by Todd Beeton, Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:56:05 PM EST
Since Pennsylvania was called for Hillary Clinton 3 hours ago she has raised $2.5 million, 80% of which is from new donors.
Voters do not want this to be over.
Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, pennsylvania primary, hillary clinton (all tags)
How did you get this number? WOW!!
Thanks Todd!!
Where is this info coming from?
Progressive Blue
All Obama did, by outspending her 3:1 on TV, was give her a narrative that she was being beat because of the money. The Obama campaign has a serious blind spot, being led by media consultants to not have seen that would happen. The extra spending gave him nothing.
Spending money like a drunken sailor.
On the other side, with Garin now in and Penn out, the era of 'less is more' has finally arrived in the Clinton camp.
I was reading a transcript of Garin and Axelrod on Meet the Press, it is amazing how much better a case Garin makes for Clinton. If only she had made the change two months ago.
Actually I have to admit that Axelrod got the better of him. Garin seems like a nice guy but he has not mastered his subject matter yet. He needs to brush up on talking points before they let him do that again - he should have ripped Axelrod on several big, wide openings but he fumbled for words at times.
Penn is owed money. For how he ran her campaign, she should ask for a refund.
I hope most new voters donating money are from Indiana and NC. That will be sweet and a great media narrative.
If she spends some in NC, the Latinos and rural Whites can bring his advantage to low single digits.
Momentum now to produce a win in Indiana and a narrow loss in NC is doable.
Donate Now! Go Hillary.
i remember a poll last week in which 23% of PA voters identified the incessant barrage of ads from the obama campaign as a factor AGAINST voting for him.
call it the "obama - apply directly to the forehead!" factor.
The extra spending did what Reagan did to the Soviets, it bankrupted her!
Dreamer, you're nothing but a dreamer...
I agree she has 16 years of additional experience than him.
Uhm, he has more legislative experience than she does.
So what counts as experience now, trips to Tusla? Seriously, you really don't want to be making that kind of inane argument, especially since it'll be thrown right back at you in the fall if you even attempt to use it against McCain.
Both have good resumes of experience. Hers is just longer, more varied, has affected more people, and has led her to work on more issues.
Again, he's got 8 years in the State Senate and 3 years in the US Senate. She's got 7yrs in the US Senate.
Additionally, he's authored, co-sponsored, or otherwise pushed more legislation than she has.
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Look up their respective records.
So.......
Again, like I said, her resume is more varied, longer, and has affected more people.
So .......
Her resume? Seriously, you want to talk about resume now?
I'll put up Obama's 12+ years as a Professor and years as a Community Organizer against Hillary Clinton's time on the Wal-mart board and First Lady any day.
Why are we arguing about this? Those who think that experience is necessary overwhelmingly choose Clinton. Look at every single exit poll. It's not about what you or I think, it's about what voters think, and they've time and again said that she has the experience.
People also thought George W. Bush was trustworthy and could lead the country only 4 years ago. They also thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and that 19 of the 20 hijackers were Iraqi, not Saud.
Those suppositions turned out to be true didn't they......
That's a spurious argument since this is a Democratic primary, and I reiterate that what I think or what you think doesn't matter. The vast majority of Democrats have already decided that on the issue of experience, Clinton far exceeds Obama.
What people think and what is actually true is irrelevant. Anyone living in the reality based community, a term coined by a bush administration official a few years ago trying to denigrate those of us who didn't drink their kool-aid on Iraq, should be well aware of this.
Illinois legislation works part time, about (I think) 55 days in a year. So, please multiply Obama's year of legislative experience in Illinois Senate by 1/3 to 1/2 and you get a more realistic number.
So ...... you didn't even address the guy's point.
Yes I did. You want to talk about length of experience. He's authored, co-sponsored, or otherwise been part of way more legislation than she has, even with his more limited active time.
That speaks volumes about what they're capable of doing.
You didn't address the point that an Illinois senator meets for 55 days out of the year.
Considering they're in session for 51 days through May according to this schedule, http://12.43.67.2/senate/schedules/defau lt.asp, I don't think that # is correct.
That said, he has a far more substantial legislative record than Hillary Clinton has. You want to talk about experience, let's talk about experience.
http://thomas.loc.gov. We can compare legislative records. Obama's is more substantial by far.
Please show in full detail how Obama has a more substantial legislative record than Hillary Clinton has, without pointing to THOMAS.
Err, how can I show that Obama has a longer legislative record without going to the place that has their legislative records? LOL
Correction -- without pointing to the THOMAS home page, I meant to say. Prove that he has substantially more legislative accomplishments than Hillary has. Every single news source I've seen out there says they're both about the same in this regard. So, please, prove how you found all this information which all the media has missed.
You mean the same media that missed all those details regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction? The same media that allowed more than 50% of the american public to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11?
As for the direct comparisons of their legislative record in the US Senate, where Clinton has more time in the Senate than he does, here you go: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/ 201332/807
All sourced with Bill #s from http://thomas.loc.gov.
This isn't even counting what he did in the Illinois state senate.
Actually, I call what she has been doing for the last 35 years as experience.
Hillary is by no means 'polluting' his candidacy -- and this is pretty condescending. If he can't take attacks from a fellow Democrat, this speaks volumes of what the Republicans will be able to do to him in the fall. You calling her Rovian is insulting and false.
What bin Laden video is that? Oh, you mean the one that makes a pretty bland point as to who is ready and experienced to lead the country? The one that flashes images of major events of the last sixty years and upcoming crises? Don't freak out about a half-second flash of a terrorist leader. I feel perfectly comfortable supporting her and I thought it played to her strengths.
Democrats lost the majority in 1994 due to a number of reasons -- primarily because Republicans were better organized, had a very effective leader in Gingrich, and had a coherent, anti-government message. And I love how you fault Hillary for losing the Democratic majority yet fail to acknowledge all the times she's gone around the country supporting Democrats, campaigning tirelessly for them, and helping out the Democrats in general. All the while Obama was a community organizer.
So, yeah, she has every right to run on her 35 years of experience. Obama can run on his experience as well. It just pales in comparison.
That charismatic leader capitalized on Clinton's failure to pass health care reform. Ill take Hillary's 35 years of experience versus Obama's judgment, bro. She has not answered the bell the last 15 years.
Stryan makes a strong case for Hillary, rightly pointing out that she has more experience, and proven ability (which she just proved, again, tonight). He has outspent her 3-to-1 for six weeks, and the best he could do was shave off a few points from her rock solid win.
Superdelegates have got to be wondering: why can't he seal the deal? And, if he had been battling McCain on equal financial footing, and without the media in the tank, how on earth would he compete?
when you're running a campaign about hope and dreams!!! w00t!!
/he was down 18 three weeks ago, he got this to 10. /
Jerome already disproved this meme.
And appropriately it is prompting more questions about where it is coming from.
And after Michelle traveling around saying they are plain folk, used to have bill collectors calling and late notices in the mail.
Would look like they had a money management problem if she was pulling down $300,00 annually and he was reportedly getting $70,000 from the board with Ayers.
I don't want them managing the US budget then.
PaintyKat
Did you know that over 60% of Barack Obama's money comes from special interests? Just because you take money directly from CEO's, or from bundlers, instead of using federally registered lobbyists, doesn't mean you can fool us forever Barack.
And your sources are what?
The FEC.
Yes, she will! This is great news about the new donors.
I made the visit last night and tonight.
Woohoo, PK!
Good for Democracy. Great for Senator Clinton. She wins big in another must win big state.
Her speech this evening was what it means to be a Democrat.
The New York Times editorial board's head has also exploded. It's pretty obvious they have their bias. It's not for either Democratic candidate, either.
was classy, heartfelt, and right to the point. Welcome to 1600 Madame President!
NYT head exploded? Really?
Guess that's what you call buyer's remorse given that they endorsed her.
NYT endorsed her before Super Tuesday thinking she will win anyway. Now they are getting Obama money to change tune.
If you all want something really uplifting - take a look at the county by county map at this URL.
PA county breakdowns
In some counties it is 20% Obama. The perimeters, especially. You can highlight each county and it tells how man precincts are in and the percentages for Clinton and for the chosen one. Some counties exceed 70% for Clinton.
What did all that money win the Messiah?
Hillary won 60 counties in PA to the chosen one winning the grand total of 7.
Let me repeat. Clinton wins 60 counties in PA Obama wins 7 counties in PA.
some of us love jesus and have a messiah and that's not very respectful. hillary is very good and she doesn't need you calling a black man the messiah!!!
Your particular god doesn't own the word Messiah. I happen to think it strikes the right tone (religious piety + infatuated groupie) to fit the Obama worshippers.
Wonderful news about the new donors. I couldn't believe Rachael Maddow saying "where's she going to get the money?" Hello? We're going to send it to her! Buchanan was funny. He said, "but what did all that money do for Obama?"
Rachel talks like she represents all Democrats. The new Republican converts align themselves more with Rachel's thinking than the true blue Democrats. "Typical elites":-)
What about the disgusting picture that supposedly appeared on Huffington Post that mocked blue collar men. It was two men with bellies hanging out of their shirts.
It was pretty disgusting and I hope it helped Hillary.
She actually has a decent shot at getting the popular vote now, and you don't even have to include Michigan. There are estimates available for caucus states which don't report participants. Check this out:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l
Sorry, the game is not about the popular vote. It is about delegates.
And, no, she probably won't catch up with pledged delegates BUT that is not the game either.
The game is delegates, super + pledged. BO supporters (which I am one) need to step back and stop calling for Clinton to step aside. BO does not have the number of delegates needed and there is no rule that states the supers need to fall in line with the pledged delegates.
I wish Clinton supporters would stop with the phony metrics like winning "big" states or winning the popular vote (which always seems to include FL and sometimes even MI).
It seems pretty obvious that the only path for HRC to the nomination is to convince the supers that she is the better candidate. It would be nice if she could do this in a non-toxic way but it is really up to her. So, let's stop with phony justifications of how HRC could potentially "win" the primary season without collecting more pledged delegates.
At this point, the voters don't really matter because neither candidate can grab the majority needed thru pledged delegates. It truly is in the hands of the supers.
VAAlex, sorry, this is not a knock against you or your post in specific. I hope my post doesn't come off as a personal attack.
Thanks for making a reasoned argument and not resorting to name calling like others have been doing. I don't take your post personally at all.
Let me start with the fact that you are are 100% right, in some things. This isn't about pledged delegates anymore. This is but one factor that will be considered. Popular vote is another. A large crux -- dare I say the major one -- is predicated on Hillary actually winning the popular vote when all is said and done. This is possible, though not necessarily easy. She achieved what she needed to do in Penn. in this particular aspect, and maybe even eeked out a larger-than-expected margin (say 220K instead of 200K).
I agree that the 'electoral college' argument trotted out by some is kind of bunk. However, this is an argument that superdelegates need to take into consideration.
I'll just say this -- if this pattern of Obama having problems with the kind of voters which will decide this election -- middle-class, low income voters such as the ones that handed Hillary a 10% victory tonight -- continues through the rest of the primaries, it will be problematic and may indeed be the political cover that the supers need to swing things her way. Will it happen? I don't know, right now it doesn't look likely. But a 10% win didn't look likely at the beginning of the day either.
Thanks for your response. I absolutely agree that the supers should take arguments like that into consideration and I also think they should think very, very hard before going with a candidate who has fewer pledged delegates. Of course, they are free to use whatever logic they'd like.
I guess my frustration lies with the paradox that there is no way for either candidate to win by pledged delegates alone which ultimately means that we've taken the voters out of the picture.
I wish we could all chillax, stop talking about snipers and weathermen and which side has bigger whiners, and get back to the issues. It's starting to feel like Ypres, circa May 1915, in Demland. Hmmm, that sounds a bit like whining to me.
Their last number is incorrect. Counting Michigan and Caucus estimates results in Hillary Clinton having an edge by about +9,000 votes.
Michigan was a travesty and should not be counted under any circumstances since one candidate was not on the ballot. Florida should be included, but there's no way I can legitimately count Michigan. Ever.
Okay, I want Edwards' endorsement now. He is not that big of an endorsement, but she needs a positive news cycle.
There was a poll a few weeks back which showed his endorsement would actually hurt in NC
There was a poll today that showed Obama winning PA.
it would be a moral victory. :)
Then why dont you encourage him to endorse her. That will help you:-)
I would rather not have endorsement now, I would rather him stay neutral... I've talked to a lot of folks in NC who can't stand him. It is really an open question what result his endorsement would have.
I think it completely ought to go through Indiana and NC...they are swing states. I'm not sure it will help to have Obama getting trounced in WV and Kentucky, later... But I say lets bring it on.
Gore, Pelosi, and Edwards ought to inform both campaigns, however, that they will endorse the opponent of any candidate who airs a negative ad in either state. That is an ad naming the other candidate.
Indiana is not a swing state. hasnt voted democratic since Kennedy. Dems can make inroads, but really.. not a swing state.
WV: swing state.
Obama was only down 6 in a recent Indiana Poll... For Clinton it is not a swing state. I don't think WV is a swing state on Obama's map. It is barely one for Clinton I think she was down 8 recently.
wtf are you talking about? is 'swing state' becoming a relative concept?
Obama's swing states (all those big blue ones) and Hillary's swing states (all those blue ones left of the Missippi save CA and south of the Mason-Dixon...
is that really a "wing" state? or do you mean competitive? Why appropriate a term that suggests aggregate across election trends to describe a state's relative and likely support for a particular candidate. Maybe in the primary ( I cant figure out how you are using swing and candidate's 'maps')
Step away from the excel sheet.:)
By definition, a swing state is one that is competitive. Demographics change, so the status of "swing state" is not permanent, or static.
The post you are replying to was referring to polls comparing the Democratic candidates to McCain. Many of these polls have shown Obama closing the gap in states formerly thought to be solidly Republican, such as North Carolina (http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-Pres-GE-Mv O.php). Clinton, meanwhile, has not shown this sort of momentum.
How can anyone possibly continue to support this woman and taken themselves seriously?
Well I certainly don't take you seriously.
a 527, you mean?
why would the RNC/NRCC waste any of their paltry cash on this? I need you to cite. Otherwise, you will be trolled.
Maddow and Buchannan mentioned it on MSNBC.
Blitzer talked about it on CNN.
Troll me if you want, won't change the fact that your girl is the Anakin Skywalker of politics.
Can you share a transcript? And I'm glad most Obama supporters are reasonable, intelligent people who don't need to resort to petty insults. But I guess this is all that people like you have left on a night like tonight.
They just went off air 40 mins ago...
Well, when they do, or if you find this ad that you speak of, please do let us know.
Why?
It's pretty simple - damage the frontrunner and keep our primary going. Can you imagine their delight if we go to Denver and have a floor fight for the nomination?
But at least Hillary will make sure that if she can't have the precious, Barack can't either. That's what really matters.
First, we are keeping this baby cooking all on own own, thanks.
Second, if Republicans want to pour money into this race that is already swimming hip deep in political media, go ahead. That is less money thay have to spend everywhere else they are having to defend their way of life and any reasonable donor will see such money mismanagement as only further evidence of their ineptitude. COnsidering they just poured +1mm into a special in MS that should be +10 for the Repug, I think they have better places to spend their federal dollars.
I agree you're keeping the race going all on your own.
I'm not sure it's right that this spending isn't going to help them in the general, since it's hurting our likely nominee.
I am quite certain - and notice you did not say anything on this point - that a fight over the nomination into August dramatically improves the Republicans' chances of winning in November.
It's pretty clear that doesn't matter to Hillary. She wants the nom, and pretty much isn't thinking about anything else. She doesn't even seem to care that she's campaigning in a way that is hurting her chances should she miraculously win the nom. She'll worry about that after it's over.
I'll vote for her if she somehow wins; there's not enough daylight between her and Obama on the issues to do otherwise. But let this fight go on for four more months and let's see how high her and Barack's negatives get, and how the independents and undecideds feel about our candidate.
At a certain point, if the other guy isn't completely unacceptable on the issues, you concede.
527's are running anti-Obama ads in NC (link via Kevin Drum). I suspect that's what the poster was misinterpreting.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
those ads have to do with the primary for governor there.
They're still pro HRC.
so what?
You have to be willfully ignorant to refute the fact of Hillary's recent campaign using hardcore GOP tactics and a total run to the right to buoy herself.
Shes actually going around talking about bombing Iran. Isn't that McCain's shtick?
First, if you hate it here, why do you stay?
Second, Obama is going to nuke a nuclear power (pakistan). I will trump your bombing of Iran with Nuclear war. Both are dumb and will not happen, but you seem to be working of the grid when it comes to probability.
Wow, $3 million!
You've practically bridged the $20 million gap that Obama gained on her in April when he raised $40 million to Clinton's $20 million. That must be why she started begging for money in her victory speech right away.
I know, it's tacky for somone worth 109 million dollars to beg for money on National T.V..
The voters may not want this to be over, but at this rate, they will seriously harm our nominee.
You guys have been harming our nominee for months.
And if you think Clinton will ever be our nominee in 2008, you're delusional at best.
He may end up there--but he ain't there yet.
The only settled nominee is John McCain.
Looks like Clinton isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.
She's not going anywhere :-)
Not for two weeks, anyway.
Grendel didn't say anything inappropriate. TR'ing was inappropriate.
Thank you. This is an ongoing trend with some people -- troll rating a comment simply because you don't agree with it. This is ridiculous and needs to stop; if you don't agree with it, just respond, don't hide behind a troll rating.
Babbit seems to HR lots of comments such as "some disgruntled Hillary supporters may vote for McCain in the GE." I thought HR was for the most egregious of statements, not "Hillary is 44."
It was probably just a reflex when they saw the name. I agree though and am uprating the comment as well.
I'm upping my delegate estimate to 12 for Clinton tonight. I still think Obama will have it covered quickly. And, perhaps the news going into the 6th will be that he has tied Clinton in Superdelegates. That will be a big mental swing for a lot of other Supers...it will mean Clinton would have to garnish 140 or so over Obama (of the remaining 251) to win. Or take the remaining supers by 190-61. Does anybody seriously think the supers will break that way?
In fact if Obama can put together 20 more supers than Clinton in the coming two weeks, and they are tied. She would have to pick up 186-45 of the remaining.
i think some supers may peel her way if he doesnt kill in NC & IN.
but at that rate? We also have a rather large block of Supers committed to vote for the pledged delegate leader.
i think that if she does get momentum and his only win in NC by less than 60, then there will be discussion about FL & MI and if you think that the pledged delegate winner stuff sticks around if the PV lead flips to her you do not know how much these people (SDs) are not going to take a political risk to push her out.
Punditing at this point is useless. There are too many unknowns.
So you think a 10 point Clinton win followed by a less than 20 point Obama win in a state where Obama is currently up by 9 will cause a reverse in the steady slide of super delegates lining up behind Obama? That seems unlikely to me.
If Clinton won NC, I could see that happening, or if she managed a 10 point plus win in Indiana on the same night, I could see that swaying some super delegates, but I can't see any result that erases most of Clinton's gain from PA on May 6th that would cause super delegates to suddenly decide that Obama is unelectable or has bad coattails.
No, I think that Hillary thumping him in IN, KY, WV is gonna make Obama look Dukakis-y. Dukaki.
This is not a name well received among supers. Carter earns an eyebrow & shrug, Dukakis earns a grimace & shudder. WJC is either adoration or perturbation. see Daschle for an example of the ladder. Bill stole my precious.
I wouldn't put money on Clinton taking IN by more than a nose. Obama losing KY and WV is a given and it will be by large margins, but I'm not sure why anyone would care. Clinton could conceivably take WV in the GE, in the alternate universe where she bothered to contest the caucuses, replaced half her staff last year, and is the Democratic nominee, but it isn't part of Obama's GE victory plan any more than Colorado or Nevada is part of Clinton's.
I've seen Clinton supporters try to compare Obama to Dukakis before, and other than the fact that Dukakis is a great boogey man of failed Democrats, I can see exactly no reason to bring up his name in this election. Neither of our candidates is a charisma-less technocratic liberal from a New England state. Neither of our candidates doesn't know how to handle himself in front of a crappy debate question or how not to look like an idiot in a tank. Neither of our candidates had a prison release program that led to escaped [black] criminals committing rape.
Admittedly, one of our candidates is black, so the Republicans (and Clinton's surrogates) will try for a litany of scary black man associations. Is that what is meant by drawing the Dukakis connection. Certainly, I expect all three of the states you mention to have high "Race of the candidate mattered and I voted for Clinton" exit poll results.
Ante-up, HRC supporters. She needs us now. Let's not let this election fall because of available money. Which begs the question...how is BO's campaign a new type of politics again?
I sent in my latest contribution tonight...I encoura
