home

Hillary Raises $7.4 Million Online Since Super Tuesday

Mark Penn, in a conference call tonight (audio here) says Hillary has raised $7.4 million online since the polls closed on Super Tuesday from 40,000 plus contributors.

Matt Stoller at Open Left writes about the phenomemal support, and says it comes mostly from suburban women. I don't know if that's true, I can't find a link. The last campaign contribution link I looked out which was updated 1/31/08 showed more campaign contributions to Hillary from men than women. (I've lost the link and can't find it now. It said something about gender being determined as closely as possible from FEC information.) But I agree with Matt on this:

It's remarkable, because it is converting voters and supporters into activists and donors, only it's probably not the creative class anymore. Clinton, like Dean, became an underdog, a real underdog, with more public support than Village support, and her public directly responded over the internet to close this gap.

In other words, the Obama campaign has had a strategy of cultivating online donors and activists, they know how to do it, and they are very good at it. The Clinton campaign has not done any of this particularly well because it hasn't been their strategy. And somehow, they are at rough parity over the last 48 hours.

Curiously, Obama's site is not broadcasting dollars raised, only the number of donations. Its goal is 500,000 donors by March 4.

Bottom line: There's a lot of Democrats giving money this election cycle. They want their White House back and they're willing to shell out to get it.

< Justice Department Indicts Respected Miami Lawyer | The Malign Acceptance Of Sexism >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I definitely qualify as a (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:44:02 AM EST
    "suburban woman" and I contributed on line yesterday.  

    Nice post (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Jgarza on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:03:52 AM EST
    I'm glad to know she is raising money online.  It is important that she can do that as a candidate.

    it's Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by NJDem on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:06:38 AM EST
    that are supporting her--yes, women, but I think this shows that the base it ready and willing to put their money where their mouth is.  

    In any event, it's good news for the Party!

    I'm a male (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by talkingpoint on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:18:21 AM EST
     and supporting Hillary, and yes I gave money when I heard she needed it. This shows that no matter how the media tries to bash her, her supporters and more than half of the democrats in this country will support her all the way to the White House.

    Obama.... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by nevadadem on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:19:42 AM EST
    stopped counting this morning...

    congrats to Sen. Clinton...she should have been reaching out to people the whole time, rather than going throught Terry's Rolodex.

    Obama discusses with reporters on (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:30:19 AM EST
    his campaign plane the fact he and his wife have previously released their income tax returns, mentions the Clintons have not thus far, and leaves it the reporters to run with it.  

    Parent
    I think it's about time (none / 0) (#73)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:31:02 AM EST
    for Hillary to drop her entire dossier on Obama into the laps of the press. Forget Unity; it's obvious that Obama is willing to firebomb any chances at having a successful Gen Election by destroying ANY goodwill Hillary supporters have towards him.

    You KNOW she's got a dossier on him. He's having fun emptying his dossier on her out into press events, and she's just biding her time... or withholding it for the sake of Unity.

    It's like watching a boxer pummel a much bigger, better fighter when their hands are tied behind their back. And then watching the little boxer raise their hands in victory, without realizing in the main event THEY will have their hands tied. [/messy metaphor]

    Parent

    Yeah time for her to take off the gloves (none / 0) (#75)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:50:20 AM EST
    I'm sure she has held back on bringing out the dirt on Obama out of a sense of decency.  

    Parent
    We have found her!! (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:27:21 AM EST
    Is this the "soccer mom"? There was this large demographic that seemed to disappear since the last election. She is alive and really, really pi$$ed.. Take this "creative class", take this Oprah, take this Hampton girls, take this Mathews and white males. She is baaaaaack. Went to Open Left and like DKOs filled with patronizing semi intellectual, creative class putzes. (is this cussing? ) sorry if it is.

    stellaaa, you did not heed (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:31:33 AM EST
    my call tonight in the Rezko is STILL not an issue post.  How could you?  Oh, that's right, you were busy tracking down those missing soccer moms.  

    Parent
    Found a great article for you (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:42:56 AM EST
    Indeed you did. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:55:37 AM EST
    Quite well written and on point.  Next:  Barack as Apple Pie.  

    Parent
    Absolving (none / 0) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:01:33 AM EST
    I do find this unspoken theme from many supporters, that his election will prove that America is not racist. (Right) A sort of absolving or cleansing of past sins.

    Parent
    Absolving of Racism vs Sexism? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by blogtopus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:23:03 AM EST
    Of course, that means that if they don't elect Obama, then we're all a bunch of racist pigs. I'm POSITIVE that's what the rest of the world would think. [/snark]

    On the other hand, does that mean if we reject Hillary, we're a bunch of Misogynist jerks? Based on our policies I'd say that's more true.

    I'm not sure what to think of pitting the two against each other. After all, everybody's mom is a woman. Not everybody's mom is black. (And let's be honest here: that's what everybody thinks about when the word racism is bandied about with regards to this election; not asians, not indians, not even those scaaary eskimos, but african americans)

    It would be a big mistake for anyone, including Obama, to say that racism is a bigger problem in America. Whether or not it's true, it will raise a LOT of hackles in women who've been denied a job, groped on the bus, or have just been watching the election coverage. That would be a real deal-breaker for young female Obama fans.

    Of course, Hillary would never come out and say sexism is more prevalent than racism. That would be just as destructive, coming from a white woman. If she had been black, well that would be easier to get away with. Was it Maxine Waters who said it's harder to be a woman than a black person? Wish I could find that link.

    Parent

    For some reason, (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:57:32 AM EST
    women, including many of my friends (professional women who are by no means young) are not apparently worrying about feminist issues these days, although one older female friend who supports Obama did say she feels guilty not supporting HRC in this contest.

    Parent
    Shirley Chisholm said it (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:30:58 PM EST
    -- the black Congresswoman who did run for president.  And was treated as a total joke.

    Gosh, haven't we come a long way, baby? :-)

    Parent

    I am in Rezko detox (none / 0) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:43:26 AM EST
    Flying to New Mexico tomorrow to drive with my daughter back to California, don't want to get all contorted. I will be gone for a few days, leaving the computer home. New Mexico, Grand Canyon, Las Vegas , back to Berkeley. My opinion is purely professional in the affordable housing realm. I think they were negligent and unprofessional. Obama was just basically not caring about the community. To me that is a crime, but not a crime in the legal or the opinion realm.

    Parent
    PS (none / 0) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:45:36 AM EST
    Man, she seems really cool under pressure. She changed the tenor of her campaign and now Obama is seeming desperate. I keep hearing all these jibes. Taxes, the loan etc..etc. looks scared to me.

    Parent
    Have a fine trip, complete (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:31:27 AM EST
    with mother daughter bonding opportunities.

    Parent
    thanks for the wishes (none / 0) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:40:39 AM EST
    Sorry I was not here for the Rezko thing, I gave up on that. It will blow up and that is what I am scared about.

    Parent
    But, of course, we will not (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:53:25 AM EST
    say I told you so.  

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:59:14 AM EST
    But they will no we are saying that.

    Parent
    About the donations.... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Pat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:30:16 AM EST
    I wonder if many of the so-called "small donars" who stayed out of Hillary's fundraising efforts were like I was. In the beginning, I'd heard about her massive war chest and assumed it was bottomless. I work for myself and this has been another very lean year. Basically, my business depends on large companies feeling confident. The difference between the last seven years and the 90s is stunning.

    So while I heartily supported Hillary, the only thing I  did was buy a jacket from her website and slap a bumper sticker on my car.

    The news of her money troubles shocked me, and I immediately went online and gave $50....and I will do it again. Not much, I know....but multiplied it will matter a lot.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by IndependantThinker on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:19:35 AM EST
    because I heard she and Obama raised $100 million dollars each. I thought that would be enough to get through the election. Clearly I have no understanding of what these campaigns cost.

    Parent
    the va primary is feb. 12th. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by cpinva on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:11:04 AM EST
    if i'm really, really lucky, sen. clinton will have an event reasonably close by me, and i will be there. i'm a white, middle-aged, middle-class, educated, professional male, and i've been an admirer of her's for years.

    it's my opinion that the longer this contest goes on, the more people who are most likely to actually vote will begin to see the lack of depth in sen. obama. empty exhortations to "change" and "hope" won't get the job done.

    as well, sen. obama hasn't been subjected to the kind of microscopic examination of his life that sen. clinton has; the republicans will flay him in the ge.

    sen. clinton isn't the perfect candidate obviously, but there isn't any such thing, except in the movies.

    sen. obama is not the one this time around, he requires seasoning.

    brokered convention... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by mike in dc on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:34:57 AM EST
    ...means Clinton wins TX, OH and PA,  Obama wins almost everywhere else, and there's a near-tie in pledged delegates.  Then we see how the pledged superdelegates break down--hopefully they will either go with the leader in pledged delegates or perhaps with the winner by state(which means it's probably a wash if Clinton wins most of the big states and Obama wins a lot more total states than her).  Then, if that doesn't resolve things, we get to an incredibly divisive floor fight over Florida and Michigan.  

    There are a couple scenarios where this doesn't occur:

    1. Clinton wins Virginia, Maine and Wisconsin, then wins Rhode Island, and TX/OH by big margins.  Obama, facing the likelihood of losing big in PA, too, does the math and cuts a deal for the sake of party unity.  Clinton/Obama in November for the win.
    2. Obama sweeps the remaining February contests, and manages to win either in both TX/OH, or to win one and keep it close in the other.  Clinton, facing the mathematical near-certainty that she will be behind in pledged delegates, possibly by more than her FL/MI margin, has two choices: concede and cut a deal, or wait until PA and hope for a big margin there.  If she doesn't win big there, she'd probably have to concede, because he'll probably still lead in the delegate count, and the superdelegates might start lining up behind him.

    So, if she doesn't do well in the rest of February, it might be best for the party and for Democratic voters if Texas and Ohio went for Obama, just because it would preclude a high-risk scenario for us.  If Obama underperforms over the next month, similarly, it might be best if Texas and Ohio go big for Clinton.  

    I guess what I'm saying is, in terms of pledged delegates, the next month is pretty much either candidate's last chance of a "knockout blow" before the convention, and if it gets to the convention and there's a floor fight, that will damage the eventual nominee, possibly enough to cost us the presidency and even control of Congress.

    The only other way this could be wrapped up before then would be some kind of superdelegate mass migration to one candidate or the other.  I have no idea what those 480 folks are thinking right now.  Oh, wait, actually i do--it's "gee, what should I ask them for?"

    The next month doesn't do it for me (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:12:28 AM EST
    with so many caucuses.  They're absurd.

    And I'm glad to wait to see what Texas, Ohio, and even Pennsylvania do.  Big states mean lots of Americans, lots of Dems -- especially in two of those states -- who deserve to matter at least as much as Iowa, New Hampshire, and Idaho . . . not to mention North Dakota, whose entire population (of people, not cattle) is about a FOURTH of the population of, say, Pittsburgh alone.

    Parent

    Totally Agree (none / 0) (#52)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:44:29 AM EST
    with your scenarios.

    I would like to see this settled BEFORE the convention.

    Parent

    I never give money to campaigns as a rule... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by magisterludi on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:30:08 AM EST
    But I gave to Hillary today.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#2)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 12:55:17 AM EST
    When I read that post, it sounded like a misogynist statement to me. The MSM is often denigrating Hillary's supporters as disaffected suburban women. However, I know quite a few men who are supporting Hillary, and who went and donated online when she asked for donations.

    Senator Obama does have (none / 0) (#5)
    by HsLdyAngl on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:16:12 AM EST
    a counter on his web site, which shows the campaign funds received since Super Tuesday.  The counter updates automatically as the funds come into the campaign.

    Here is a link to the Obama Donation Counter.

    http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sincefeb5_email/graphic

    I posted this information because Jeralyn posted "Curiously, Obama's site is not broadcasting dollars raised, only the number of donations. Its goal is 500,000 donors by March 4."

    Harriet

    Thank you!  I hope that this clarifies the transparency of the funds received by Senator Obama.

    Thanks for the clarification (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:22:33 AM EST
    I didn't mean to suggest he wasn't being transparent.

    I had been reading several comments of Obama supporters elsewhere noting his shift from dollars earned to number of donations and saw on his website he prominently is displaying the latter. I'm not sure why that's considered a bigger asset, other than to show he's got a "movement", but I thought since it was important to Obama supporters, I'd mention it.

    Here's his donation page, which again refers only to number of donors.

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 01:29:23 AM EST
    WASHINGTON ? While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Sen. Barack Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital. Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform Washington, Obama makes his policy clear in fundraising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from "federal lobbyists." His aides announced last week he was returning $43,000 to lobbyists who donated to his campaign. But the Illinois Democrat's policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there. Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues. "Clearly, the distinction is not that significant," said Stephen Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on campaign issues. "He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different," Weissman said. "But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.
    Calclean

    Parent
    they stopped updating this graphic around (none / 0) (#60)
    by georgeg1011 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:05:17 AM EST
    11am yesterday.  At that point he was still ahead of her 2-1 in money raised.  He is not disclosing the amount until he can come out...

    Parent
    Hillary puts the money to work in Seattle! (none / 0) (#16)
    by xspowr on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:39:49 AM EST
    Links below to coverage of Hillary's Seattle rally tonight from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Seattle Times. The P-I piece includes an extensive photo gallery that was pretty inspiring!

    P-I:

    Thousands cheer Clinton's message

    Times:

    In Seattle, Clinton vows "new direction" for U.S.


    Thanks for the link and the tip to look (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:19:21 AM EST
    at the photos.  I think I saw some of my Seattle cousins there!

    And the closeup of the little girl's note to her friend about seeing the "girl president"?  Priceless.  The impact of this -- and of the Obama campaign (photo in my paper this morn of him clowning with a little AA girl, so cute) -- for generations to come is just beyond imagining.

    Our generations just did not grow up seeing this potential -- for us to be presidents, for us to even be voters for presidents that look like America . . . like us.

    Parent

    i hope when she comes to texas i get the (none / 0) (#19)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:58:17 AM EST
    opportunity to post pictures for talk left. we are waiting.

    Parent
    Hillary and Bill have had online fundraising. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Prabhata on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:58:08 AM EST
    Clinton emailed me when she started campaigning, but because I was supporting Edwards, I unsubscribed from her emails.  On hearing of the loan to her campaign I responded with a donation.  I'm happy others did too.

    So Sad (none / 0) (#23)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:09:07 AM EST
    It's all about the money. I find that so sad and so demeaning to any kind of democracy. Obama raises more so he's in the catbird seat and thus Hillary must raise more to compete etc. etc. etc.

    What about Mike Huckabee and John McCain who were both counted out a few months back because they didn't have enough money? Maybe, and I know this is the next thing to heresy, maybe money isn't everything.

    I know it is naive to think that money isn't important. But is it as important as it is touted to be? I suspect much of this "money" mantra is being encouraged by the media because they are the primary beneficiaries of all that moola. No matter who wins, they do. And I find that repulsive!

    Time (none / 0) (#25)
    by Eva on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:48:51 AM EST
    New Time poll justifies my opposition to Hillary:
    Obama 48%, McCain 41%
    Clinton 46%, McCain 46%

    Independents will break for McCain before Hill.

    Who benefits from this (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by IndependantThinker on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:28:00 AM EST
    Are we believing the MSM now? Are we going to allow the MSM to select our next President? Wasn't Bush the MSM darling? Do you believe that electing a Democrat, any Democrat, is the goal? Do you seriously believe that the Democrats cannot grow a George Bush or worse?

    I don't believe these polls, they fit too well into the Hillary Hate bashing.  I watched Chris Matthews (I know but I was channel surfing) interview a couple of Senior Republicans during their recent PAC (?) conference. Matthews asked if they could put aside their disagreements with McCain if Hillary was the Dem nominee. The guy (I am going to have to remember names) said he didn't know. That conservatives want someone who can get the job done and McCain wasn't cutting it. Do I think that publically any legit Republican will support Hillary, no I don't. But I'll bet a lot will vote for her in the privacy of the voting booth.

    I think this argument that Obama has a better chance against McCain is cover.

    Parent

    The reasoning (none / 0) (#38)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:10:00 AM EST
    The polls have been wrong. The polls say we should vote for Obama cause he would beat McCain. Therefore, we should vote for McCain. Makes sense to me fellas. Ok, I will tell the Hillary people to give up based on a fantasy match-up by some pollsters. Knew this would be easy.

    Parent
    I thought the goal was (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by felizarte on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:41:12 AM EST
    to elect the best president.  We ought to know about polls by now and how they change in a matter of days.  Vote for someone for your own reasons and analysis, not what others say, especially the media which is owned by very rich people who have a vested interest in maintaining their oligarchic hold on our society.

    Parent
    Exactly... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:44:53 AM EST
    It is so insulting to say we will let the polls decide. We don't know what will happen between now and November. I prefer to choose the person who has the best qualifications.

    Parent
    I see their qualifications being similar (none / 0) (#61)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:08:39 AM EST
    and I prefer to keep a social consrvative from appointing three justices to the Supreme Court.

    Parent
    I see their qualifications being similar (none / 0) (#62)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:09:01 AM EST
    and I prefer to keep a social conservative from appointing three justices to the Supreme Court.

    Parent
    Obviously an opinion (none / 0) (#67)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:19:03 AM EST
    I do not. I will not argue with you about that.But if you think the experience is similar, please vote on your belief and not on some poll, that is all I am saying. Do not vote for him cause some pollster thinks at this point in time he can beat McCain.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#72)
    by IndependantThinker on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    with both your points.

    Parent
    Clinton better than Obama vs. McCain (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Grey on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:33:00 AM EST
    That poll is a joke.  Go take a look at the breakdown state by state which, as I recall, is the way we actually vote for President in this country.

    But even starting from that premise, it makes no sense.  Obama, who has not had one single negative ad run against him in his entire career, manages to eke out an advantage in a useless national poll.  Do you actually believe the GOP won't fling slime in this direction if he's the nominee?  Do you think that will have no effect?  The media aren't going to cry foul when McCain goes after Obama: they only do that with Clinton and, on top of that, they love McCain more than they hate Clinton.

    On the other hand, the GOP has been sliming Clinton for 16 years and, in the same useless national poll, she still runs even with McCain (I'd like to see the margin of error in that poll, btw).  She would start even with McCain; Obama, on the other hand, will have to go around the country trying to convince people he's as good, or better, than McCain on national security, the military, and foreign affairs.  Based on what, one wonders: a speech he gave in 2002?  Please.  Clinton doesn't have to do that and people still think Obama has an advantage over McCain?  That is pure fantasy.

    Parent

    Eva, (none / 0) (#27)
    by ding7777 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:37:13 AM EST
    Wait until the right-wing gets done with Obama, then tell me who the independents will flock to.

    Parent
    agreed (none / 0) (#32)
    by Change101 on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:46:23 AM EST
    exactly ding7777.  the idea that Obama is more electable before the right wing has lodged any attacks on him is ludicrous.  the fact that Hillary runs even with McCain after 15 years of attacks is incredible.  all these polls do is reinforce my belief that Hillary is the strongest candidate.

    Parent
    Independents (none / 0) (#40)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:14:20 AM EST
    Where does that number come from by the way the Independents percents you reference, all Independents I know myself being one are voting for either Hillary or McCain our demographic is supposedly that which O pulls.  Also the SC election, its really hard for me to believe 28 percent of any candidates voters were independently registered,   I lived in the South not to many neutrals that I met during my time there.  Is this all exit data that has been completely wrong on everything Hillary and one wonders if that's an accident after watching the boy loves O  cable media.

    Parent
    ahh the politics (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jgarza on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:31:54 AM EST
    oif fear alive and well in Hillaryland.  The only fairy tale in this campaign is the idea that Hillary has been vetted.

    Parent
    Who;s playing the politics of fear? (none / 0) (#78)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:20:18 AM EST
    The Clinton campaign is not the one trumpeting these useless polls.  They are also not saying that their supporters may not vote for Obama if he's the nominee, while Obama has been saying that in interviews.  

    Parent
    Keep your eye on (none / 0) (#30)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:42:32 AM EST
    this and see if it holds.  So far the trend is Obama is stronger in the GE national polls.  What I'd like to see is head to head polls done state by state esp. in swing states.

    Parent
    Irrational (none / 0) (#36)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:02:48 AM EST
    There is no way Hillary could loose to McCain and her polls never refect her strength add ten and she kicks butt.  If McCain, wins my view, it will only be because the Party wounds itself severely, and swings women and Hispanic both natural swing groups anyway over to him, neither group will be marginalized unfairly by Party bosses or Causes wrapped in Social Justice.  Or a misjudgment by Dems on what Voters will believe is corrupting political behavior vs what Dems believe and any scandal like that other time with that other rough and tumble other famous Dem from Il. Daniel David "Dan" Rostenkowski the party did not see that wipe out coming either.

    Parent
    Silly (none / 0) (#31)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:43:29 AM EST
    Take any Hillary poll you see and add 10-20 points dependent on the pollster to have a correct view, using these numbers for the Cause that is O is showing a lack of reasoned judgment.

    Parent
    I think you can't use a single poll, (none / 0) (#44)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:28:13 AM EST
    but look for the patterns.  Watch what happens over a period of weeks.  10-20 points?  I don't even know how to comment on that.

    Parent
    If there is a (none / 0) (#37)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    brokered convention... neither will win the GE. The last 3 brokered conventions ... Dem lost the GE.

    This is a mute point at this time. Until there is a clear winner for the nomination we are looking at loosing the GE.

    Howard Dean is already hinting to settling this before the convention.....

    Howard Dean never became president, but now he might be able to pick one! He said yesterday that the DNC would like to have a nominee by mid-March or April. But he will NOT have him some kind of brokered convention if that doesn't work.


    Parent
    SurveyUSA (one of the best pollsters (none / 0) (#43)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:27:22 AM EST
    out there right now) shows Clinton doing much better then Obama against McCain on a state by state basis. For eample, she does 20 points better in Kentucky. A little better in Indiana. Better in California, Mass, etc. Quinipiac shows Clinton doing alot better then Obama in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

    Parent
    Well if losing state like WA and OR to McCain (none / 0) (#48)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:37:07 AM EST
    is better...

    Parent
    In the SurveyUSA polls, Obama loses (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    Mass by 5 points. Clinton wins by 4. He loses Minnesota by 7. Clinton loses by 4. He loses Virgina by more then Clinton. He's only up 6 points in Caifornia while Clinton is up 20. He loses Ohio by 7 while Clinton is down by 2.

    I'd be willing to bet alot of money that Clinton does better in Michigan then Obama.

    Parent

    Fair points (none / 0) (#63)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:10:46 AM EST
    as I said look for patterns.

    Parent
    they will also not vote for obama either. (none / 0) (#55)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:53:59 AM EST
    of course i am an independent who was once a repub at least fiscally in another life. that was when it consisted of such things moderate republicans. i left when they they lost their soul. i didn't like the way clinton was demonized during the monica bruhaha and still don't.

    Parent
    I have been seeing those numbers forever (none / 0) (#66)
    by zyx on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:14:54 AM EST
    but I think when the Dem/GOP campaigning starts, that people will move to the Democratic candidate.  The economy, the war, the Bush legacy--it's going to be easy to suck the voters over to the Democrats.  And Clinton is a GOOD campaigner.  She did it in New York.

    Parent
    Excess Buys Barnacles (none / 0) (#28)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:39:57 AM EST
    True but we have a candidate running in an Open seat we have tried to win for years and she is getting NADA she also is a white women in a racial divided district and her Republican counterpart is raking it in money. Looks like the RNC may be going local this year she is also no longer ahead in the polling but its early.

    Anyone know where we can find Stats is this sucking all the money out of local races?

    I am not sure I am comfortable with this excess this process doesn't need this kind of  money its not healthy whats it going to buy for the People bought super delegates would be my guess there is no good to come from that.


    Not too late (none / 0) (#29)
    by Lena on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:41:10 AM EST
    It's only February. The general election is in November. Plenty of time for her to grow her grassroots.

    In fact, by (let's face it: stupidly) holding off on online marathon fundraisers, HRC has inadvertently built up reserves of untapped support at a critical time in the campaign cycle.

    Her supporters were so unaware of the money pressures, it seems many of them never even contemplated giving. Now that's changed.

    I heard yesterday (none / 0) (#33)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:52:14 AM EST
    when Hillary hit six million that Obama was at seven. This is not true? Or Jeralyn couldn't find it to report about it?

    Of the money that came into the Clinton campaign over the last couple days, does any of it go to paying back the five million loan?

    While it might have been an embarrassing glitch for them, I do not expect that Clinton's campaign is going to fold for lack of money. There are too many special interests behind her.

    Aspects of this comment that are silly. . . (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:22:00 AM EST
    I think Obama's fundraising prowess is well known.  The issue really was "is Clinton's campaign going to fold for lack of money".  That was precisely the inference that the Obama campaign wanted people to draw from the embarrassing stories about Clinton's money problems and why they were so gleeful about the huge money day they on Wednesday.

    As for the Clinton loan, surely you can't expect anyone here to know exactly how it's structured (I assume "does any of it go to paying back the loan" really translates to "loan, loan, loan, ha ha"!) but  I believe it's common practice to not retire campaign debt until after the campaign is over.

    As far as special interests go this is manifestly a case of Clinton being saved not be special interests and high-dollar fund raising events but by online contributions.  The numbers indicate to me that she's probably getting fewer and larger donations than Obama but they're still netroots style over-the-internet donations.

    Parent

    When counting the number of donors (none / 0) (#77)
    by RalphB on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:17:35 AM EST
    you shouldn't forget that Obama has counted everyone who has bought a t-shirt or a key chain as a political donation and thus a supporter.  Tickets purchased to those rock-star concerts which pass for campaign rallys are also counted.  This has not been done before and wasn't by the other campaigns in this cycle.  His number of donors is undoubtedly huge but is also misleading.


    Parent
    Special interests behind Clinton (none / 0) (#49)
    by wasabi on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:38:04 AM EST
    "There are too many special interests behind her."

    Yes.  They are called voters.


    Parent

    hmm, and there are no special interests behind (none / 0) (#57)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:55:40 AM EST
    obama? so now the contest isn't for president but for money? is that your score card?

    two words for you, chicago machine!

    Parent

    Save your money folks..... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:58:02 AM EST
    No matter who wins out of this piker crew, they will continue to lead us into the economic abyss.  Foreign occupations and drug wars ain't cheap, and if our Chinese friends stop lending us the dough, Uncle Sam is comin' a knockin' on our doors.

    Better to start a trust for your kids...they will be hit with one hell of a bill one day due to our inability to support and elect a sound leader.

    Any poll (none / 0) (#41)
    by Eva on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:19:39 AM EST
    Any poll that show Hillary behind is biased by pollsters' Clinton-Hate!

    No, but (none / 0) (#45)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:28:23 AM EST
    it's too far from the GE to put much stock in these polls.  It is only in the last week that it became clear that McCain will be the GOP nominee, and Obama will suffer from comparisons with McCain on foreign policy experience.  If the GOP tries a fear strategy--and, really, why wouldn't they--independents will go into the voting booth uncertain as to whether Obama will protect them from the big, bad world.  But they know McCain is going to follow OBL to the gates of hell.  I think that will influence independents to tilt to McCain.

    It's just too far away to make these judgments, and I would say the same thing if Clinton were on top of McCain.

    Parent

    Obama: Poll tested (none / 0) (#58)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:58:25 AM EST
    But a look at campaign finance filings reveals that it is Obama not Clinton who has spent more on polling and surveying. According to year-end research tabulated by the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama has spent more than $2.55 million so far in the campaign on "Polling/Surveys/Research," six hundred thousand dollars more than Clinton's $1.92 million. The expenditures provide a seeming contrast to the political stereotypes of the two presidential aspirants. Recently on the trail, Obama has positioned himself as the candidate of authenticity to Clinton's calculated nature.
    article

    Humm. . . (none / 0) (#70)
    by IndependantThinker on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:28:57 AM EST
    I wonder if some pollsters are like real estate appraisers or other paid experts in the sense that the results often favor the one paying the bills.  Thats a lot of money. Just a thought.

    Parent
    Money money money! (none / 0) (#65)
    by Grey on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 10:14:46 AM EST
    That is fantastic news!  From what I've been gathering, no one knew Clinton needed money.  I find it incredible that her campaign somehow never thought to go after the small contributors and, instead, focused on big time donors.  Now the word is out and people are giving very, very generously.  It must make the campaign feel pretty confident about the level of support Clinton enjoys; I know that it makes me feel pretty damn good!

    Quick note: the audio was of Terry McAuliffe, not Mark Penn.


    If people would only see (none / 0) (#76)
    by g8grl on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:08:01 AM EST
    how the huge gap in experience will play a part in how effective the next President will be, they would vote Hillary.  Joe Wilson explains exactly why we don't need another Bush like naif in the White House and how Hillary's experience has worked for results on the international stage in the past.  

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/the-real-hillary-i-know-_b_77878.html