Barack Obama has $51M in the bank, John McCain $11M. Hillary Clinton?

... Let's just say she's gonna have to send the kids to live with her sister up in Buffalo for awhile.

On the eve of the Pennsylvania Presidential Primary, we found out that it has become even more important for Senator Clinton to perform over Senator Obama, if she wants to stay in the race for the nomination through June 3rd.

There's more...

Starve the beast called Hensley and Co.-BOYCOTT ANHEUSER BUSCH

As we all know, John McCain divorced his first wife who got hurt in a car accident so he could marry a wealthy heiress to Hensley and Co. the third largest distributor of Anheuser Busch in the nation, named Cindy Lou Hensley, now with McCain tacked on at the end. Most adults drink alcohol from time to time. However, we must do all we can to see a Democrat wins 270 electoral votes this November. While we can still drink if we want, we cannot essentially give money to John McCain's campaign by buying Anheuser Bush. That is why I am proposing that we not buy anything made by Anheuser Busch, in the tradition of GOPers not using Heinz ketchup, as the products are being distributed by John McCain's campaign, I mean hensley and Co, which his wife runs, who can give millions to the GOP, GOP causes, and a lotta damn money to her husbands campaign. I know it will be hard. I have always liked Bud Light, but we can drink other, better beers anyway. Here is a list of their products:

There's more...

Does The Candidate With More Money Win The General Election?

Continuing on the theme of fishing for interesting statistics about past elections, let's talk money.

The connection (or lack thereof) between fundraising and winning a party's nomination has been examined at length. Instead, I'd like to focus on the general election. The question is simple: Does the candidate that raises more money win the general election?

As we all well know, campaign finance is a murky subject, and it only gets murkier the farther back in time you look. I was able to compile data on gross receipts back through the 1988 election, and I've linked to my source in the data below. Here are the findings:

Democratic Candidate
(Gross receipts)
Republican Candidate
(Gross receipts)
Winner
(Receipts difference; % difference)
John Kerry
($328,479,245)
George W. Bush
($367,228,801)
George W. Bush
(+$38,749,556; +11%)
Al Gore
($132,804,039)
George W. Bush
($193,088,650)
George W. Bush
(+$60,284,611; +31%)
Bill Clinton
($41,697,305)
Bob Dole
($57,840,610)
Bill Clinton
(-$16,143,305; -28%)
Bill Clinton
(~$71,000,000)
George H.W. Bush
(~$62,400,000)
Bill Clinton
(~+$8,600,000; ~+12%)
Michael Dukakis
(~28,500,000)
George H.W. Bush
(~$31,800,000)
George H.W. Bush
(~+$3,300,000, ~+10%)

Though there is scant data to work with, the pattern is pretty clear. Candidates who raise more money usually win the general election, Bill Clinton in 1996 being the only upset in recent history.

This bodes well for the race against John McCain. Currently, both Democratic candidates have been raising more cash than McCain and McCain looks like he's moving closer to accepting public financing on the heels of the petition Jane Hamsher and 31,000 others filed against him with the FEC. With the McCain campaign almost shutting down months ago due to money woes and his current cash deficit, it is unlikely Republicans will out-raise Democrats this cycle.

If that is indeed the case, the money stats say that Democrats should win the White House this fall.

The opinions expressed by J Ro are his and his alone. They do not reflect the opinions of any other person or organization.

There's more...

Napoleon's lesson for Hillary Clinton

Une armée marche à son estomac - (An Army marches on its stomach)

Napoleon knew that an army's success depends on logistics. However brave and dedicated the soldiers are, if they have no food they cannot march or fight. I studied this analogy early on in my military career, and it applies to the civilian/political world.

Senator Hillary Clinton has spent almost $1 million dollars a day to keep her expensive top-down campaign afloat. She has learned the hard way that she can't ignore a SINGLE contest left on the calendar, but how can she afford to competitively pay for staff in the 10 remaining locations? Her organization in TWO states at once (TX, OH) was barely enough to keep Obama from catching her in what should have been BIG HRC victories.

Andrew Romano makes a good point in his blog:

 It's not that money determines electoral outcomes. Obama massively outspent Clinton in Texas and Ohio and still lost the primaries; Clinton will likely win Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico despite the dinero differential. But pecuniary perceptions are important. "If Clinton is perceived to be in financial peril, she becomes a much less attractive investment for donors deciding where to give their money,"writes Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post. "By the same token, if Obama looks like the nominee, he is sure to vacuum up the campaign cash of fence sitters looking for a winner." As the clock ticks down, Clinton will have fewer chances to gain delegates and votes, and Obama will appear more and more inevitable. Wins in Indiana and North Carolina on May 6--hardly a sure thing, but possible--would only accelerate that process. All of which is to say that if Obama "looks like the nominee" at some point before the convention, Clinton's financial intake may flatline. In that case, she probably won't have the rainy-day money necessary to keep fighting (unless it's more of her own). Meaning that it won't matter what Bill has to say. The bank vault will have already spoken.

There's more...

Correction: Clinton Raised Tons and Tons of Money in February and I Can't Read

This is an interesting article on the income and expenditures of the various campaigns. It confirms the totals raised by each of the candidates and illustrates how much more the democrats as a whole are raising than the Republicans. Gives one hope for November no matter the candidate.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads