To get Bernie Sanders elected President. Phase One: To get as many Progressives elected as possible in 2016 Phase Two: To double the number of Progressives elected to Congress in 2018
Didn’t expect to see this level of organization and enthusiasm among volunteers quite this early. Team Sanders is running ahead of the curve.
Update #2
NYTimes Stung in 2008, Hillary Clinton Builds a Formidable Team in Iowa
…
Ms. Mueller, who at 24 is already a disciplined veteran of political campaigns in Virginia, New York and Arkansas, is one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 47 paid organizers in Iowa, a sizable and growing army. The formidable infrastructure, larger than any other candidate’s for either party in Iowa, shows Mrs. Clinton’s determination not to leave anything to chance in the state with the first nominating contest, where she suffered a bruising setback in her last presidential run.…
“One of the things that I learned last time is it’s organize, organize, organize,” Mrs. Clinton said in a recent interview with CNN. “And you’ve got to get people committed, and then they will follow through, and then you bring more people.”
Clinton campaign claims that it in Iowa it has ten field offices and 7,000 volunteers, and the house party, grassroots volunteer operations are in full swing.
At a recent house party in a former Grange hall in Newton, which Mrs. Clinton did not attend, about 45 Democrats and independents were asked to sign commitment cards to caucus for Mrs. Clinton, or to check boxes indicating that they would volunteer to “Knock on doors!” or “Be a captain!”
Slight wrinkle:
Many at the Clinton house party in Newton said Mr. Sanders was the candidate they were most drawn to. “I like everything he says,” said Dean Lane, who farms 1,800 acres of corn and soybeans.
…
Few of the 45 in attendance signed the Clinton commitment cards or said they were ready to volunteer for her.
Manufacturing enthusiasm isn’t easy.
South Carolina and Super-Tuesday are the tests. Which means early organization in both those states. Good showings boost his credibility as a winner. Crossover showings that are not ABC also boost his credibility.
Making Clinton’s team work for the nomination strengthens the Democratic possibilities and possibly improves chances of coattails.
For a New England Jew, yes, certainly!
Dean and many other candidates flamed out after Iowa. Sanders has to do well enough in Iowa and as a New Englander, New Hampshire to not get bumped out of the race. If he does well there, he can still be a gadfly despite the South. But if he is to have any chance of winning, you are right that he must do at least OK in the South winner a good number of delegates.
The populist game changer realigns Southern workers, who are currently eaten up with racism. For Democrats to take the rural South requires breaking through to issues with a demographic that is totally bamboozled by falsehoods.
Which is why he must have a fresh and bold strategy for dealing with white supremacist thinking.
The working folks in small towns across this country have been taken apart by the actions of large corporations. That in most cases is the real source of their anger, which because of differences in power they cannot really express or lose what economic toehold they currently have.
Sadly, Bill Clinton or John Edwards could have done this as sons of the South.
No, they couldn’t have done it. They may have been raised in working class homes, but once out, they never looked back and may never have identified with their roots in the first place. They succeeded because they were special.
Sanders never wanted to leave if others from similar humble origins weren’t coming along with him.
They could have. They had the right background to be heard. They CHOSE not to. They chose to join the elite instead being leaders of their birth groups.
Let me ‘splain.
Human beings don’t exist in vacuums but within various milieus. From which they derive perspectives, viewpoints, outlooks, etc. Had Sanders followed up his Univ Chicago poli-sci degree with Yale Law school, it would have changed not just his milieu but him. Not a superficial change but a fundamental (and organic) reorganization of his cognitive and emotional functions.
Piaget’s stages of development from birth through age sixteen are comprehensible. What I would point out is that once a stage has been completed an individual loses the capacity to return to the prior one because the brain has reorganized. We now know that anatomically, the brain isn’t fully developed until around the age of 25. Sixteen to twenty-five isn’t (yet) defined as a developmental stage. Maybe it isn’t in the classical Piaget model of physiological maturation and significant re-organization. Then again, we can’t put sixteen year old in a controlled enough environment to observe them for nine years.
What cognitive psychologists and biologists have learned in the past fifty years is that at a cellular level our brains continue to change; albeit more slowly as we lose plasticity as we age. “Can’t go home again” is an observable manifestation of that cellular change. The further one is away from “home” and the longer one is away, the greater the divide between the person today and once was.
Edwards’ “Two Americas” was an intellectual abstraction and as such, disconnected from the social and emotional milieu in which the man had long been invested in. It didn’t resonate with his being.
A reason why charities produce so little for the invested time and money is that they are patronizing and the goods and services are delivered by outsiders that “know” what’s best for the recipients.
Clinton and Edwards are still able to speak with their regional drawl, but they can no better communicate with today’s “conservative” “good old boys” than you or I can. They don’t view Clinton and Edwards as “one of us that succeeded and that makes us look good.”
I once said that “the day I think I’m too good or important to file is the day I should be fired.” Because that would mean that I didn’t value and respect the work and person of those that did file. Continuing to do actual “shitwork,” even if it’s limited, helps us not to lose connections with those that are less fortunate. (And not that symbolic shit of handing out food at free Thanksgiving dinners.)
Sanders isn’t a Gandhi and perhaps his ability to communicate and connect with working folks is limited to those Vermont. Those that are conscious of what has been missing from the Democratic party at a policy level for decades easily gravitate towards him because we’re hearing the right words and they’re authentic to Sanders. But is there any music or magic that those armored with “god, gay, and guns” can hear? I’m going to study this RedState article Bruce Springsteen and the Right because there’s something to it.
The question is how to break through it. Sanders is at least setting the table for doing so. But it’s such a thick wall that one man and one election cycle is probably too much to ask. Who can Sanders pass the baton to if he doesn’t get further than putting chinks in it?
My daughter, who lives in Alabama, says that younger Alabamans aren’t nearly as racist as their parents. So, change may come slowly.
I’ve been interested in system dynamics, mostly of physical systems, but there are a lot of parallels in social systems. Physical systems resist change of state. Change is slow then suddenly comes crashing out. water heats and steams but suddenly comes to a rolling boil. More apt perhaps is the analogy of a beam creaking and bending slightly under load then catastrophically collapsing. Or the sudden formation of raindrops. Combustion too is a catastrophic process.
She used to cringe at the open and loud use of the N word, but has adjusted. To me, that’s a regression.
The process to analyze systems isn’t all that different — it’s just all the freaking components of systems that one must first know before it can be analyzed. Along with recognizing what the “whole” is.
While I can’t follow the bulk of the details of engineering/science/tech analyses, it’s not too difficult to recognize when the analytical process is high quality.
Too much social science is sloppy or lacks rigorous evaluation of variables and their interactions. Leading to optimistic projections of the outcome of a system tweak. A problem is that the outcomes aren’t take time to materialize and then are subject to debates on what caused what, when, and how. Not like a poorly designed and/or built building that fails.
It plays out somewhat differently in each election cycle and the process isn’t the same for DEM and GOP candidates. The jockeying among several states in 2008 to hold their primary early created a bit of a mess for the Democratic candidates. The 2016 calendar is tidier than it was in 2008.
Like it or not, the race in Iowa sets up competitive dynamics on the DEM side. The results there impact NH, and NH impacts SC and NV, and all four impact Super Tuesday. Two reasons why SC ended up being so important in 2008 is that it was assumed to be a strong electorate for Clinton and Edwards and it was there that Obama blew both of them out of the water. Otherwise, Obama had a more modest lead over Clinton going into Super Tuesday and under that condition, Super Tuesday could easily have put her in the lead. Most critically, Clinton lost her AA base in SC. Had that base been more evenly split between the two or been captured by Obama during the pre-election period, the SC results wouldn’t have been viewed as so important.
If Sanders hobbles out of Iowa with a weak second place finish, it’s over. Wins in Iowa and NH and strong in NV, a landslide for Clinton in SC won’t be all that important.
Bill’s anti-Obama dog-whistling lost Hillary’s African-American base in South Carolina. Not sure that they will forget. The Obama alternative was obvious in 2008.
I don’t African-American South Carolinians going for Chafee, Webb, or O’Malley for some very specific reasons. It will be a pragmatic decision with regard to Clinton and Sanders. Will Bill have mended fences from his stupid (or Mark Penn’s stupid) tactical blunder.
Bernie would have a stronger showing if he were a mainstream Protestant. I’ve heard plenty of anti-Semitic remarks from black friends, maybe more than from whites. I think it stems from the visible presence of Jewish store owners in the Ghetto.
How many generations has it been since there were Jewish store owners in poor AA communities? The Rodney King riots were over a generation ago and there weren’t any then.
I suppose some of this antagonism (assuming it’s real and of any relevance) was exacerbated by Jesse Jackson. Perhaps he’ll see fit to endorse Sanders.
You have to remember that many of the black people I know are my own age or at least within ten years of it.
We all remember the sixties or at least the early seventies.
Also note that CA has had two Jewish Senators since 1992. In her last re-election, Boxer received 82% of the AA vote. (White people are so dumb they would have elected the odious Fiorina.)
Sounds like they might not remember that time very well. The staunchest supporters of the US civil rights movement were Jews. (Perhaps your AA associates absorbed anti-Semitism from “the man.”)
Jewish Americans support the Iran deal more than Americans overall.
And then you read right-wing blogs about such results and their anti-semitism comes to the fore, especially in comment sections.
Well, there are the facts and then there’s the narrative.
Drives me nuts that narratives based on falsehoods are so easy to sell.
Had no idea Boxer was Jewish. Feinstein, OK, I can see that as Jewish, maybe German. Many Germans here in Chicago, so such dual names are not uncommon. Feinstein = Fine Stone = maybe Jewel?
I’m aware of the Jewish support of the US civil rights movement.
“White people are so dumb they would have elected the odious Fiorina” Some may have just liked that Latin “ina”. Few people pay attention to policy other than a vague idea of what parties stand for.
No. There’s no use in beating around the bush. If only white people voted, there probably wouldn’t have been a Democratic president since FDR. Republicans running for president have won the majority white vote every time since FDR, and I’m only guessing with regard to FDR because of Democratic southern dominance of the time, voting was difficult for minorities, and his wins were so substantially large.
Outside of New England, white people vote Republican. Period.
Sorry, I suppose I shouldn’t have used the word “majority” because 1992 and 1996, where no one won the majority of the white vote. However, Bush and Dole won more of the white vote than Clinton.
If only white people voted, there probably wouldn’t have been a Democratic president since FDR.
Correct if we recognize that it was the shift in the AA vote outside the south in 1948 from predominately GOP to DEM that facilitated Truman’s election.
OTOH, when Republicans dominate for twelve years, they muck everything up so thoroughly that a larger proportion of white folks switch. The New Deal programs and regulatory systems have been robust enough that they have insulated Republicans being known by their real agenda.
Yes, without the AA vote, Dewey would have eked out an electoral college win (though would lose the popular vote).
And ofc Johnson thoroughly won the white vote in ’64, but would that scenario have been allowed to happen if Kennedy wasn’t president? I don’t think so. I say Nixon probably would have thrashed his opponent in ’64 had Kennedy lost in ’60 (which he would have without the AA vote; Nixon won the white vote in 1960 by 51%).
Anyway, original point still stands: white people (nationally) vote Republican, but switch in some regions to Democrat. Obama won the Wisconsin white vote in 2008, but lost it in 2012, for example.
Re-imagining history is easy if one only selects a couple of variables and excludes everything else and all the dynamics.
A Johnson-Kennedy ticket in 1960 would probably have been stronger than the Kennedy-Johnson ticket was. A Johnson-Brown ticket might have been stronger still because it could have retained the Catholic vote and put CA in play. (Recall, that Nixon lost to Brown in the 1962 CA gubernatorial election.)
A Nixon win in 1960 would have changed the dynamics of the civil rights movement. Take the post LBJ civil rights legislation out of the equation, not implausible that Nixon could have lost in ’64. An HHH-Brown or Brown-HHH ticket would have been strong.
Would have changed the course of Vietnam too. I don’t think Nixon was as hawkish as Kennedy, but I might be wrong. It might have been Eisenhower reining in his VP. But Kennedy was extremely hawkish and anti-Communist. We all know about the Cuban Missile Crisis, but how many know that it was precipitated by Kennedy planting IRBM’s in Turkey?
That’s the point — we don’t know. Well, we do know that the Bay of Pigs invasion predated JFK and Nixon wasn’t exactly “out of the loop.”
Let’s not forget that the roots of the US-Vietnam were planted by Ike. An Nixon wasn’t just an anti-communist be a rabid anti-communist. If elected in 1960, I’m confident that he would have done something dreadful, but another four years of GOP fiscal policy would have thrown the country back into recession and Nixon would have lost in ’64.
Covert ops are one thing and you’re right, Nixon was in the thick of that. But Eisenhower was too good a General to provoke a nuclear confrontation. Also, that’s why he didn’t commit to Vietnam. But IKE was from a previous generation, not even my father’s, my grandfather’s. Hell! He was a WW I veteran wasn’t he?
Don’t forget that Nixon was nuts.
Yes, definitely paranoid. No wonder he got along in the covert ops world. Those guys are all nuts. It actually helps to be paranoid.
Wasn’t a “tactical blunder.” Bill’s been doing this shit for most of his career. SC wasn’t supposed to hear what he said in NH and it was effective at the eleventh hour for her there.
Now he’s out there on his mea culpa tour about imprisoning all those black folks. Gosh darn, he didn’t mean to do that. So, he’s either not half as smart as he has claimed or he’s a liar.
I don’t know if others can forgive and forget. Only know that my forgive and forget gene for throwing anyone under the bus for personal advantage is close to zero. It wasn’t clear to me in the 1990s if my outrage over Bill dumping on Sister Souljah, Lani Guinere, Joyclyn Elders, the Marion Wright Edelman was because they were AA or women. 2008 clarified it; it was both.
Forget the three also-rans, a total non-factor in SC. I see black SCians as being willing to forgive Bill for his 2008 remarks. His apology about over-incarceration during his presidency helps that process.
Hillary needs that AA vote, and the Hispanics out west. If Bernie is able to cut significantly into her share, it’s all over for her.
But that’s not likely to happen. The Bern just doesn’t resonate with people of color. Hillary will have an easier time of plausibly going left-lib with her DP positions and getting enough liberals to back her than Bernie will trying to get enough of the black vote to matter.
Sanders also has his rather pathetic pro-NRA record (until recent years) on opposing gun control to account for with liberals and minority Dems. Good grief, he even opposed the Brady bill and supported in 2005 a bill that eliminates civil liability for gun mfr.’s and dealers. a centerpiece of legislation for the NRA.
The Bern just doesn’t resonate with people of color.
Early polling doesn’t support that assertion at all. It’s propaganda that’s being promoted by one or more factions in the body politics.
Shame on you for repeating it here.
Don’t know what polling you are referring to. Bernie himself has said recently (NYT interview):
“I’m not well known in the African-American community, despite a lifelong record,” Sanders told The Times. “That’s a real issue, and I have to deal with it.”
Of course he has a few months and some debates to work on that problem. And my point stands: if he’s able to get traction in that community and make significant inroads on Hillary’s lead with minority voters, she is in deep trouble.
I don’t see it happening.
Being not well known within a certain demographic doesn’t mean that one “doesn’t resonate” within that group. The Economist/YouGov poll covered this question — and among Latinos and AA that are familiar with Sanders, he does better than he does among white people. So, you can appreciate why I bristled at your factually free statement that is something team Clinton and the GOP would like Democrats to believe is true.
We’ll see as the campaign unfolds. One poll of a handful of minorities familiar with Bernie this far out is virtually meaningless. And I do think, as mentioned elsewhere in this site, that Bernie has some personal handicaps that usually spell difficulty in trying to grab a good share of the minority vote.
Meanwhile, for better or worse, mostly better, Hillary, unlike Bernie, has been a familiar face to them for several decades now. She doesn’t need to introduce herself or convince them she cares about their issues. She just can’t take the vote for granted. Doubt if she will.
Double meanwhile, Bernie, to his credit, recognizes he has a problem with the non-white voters. and seems to be undertaking an adjustment in his campaign to address the issue. But it’s quite a bit to overcome. I’m skeptical about his chances.
“Consulting”, I think that’s how the money was sucked out of Dean’s campaign. OTOH, the services of professionals doesn’t come cheap. I wish some of them would donate their time or change a nominal living wage fee. Part of the problem is merchandising candidates like bread or soda pop.
A remarkable diary that must have taken a lot of time and thought. Excellent work, Marie!
The dollars I project that Sanders needs aren’t too much more than what Dean raised.
Where Dean flubbed was probably in hiring Trippi. He took too large a cut on the ad buys and in Iowa purchased late and focused on what was seen as the primary competitor, Gephardt, instead of presenting Dean as the guy that wouldn’t have supported the Iraq disaster.
After Iowa, assuming a win, there wouldn’t have been anywhere for Gephardt to go after any initial buzz because voters then start thinking about general election electibility. I casually snooped around to assess whether or not Gephardt could carry MO in the general. The odds weren’t good for him. An ability to carry one’s home state is important. (If Gore couldn’t carry TN, should he have been the nominee?)
The consultants have to eat in between election cycles when the dollars flow more quickly and freely. It’s not an easy industry to stay in. (A former in-law of mine really liked the work, but was out after eight years.)
I just have to quadruple my contribution. Not hard, but at some point it becomes too much for a pensioner.
○ Quinnipiac poll: Sanders Does ‘Better Than Clinton’ Against GOP in Swing States
According to a July 22, 2015 Quinippiac University Poll, Hillary Clinton’s once overwhelming lead in public opinion has been cut substantially, and it’s still a long way to the February 1, 2016 Iowa Caucus. In states that will decide the 2016 presidential election, Quinippiac reports that “Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, runs as well as, or better than Clinton against Rubio, Bush and Walker.”
According to its latest poll, Quinippiac explains how Clinton’s lead has eroded in swing states, while Sanders’s surge has spread from Iowa and New Hampshire to other key regions.
○ This is why Hillary’s losing: The issue Jeb Bush and Donald Trump understand, which may keep Clinton from the White House | Salon | [Jeb Bush (?) and family dynasty – Oui]
The subject of my “Q poll and flubbing” diary from a few days ago.
Another impression from scanning the results again is that the more people know of any of the candidates, the higher their unfavorables climb.
At the time of this poll, Sanders wasn’t well enough known to draw any firm conclusions to project how he’ll be perceived as he becomes better known. However, in such a relatively short time, he’s doing well on name recognition.
Sanders’ name recognition in these three states is similar to Walker’s name recognition.
Odd that Santorum name ID is so low. Or maybe people have chosen to forget him from four years ago with the expectation that he wouldn’t be around again.
Here’s the map
3,146 meetings. >80,000 RSVPs. High percentages of meetings are fully booked.
Now up to 3,344 meetings and >93,000 RSVPs.
“Grassroots organizing on this scale this early in a campaign has never before been undertaken by a presidential campaign. In his first run for the White House, Barack Obama hosted 4,000 online house parties in June of 2008, just a few months before Election Day.”
Thanks. Recalled that Dean made use of this strategy in 2003, but they seemed to be more about fundraising than organizing volunteers at least early on. Team Obama used everything Dean had pioneered, but again can’t recall if they were used for organizing this early in the election cycle.
Should note that way back when, house parties for campaign fundraising and to distribute button, flyers, and bumper stickers were held. Not particularly successful for good Democratic grassroots candidates.
I went to a Hillary Clinton rally in 2008 (was a “Young Dem”). She wasn’t there, Bill was. He came to the VA Tech campus. Same thing then: stupid commitment card required in order to get in.
Commitment card to get in? The 2015 report from Iowa is that it’s not required to get in or out. Perhaps it’s different if a Clinton appears at the event.
Yes. I don’t know if it’s different whether or not a Clinton is there, and I mean I was an organizer of the event (most of the members were for Obama at the time). But you were handed a commitment card and a pen at the outside doors, and then before you got to the main event doors another person would take your card. No card, no entry.
I got in through the back and met Clinton, being an organizer.