Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Why Everyone Is Wrong: Hillary Has More Money And The Upcoming Democratic Races Are Wide-Open

On Super Tuesday over 2000 delegates were up for grabs from 22 states for the Democrats, and though the allocation of delegates hasn't been completely finalized, Hillary Clinton has captured the majority. A sound estimate for delegate totals can be found here, Hillary with 1012 and Obama 933.

Now I would agree with all the pundits that there is no real front-runner in the Democratic Party, however that's all I would agree with them on. Unlike most television networks, pundits, and even liberal bloggers here in Canada, such as Far and Wide, All Politics Is Local, and The Colby File, I actually believe the upcoming contests this weekend are undecided and too close to call.

The typical position is that because the upcoming contests are caucuses, and Obama has had a history of doing well in caucuses that he will do well in Washington, Louisiana, and Nebraska. Now though there aren't any recent polls, and in most cases any polls on these states I would say either has a moderate chance at winning them. In Washington there was a poll done in October and it gave Hillary at a 26 point lead. Now granting Obama has been becoming more known and thus has gotten support, the poll, even old and dated would at least go to support that Washington is undecided.

An additional point is money. Now it is hyped by Obama supporters and media outlets that are Obama-friendly that Obama is doing so well because he raised more money then Hillary in the last quarter, but the thing that they aren't mentioning, even with that, Hillary Clinton has almost 20 million dollars more then Obama. Its reported that Hillary has 37,947,874 dollars on hand, while Obama only has 18,626,248 dollars on hand. With those numbers the picture changes and it makes me wonder why is no one talking about this?

Now true it could be argued that Obama raising more money is advantageous because now he can spend more, but the fact is he still can't spend as much as Hillary. Not to mention there aren't that many more races left to spend, in Hillary's case, 38 million dollars, and not even including the fact she's still raising money.

(Newly Added) Now it is true in the month of January Obama raised 30 million dollars to Hillary's 18.5 million, five of which were her own dollars, but the fact that remains would suggest Hillary still has the financial upper hand. As noted above, Hillary had 38 Million dollars, now plus the 18.5 million she raised in January, that gives her a total of 56.5 million. Considering in the many months prior to January, she only spent 40 million dollars, I ask how could Hillary blow more in one month then she did in the whole campaign thus far?

Now Obama only had 18 million, and raised 30 million in January, putting him at 48 million. Now considering he spent 44 million dollars before January, and has a history of outspending Hillary, not to mention he bought superbowl ads, I would think if anyone needs money its Obama.

But some still say, "Well why would Hillary loan her campaign money if she had more money then Obama?" It's quite simple. Hillary wants to win and I know I would not loan, but give my campaign every million I had in the race to the White House.

Of the media and blogs, everyone is suggesting Hillary is facing defeat in the upcoming races and that she's losing the financial war, however everyone of those commentators is wrong.

27 comments:

Steve V said...

"In Washington there was a poll done in October and it gave Hillary at a 26 point lead."

Scott, pleeeazzeee!!! What state didn't have Hillary up 26 points FIVE months ago. I consider 10 day old polls ancient, good grief.

As for "cash on hand", let's try some basic logic. If, Hillary has all this money, why then did her staff agree to work WITHOUT pay for February?? Why do you loan yourself 5 million, when you have liquidity?? When McCain did it, he was broke, down and out, nowhere. I'm not suggesting the same for Hillary, but you don't stop paying staff and loaning yourself money if you are awash in "cash in hand". That fact seems beyond obvious.

As I said at my place, look at the some of the storylines today, then ask yourself which ones are good for your candidate, which ones not so much:

"Obama raises record 4 million today"

"Clinton staffers work without pay"

"Clinton loans herself 5 million"

"Obama raises more than double Clinton in January"

I've watched a few newscasts, scanned the online newspaper heavyweights. The free media takes money very seriously, probably too much, but that translates to favorable and unfavorable perceptions.

Steve V said...

Me again, those cash on hand figures you cite where for the end of 2007, before a vote was cast. Also part of that cash is allocated for the general election, the campaign can't touch it, because it came from maxed out donors.

Anonymous said...

Those financial figures are the only ones that have been released, and the latest ones available. The statements are quarterly.

I agree, every old poll had Hillary up, but they didn't all have her up by such a margin, so in that light I'm only suggesting there's more a reason to believe the race is open, I could say it would suggest Hillary has more of a chance, but I won't be as presumptious.

Hillary gave her campaign 5 million dollars, simply because she wants to win. If I had money and I still had more campaign finances then the other guy, you'd bet I'd be giving as much money as possible to ensure I won the highest office in the land, she'd be foolish not too. As well with her campaign workers working for free, she's pulling out all the stops to beat Obama, because she wants it.

These financial numbers are facts, Hillary has more money then Obama. Hillary has more personal money then Obama. Hillary wants it, and she's willing to give up all her money to do so. Why would anyone care what she does with her money? Especially when's she's beating Obama in delegates and finances?

Scott Tribe said...

C'mon Scott.. you're doing better then Cherniak at being a Clinton shill, and that's hard to do :)

You're taking your delegate count from RCP? A right-wing biased blog? Look at some of the other blogs - and you'll see Obama leads in ACTUAL delegates won by election - not counting all these super-delegates which as shown here by one of the liberal blogs in the US, is rather meaningless and that if that's Clinton's camps main talking point, they're in trouble.

Anonymous said...

Cbc had two black political commentators on yesterday who said it is the media thats all backing obama....and he all hype. Kinda reminds me of a young Brian Mulroney. Boy he sure had a way with words. He could make all sit up and notice...but thats all he was ...a smooth-tongue liar...he had no legs.

Joseph said...

I see the super-delegates being counted as unfair to Obama, but only in the sense that it counter-balances the delegates not shown because supposedly Michigan and Florida "won't count." If this goes to the convention without a clear winner, you had damn well better believe they'll count.

That is the only scenario that could prove the undoing of Clinton or Obama. For them, and for the party, I hope one of them wraps this up before the election.

I know this may fly in the face of the conventional wisdom, but my first instinct yesterday was that the strategy of the Hillary camp yesterday was to begin presenting themselves visually as the underdog. And that might not be a bad strategy.

The talking point of the pundits now - not that they all follow the same sheet but let's face it they do parrot each other with established "facts" and "lines of rationale" that no one could possibly know with certainty - is that Obama has the easier route now the longer the race goes on.

The rationale is he is competing against the "de-facto" incumbent and that he "always" does well when a state gets to know him better - I guess with the exception of the races he hasn't won in which case that "fact" somehow doesn't apply.

It may be true that Obama can take advantage of the coming states and schedule, but the key word is "may." Is it also not possible that he gained the most at the onset of January because he was the "new item" on the market - with all the love at first sight attributes that come with a new personal love or brand new toy everyone covets?

Does anyone really think the people in Virginia or Maryland or Pennsylvania aren't aware of Obama now? You'd have to live in a shell at the bottom of a cave not to see the phenomenon underway. It is reasonable to assume every voter in the US now gets Obama 24 / 7 when they turn on the TV and most have probably seen at least one of his speeches.

I think Clinton's campaign might be trying to use the media frenzy to their advantage. Tuesday night certainly convinced me it is indeed a frenzy. I think the person who commented in a US paper said it best when he described three possible outcomes Tuesday:

1. Hillary loses votes and delegates badly. Obama wins.

2. Hillary and Obama split votes and delegates. Obama wins.

3. Hillary wins the most votes and delegates. Obama wins.

The fact is, given the punditry on Tuesday, it certainly felt like that. They were all convinced that Obama was set to coast now, even as they were announcing California for Hillary about, oh maybe, 12 hours quicker than the networks had anticipated.

If I were the Clinton campaign, I'd seriously consider giving into the frenzy and putting Obama out there as the frontrunner - maybe not by announcing it and breaking your momentum - but by finding ways to "show" yourself as the challenger, the underdog.

- Claim you want to have debates every week! (oh, they did that)

- Announce staff is foregoing pay and that Hillary is making a loan to the campaign (done)

- Start going to local media in upcoming states for free intereviews - pundits will love going on about the "cost savings" measures the campaign has taken on (not done yet, but wouldn't be surprised to see it).

The point is it might be wise. But it might also be a way of making yourself the challenger and turning Obama into the presumed nominee. Nothing would get the press moving into the "what challenges would Obama face?" story line than to imply that their crystal balls may be right.

Might not help next Tuesday. But by the time March 4 rolls around - Texas and Ohio - they could reap benefits by deflecting the harsh media lights toward Obama for a bit.

Anyway, I'm droning on here. But it's worth a thought. I don't really buy the "out of money" argument because the biggest media expenditures of the primary season just ended. Neither Obama or Clinton are exactly drowning in debt at the moment. Bragging rights might sound like a good idea for Obama but Hillary may be using that to her advantage. She's got plenty of cash to move on.

Steve V said...

"You're taking your delegate count from RCP? A right-wing biased blog?"

Scott, how exactly is that relevant to delegate counts for two Democrats. There are lots of media outlets that include super-delegates. Basically, the only one's that do what Chris did are those that are Obama backers. It's all true of course, but the middle of the road media shows Obama slightly behind, CNN plus 80, NYT Clinton plus 170, Was Pos Clinton plus 80. RCP is just like every other organization, bias aside, numbers are what they are.

joseph

Nobody is arguing Clinton is broke, but there is no question it's getting tight. Let's say you have 40 thousand in the bank, do you then go take out a line of credit for another 10. Makes no sense, I believe Clinton's campaign blew through gobs of money for the national primary, you could easily blow 5-10 million in California without breaking a sweat. Obama went national with ads, the Clinton campaign had to response, when the figures are released, people will be amazed at what was spent for the national primary, and before, for that matter.

Anonymous said...

I am sick of this one side media attention, obama this obama that, as canadians we should not get involved with so called movement, heck hitler was a movement, movements are usually a bad thing, none the less, canada should be looking at this from the economic side, obama is promising to much, problem with his promises, no money, bush spent it all, and what really set me off on him, is the president johnson and mlk incindent, insinuating it was a racist remark, the clintons where right, if it wasnt for johnson, there would of been no mlk, imagine the white house with the right in its seat...and if one critisizes the obama plan to much then they are racist, he should of come out right away and said, stop it, clintons did a lot for the african american and I will not accept any racist spitting on mrs. clinton, but he did not, he used the race card to benefit himself, making him a black candidate....economicaly. he is as dangerous as bush, where is he gona get the money, from china??? and what about his iraq policy, what? hes gonna pull out, leave the mess behind? give alqaida a foot hold, leave the shias and sunnis to battle it out? how many woman and children will die in this massacre if he pulls out? he cant pull out, the americans made the mess and the rest of the world would freak, and america would loose more influence than with bush...he is a junior senator, with no experience, and his policies make no sense......now at lease, the clintons have a past, fixing the economy and as a canadian, I would rather take a chance on her, than put my faith in a inexperience bush look alike, one inexperience fool in 8 years is enough...after all if the americans go down they bring us with them...thats the real issue....not a useless movement...

Love liberal hypocracy said...

You and other Libloggers obsessed with the Democrats aren't AMERICAN!

On another note, I am just curious why Liberals like yourself support Obama and do not support Stephen Harper?

Like Stephen Harper, Hillary wishes to continue our fight against terrorist in Afghanistan.

Like Stephen Harper, Hillary wishes some form of privatized health care.

Like Stephen Harper, Hillary supports the death penalty...oh wait, that's a liberal fabrication against Harper but my bad, you get the point.

Hillary also supports some form of presence in Iraq to be continued.

I'm a true blue blooded Conservative and besides Hillary being a woman, I love her hawkish ways.

Shouldn't you all be supporting Dennis Kucinich?

Anonymous said...

Scott Tribe: I believe Real Clear Politics presents polling data and results in an unbiased way. I believe Obama talks a good game, but has little substance. I may be a shill, but that's only if your definition of shill includes being able to factually support ones argument effectively.

Steve V: It may make no sense that
Hillary would loan her campaign 5 million dollars to you, unless she has little money, but it makes no sense she has little money too.

She had 38 Million dollars, plus the 18.5 million she raised in January. For a total of 56.5 million. Considering in the many months prior to Jan., she only spent 40 million dollars, Obama 44 million, I ask how could Hillary blow more in one month then she did in the whole campaign thus far?

Now Obama only had 18 million, and raised 30 million in January, putting him at 48 million. He bought superbowl ads, and has a history of outspending Hillary, not to mention I've yet to see a Hillary Ad. So by this I am confident, and supported by evidence, that Obama has less money then Hillary.

Liberal Hypocracy: I am a liberal and a Liberal. I am not supporting anyone in the American Presidential race. I am paying attention and discussing the American race because I believe the office affects us as well as others monumentally.

Joseph: Very good points, I agree Obama was pretty much gonna be claimed the victor no matter what happened.

Anon: I also believe, with evidence, that the media is biased towards Obama, at least the coverage I've seen.
-Scott

-scott

Steve V said...

scott

The empirical evidence you use is skewed. Clinton did not have 38 million available at the end of December, actually she had:

According to Clinton's latest Federal Election Commission report, had roughly $18.5 million cash on hand that could be spent during the primary season heading into January’s initial contests.

Drop 20 million, that money is slotted for the general, she can't touch it.



"You and other Libloggers obsessed with the Democrats aren't AMERICAN!"

Thanks for the clarification, very insightful.

Anonymous said...

Steve V:

Where did you get the idea she can't touch 20 million dollars? I'm looking at her statement, and I'm not seeing that. http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?drillLevel=US&stateName=&cand_id=P00003392&searchType=&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=

Steve V said...

Because that money can only be used for the general election. Donors who are maxed out can still give money for the general election. The 38 million is the total, but that doesn't mean she can use it all now, all the campaigns have this within their numbers. Obama's is much less, because he relies on more donors, who contribute less, and haven't maxed out, allowing them to put more for the primaries.

I provided a quote from the Washington Post, if people want to continue with the illusion that she HAD (key word) 38 million at her disposal, then fine, but the fact are she HAD less than half that figure.

I would add, the Clinton campaign has publicly stated that the 5 million dollar loan was used to "keep pace" with the Obama spending. That suggests much of the contribution totals were spent, and they needed more to compete. In my mind, this all seems quite obvious, but apparently not if you are a Clinton backer.

The good news, Clinton has raised big money since Super Tuesday, reports of 6 million, to Obama's 7 plus.

Anonymous said...

Oprah made al gore look like an idiot when he was on her show before the election and she made george and laura look marvelous...now she is trying to push obama on the american people and a lot will follow her because she gives away FREE things which she gets FREE from companies for advertising their products...scammers

Anonymous said...

Steve V: That washington Post article was about January fund raising, not what she had at the end of January.
-scott

Steve V said...

LOL, believe what you want.

Anonymous said...

steve:

Yes I will believe the Federal Election Commission's reports.

Steve V said...

Clinton advisers were stunned by Obama's January fundraising and have marveled at his ability to raise small-dollar amounts from a vast field of donors.

"We will have funds to compete," chief Clinton strategist Mark Penn said, "but we're likely to be outspent again."

An analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks trends in political money, found that Obama raised about a third of his money in 2007 from donors who gave $200 or less. Only one-third of his money came from donors who have given the legal maximum of $2,300, compared to Clinton who raised about half of her money from "maxed out" donors and only 14 percent from donors of $200 or less.




Huffington Post


"Her advisers says she’s considering another loan because money is tight now"

New Republic

"Her advisers says she’s considering another loan because money is tight now — the mega-primaries yesterday were quite the financial drain."

New York Times

"At the end of 2007, Mrs. Clinton had $37 million in cash, with $18.5 million for the primary and the remaining $19 million earmarked for the general election."

New York Times

Liars!

Dan said...

Not that polls have been very accurate thus far but there's a Washington poll out today saying Obama's up 13 points.

Anonymous said...

Steve:

My position doesn't even attempt to imply those sources are what you sarcastically claimed "liars." I said with evidence from the Federal Elections Commission that Hillary had 38 million dollars as of the end of 2007. The only possible repudiation you offfer is a NYT times quote that says 19 million of that is earmarked, but the funny thing is, she's the one who earmarked it!

It's her campaign that doesn't want to touch it. So that's even proving my point more because Obama only has 5 million for the general election. So who is more ready?

Steve V said...

"It's her campaign that doesn't want to touch it."

This is beyond maddening. She CAN'T touch it, that money is for the general election, that is the only way tapped out donors can keep giving. What is so hard to grasp here?

Romney raised 5 million during a fundraiser in Mass a couple weeks ago. You know how much he could use for Super Tuesday? 1 million, the rest had to be allocated for the general, due to fundraising rules.

I'm done, this is boring to be frank.

Anonymous said...

Steve: CNN, the Washington post, and others are stating she has access to the full 38 million dollars.

Steve V said...

anon


Not sure why I bother, but this from CNN:

According to Clinton's latest Federal Election Commission report, had roughly $18.5 million cash on hand that could be spent during the primary season heading into January’s initial contests.


BTW, this is just pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Steve: I'm not sure where CNN said that, because it certainly would be funny considering they say clearly she has 38 million on hand here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/money/dems.html

Here's where the Washington Post says she has 38 million on hand: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/2007/q4/comparison/

And I've already included above where the Federal Elections Committee says she has 38 million cash on hand.

Now if it's on hand, doesn't that mean she can, if not already touch it?

Steve V said...

Associated Press, for the Washington Post:

Clinton raised $23.7 million in the last quarter of 2007 for the primary elections compared to Obama's $22 million. Both had about $18.5 million cash on hand for the primaries going into January. But Obama roared to a fundraising lead in January by collecting money at the rate of at least $1 million a day and attracting more than 170,000 new donors.

Steve V said...

You will note, it never says she has 38 million on hand for the PRIMARIES. Use your fucking head for a second would ya, the rest is for the general.

BTW, don't bother polluting my place anymore, I'm erasing all of it, everytime. This isn't a discussion, it's just nonsense. Take care Shosanna, get some fucking help.

Anonymous said...

I've given three sources that say explicitly that Hillary Clinton had 38 million cash on hand. Granted it doesn't say for Primaries, but then how can you have cash in hand and not be able to spend it? Your getting mad because I'm assuming by these credible sources saying "she has the money in hand" that in fact she does have the money in hand .

Your saying I shouldn't believe them because they aren't saying it's for the primaries, well it's not saying portions are earmarked for the general either.

Feel free to block who ever you want from your site. I feel its extremely odd that you'd go back and delete my previous comments on your blog considering you're only doing it because you disagree with me.