Clinton capitalizes, contest continues

Shortly after the polls closed in Pennsylvania last night, Marc Ambinder noted that the one metric that really mattered wasn’t delegates or popular votes, but money. Most notably, Hillary Clinton’s lack of it.

Clinton was easily outspent in Pennsylvania — by most measures, by more than a 2-to-1 margin — but she started with far less money, and had to invest heavily to secure a victory. Indeed, she didn’t have a choice — Obama could afford to lose Pennsylvania and keep on going, Clinton couldn’t. The investment clearly paid off — she won by a decisive margin — but it came at a price; she’s broke.

Or rather, she was.

Ambinder explained:

More important than anything she’ll do over the next few days, Clinton will try to use tonight’s results to raise money through the net. (Notice the banner behind the stage at her victory party. It says HillaryClinton.com for a reason.)

If the margin of victory is big enough to allow her campaign to raise two or three million dollars in 48 hours, then her supporters are convinced that she still has a shot. Her margin was big enough.

If she can’t raise money off of her margin, then her supporters are resigned to her defeat.
She needs money to continue. If she runs out of money, she won’t be able to continue.

That “two or three million dollars” line turned out to be just right. Clinton apparently raised $2.5 million.

It’s a reminder, in case there were any doubts, that the race will continue to rage on at the level and pace we’ve become accustomed to over the last several weeks.

The Washington Post’s Dan Balz noted today, “Clinton’s campaign is nearly broke, whereas Obama has an enormous amount of money in the bank to throw into the next two contests and beyond.”

That’s largely true, but it’s worth keeping in mind that Clinton continues to have a sizable base of supporters who don’t want the Democratic race to end anytime soon. Campaign spokesman Phil Singer said last night, “As of 11:30 p.m. tonight, we are at nearly $2.5 million since PA was called for HRC — 80% of that money is coming from new donors to the campaign. It’s our best night ever.”

Assuming those figures are accurate, it’s pretty extraordinary. $2.5 million in three hours — for a candidacy that still has a hard-to-imagine path to the nomination, after nearly 16 months of campaigning — points to a candidate who will be able to fight very aggressively, indefinitely.

This isn’t to say the campaign’s financial difficulties are over. Last night, during her victory speech, Clinton told the assembled crowd, “We can only keep winning if we can keep competing with an opponent who outspends us so massively. So I hope you’ll go to HillaryClinton.com and show your support tonight, because the future of this campaign is in your hands.”

It was, I believe, the first time Clinton has used a victory speech to ask for more money. Apparently, it worked.

Keep an eye on these fundraising numbers, though. Last night was huge for the Clinton campaign, but they’ll need to keep it going because Obama will almost certainly try to use his financial advantage (again) to end the race as quickly as he possibly can.

Maybe McCain is giving her money.

  • It is amusing that the candidate who started with a huge lead in cash, who relies heavily on corporate contributions and whose family raked in $109 mil in six years is now portraying herself as the pitiful struggling outsider being savagely outspent by the establishment guy.

    You’d think she’d realize that every time she brings this up, it reminds superdelegates that Obama’s ability to beat the pants off Clinton in raising money and attracting new donors will be a good thing in the general. But then the Clintons are mystifyingly bad at anticipating the consequences of their words and actions…and after all, what choice does she have now? She’s got nothing.

  • His money hasn’t worked for him so far, so why should we believe it will now? He outspent Clinton 3 to 1 in PA, and yet couldn’t close the deal. He outspent her 2 to 1 in TX and OH, and couldn’t close the deal.

    This contest will go on because the base of the Democratic party has supported Clinton from the start, and that doesn’t seem like a reality that is going to change.

    BAC

  • BAC,

    Obama won Texas. Hillary was supposed to win PA by 20-plus points. He’s winning. Deal with it.

  • BAC

    Explain to me exactly how the party is supporting her? How many previous Clinton backers are now supporting Obama? How many have said they’re not going to go against the will of the people?

  • Yes, BAC, we all know that ad money is more important than the combined political machines of Ed Rendell and the mayors of the four largest cities.

  • Catch phrase people, I lament, seem to be the bulk of resistance to the change offered by Barack Obama. I’ve often chagrined at our penchant to clasp onto catch phrases such as seal the deal, or close the deal instead of furthering the substantive elements of any arguable circumstance. Yes, this time around there is more to fear than fear itself – there is the fear that one democratic candidate will continue to embrace NeoCon Republican campaign tactics and end up causing the Democratic party to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory come November. -Kevo

  • Even after another night of corporate-MSM BS, the campaign goes on and it is nice to still have someone in the race I can respect the morning after.

    I just gave $25 more to Obama, as I do after every Clinton “victory”. Woot!!

  • His money hasn’t worked for him so far, so why should we believe it will now?

    Money doesn’t outweigh fundamentals, particularly if you have an MSM with its thumb pressed as hard as possible on the scales. The media establishment knows Hillary can’t make it, so their best bet is to use her to bleed Obama for as long as possible. Dragging out the contest gives them something to cover AND makes a McCain victory more likely – a twofer from the MSM’s point of view. Of course if the two Democrats’ positions were reversed, the MSM would be backing Obama against Clinton.

    Still, once Obama has the nomination, those same fundamentals that worked against him in Pennsylvania will go to work for him in the general election. Somebody will have to pay for Bush’s incredible unpopularity, and that someone will be John McCain.

  • “80% of that money is coming from new (Republican) donors to the campaign”

    At least 2 more weeks of bittergate and weathergate. I may have to unscrew the intertoobes and get out in the sunshine and flowers. It’s that or pharmaceuticals.

  • Tom asks: “How many previous Clinton backers are now supporting Obama?”

    The Time’s slam this morning means that the paper that endorsed her is now horrified by her behavior. That’s exactly how her behavior affected me, starting with the Commander in Chief b.s a few months ago. She drove me away, as she appears to be driving the Times away.

    I will vote for her if she is the nominee, but I’ll have to hold my nose when I do it. And that is entirely her doing.

    It is certainly a part of her political calculus that Dems will vote for her regardless of what she does. But she needs money, and I just made my first donation to Obama. That’s another kind of a vote, and she won’t get mine.

  • Obama will almost certainly try to use his financial advantage (again) to end the race as quickly as he possibly can.

    The idea that there’s some linear relationship between money and electoral success is the biggest bunch of insider malarkey ever. Hello? Mitt vs. McCain? Er, Steve Forbes? John Connally?

    Past a certain threshold of wealth, if the press gives you the floor and you have a professional operation and adequate money, you can beat someone with a bigger bankroll. This is utterly obvious, but until some Beltway insider acknowledges it, the conventional wisdom will always deny it.

  • The race will go on because we have an established process for picking the nominee and it doesn’t end until the convention in a race as close as this one. I think the best sign that Clinton is winning is HuffPo’s increasing hysteria. It would be funny if it weren’t so ugly. Claiming that Clinton needed a 20 point margin in order to “win” is just plain silly. As Obama himself said, a win is 50% plus 1 vote. Clinton once again demonstrated that she wins the big states. Obama said some ridiculous things before departing to Indiana, including attributing Clinton’s win to greater name recognition (after saturating the state with TV ads).

    Kevin Drum yesterday discusses Obama’s stated support for the claim that autism is caused by vaccinations:

    “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.” –Barack Obama, Pennsylvania Rally, April 21, 2008.

    Actually, there are conclusive studies showing no link between vaccines and autism. In fact, autism rates have increased despite removal of thimerosol from vaccines several decades ago, when this issue was first raised. Autism emerges in the first few years of life, so if that were the cause, rates should have decreased by now, but haven’t. Parents of autistic kids have strong feelings about this and have an emotion-related reason to ignore science, but such views are contradicted by quite a bit of research now.

    Here Obama ignores clear findings in order to pander for votes? This suggests that his public health policy may similarly pander to the public, not be based on evidence. This is no better than basing health policy on religious views, in my opinion. It should matter to you that Obama has held science forfeit to his own political ambitions.

    You may say to yourself, “what is the harm in calling for more research”? First, it is a waste of money that could be used to fund more productive research. Second, it is unethical to recruit and subject participants to studies without potential scientific benefit. The long term studies have been replicated already. Third, it is cruel to support mistaken beliefs of parents of autistic kids. Fourth, the association of vaccine with autism prevents children from being vaccinated when they should be, resulting in larger numbers of children suffering the illneses they might otherwise have avoided. Since some of these illnesses have consequences as serious as autism, this is an important consequence. Fifth, if sufficient numbers of children go unvaccinated due to wrong beliefs about the safety of vaccines, the entire population becomes more vulnerable to epidemic, and this is not limited to childhood vaccines but also things like flu shots. So, this issue can affect larger public health, not just children’s diseases.

    A broader and more troubling matter is whether this reflects an underlying paranoia widespread in the African American community about health matters and public initiatives (a legacy of past abuses like the Tuskegee syphillis study). For example, there have been widespread beliefs in L.A. among African Americans that spraying of Malathion to eradicate pests dangerous to California crops was being deliberately targeted to African American neighborhoods in order to cause them health problems. Obama’s support for discredited theories about autism may indicate he will support other wrong-headed health beliefs among constituents, or be unwilling to speak out against such mistaken views. Supporting these views can be damaging to health because it makes people less willing to seek out preventative health care, more suspicious of remedies, and less willing to participate in health research needed to improve health care for minorities.

  • Hillary did well in the PA primary. She is a good candidate and would be a good president.

    But once again we’ll hear that Obama can’t win the big states, with many electoral votes, and that this win in Pennsylvania proves it. For Pennsylvania, and probably the others, this argument is specious.

    In addition to Hillary’s usual 15 year head start, in Pennsylvania Obama faced the formidible Governor Ed Rendell and the Democratic establishment, including the mayors of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and most other cities.

    Also, he was not running against John McCain nor any other white male. Hillary benefits considerably from the votes of white women. These women are not going to defect to McCain in the general election. Nor will most other Hillary voters suddenly turn Republican.

    So the claim that Obama can’t win the big states is nonsense. He can and he will.

    In the larger picture, it of course would be important and beneficial for th United States to elect a competent woman to the presidency. But women have led countries before and such a positive step does not
    compare to the prospect of a talented and inspiring black man as leader of the world’s major, largely white country

    homer http://www.altara.blogspot.com

  • Obama will almost certainly try to use his financial advantage (again) to end the race as quickly as he possibly can.

    For those who claim that Obama “can’t close the deal”, in fact, Obama closed the deal when he won in Wisconsin. Since then, his lead in elected delegates (and yes, popular vote) was and is insurmountable. Hillary’s victory last night, way shy of what she needed, won’t change the end result. He already won too many states by margins that were too large for her to overcome.

    Despite the never-ending Clinton carnival, Obama is our nominee.

  • Hey, Mary, did you somehow fail to notice that Hillary Clinton said:

    “I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines…. We don’t know what, if any, kind of link there is between vaccines and autism — but we should find out.”

    Now tell us why that doesn’t matter, Mary. Tell us why nothing you said about Obama applies to Clinton. But before you do, please read this:

    http://tiny.cc/uvlJb

  • This campaign is resembling the Iraq war: it will continue on at a senseless cost because of the ego of a powerful person who can’t stand the idea of losing and is content to simply keep kicking the can down the road to forestall the inevitable. Hillary is the neocon of this Democratic nomination process and she is willing to waste what is the greater good to stay on the IV drip of intoxicating power. What is good for the party matters naught nor is the fate of the nation a concern.

    George Bush keeps waiting on war ponies and Hillary is waiting on election ponies and the rest of us are waiting for fateful days when power will inevitably shift and then we can begin to hope for something better once again.

  • “Send me more money so I can stay in this race that I’ll most likely lose in the end!”

    Doesn’t that just reek of desperation? Not to mention – sound like what petorado said – she’s just wasting money to forestall the inevitable?

  • I just went over to ActBlue to donate to Obama. Like NickC above @8, I donate to Obama after every Hillary victory.

    What I noticed while there is the complete discrepancy in the amount Hillary is raising on ActBlue (a rather conventional internet site) against the amounts Obama is pulling in. Both in numbers of donors and amounts given. It’s staggering. See link.

    http://actblue.com/directory?query_parameters=—%20filters%3A%20%5B%5D&add_filter_query=_type:Election%20AND%20(_facet-longtype%3A%22Declared%20Presidential%20Candidates%22%20OR%20_facet-longtype%3A%22Prospective%20Presidential%20Candidates%22)

  • it’s pretty extraordinary. $2.5 million in three hours — for a candidacy that still has a hard-to-imagine path to the nomination

    I wonder what PT Barnum might have had to say…

  • OOPs, link didn’t work to ActBlue.

    But the figures are: Hillary – 219 donors giving $30,792

    Obama – 3,921 donors giving $278,954

    Now, the figures are just a drop in the bucket to what both candidate have raised, but still the discrepancy between the is staggering.

  • Don’t we know that the Clintons are worth $100M plus? If she’s really feeling pinched for cash, why not use some of that?

  • I just gave $50 to Obama. Even though he doesn’t really need the money right now, it would be an awesome statement if he outraised Clinton in the 24 hours following the PA primary.

  • MSNBC is reporting that Clinton has taken in $10 million since last night.

    Maybe it’s me, but I think that’s pretty impressive.

  • MSNBC is reporting that Clinton has taken in $10 million since last night.

    I wonder how much of it is Republican money.

  • I was unaware of Clinton’s statement. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I am just as dismayed to see Clinton saying such things, especially since the Clinton administration was the first to actually use research to make policy decisions — they should know better. I have mixed feelings about whether her remark comes from ignorance or political opportunism, since one implies unfamiliarity with an important issue while the other implies the same negative as was my concern with Obama.

  • Do you think two wrongs make a right? It would be better if Obama had a better position than Clinton, wouldn’t it? Not, the same wrong position on this issue.

  • I think the Clinton campaign is becoming more and more delusional. Has anyone read the recent statements from her campaign that she is ahead in the popular vote? There are so many holes in their thinking that is just plain embarrasing. I started out as a Hillary supporter. Then the negative campaigning started, and with it my doubts. Then there were all the stupid things her husband did, and my doubts grew. Finally there were her comments about Bosnia – which was an outright lie. I didn’t buy the whole ” I was mistaken ” excuse – if it had been something else, I might have, but no one can be mistaken about whether or not they were shot at. That pushed me over to Obama. And the latest delusional statements coming from her campaign only reinforces that decision. If she is this delusional now, God help us if she ever becomes president.

  • Anybody who uses the pharses “couldn’t close the deal” when describing Obama is an idiot. The man does what no politican has ever done before, but because he can’t turn water into wine, he “couldn’t close the deal”. How can anyone put that kind of pressure on someone and expect miracles every time? The fact that he has delivered or surpassed expectations 90% of the time is lost on Clinton supporters, who for some reason STILL thinks Hillary has a shot of winning the nomination.

  • I was about to express my extreme surprise and delight at Mary’s first-ever admission that she was wrong (28), but I see she didn’t even get through the post without making excuses for Clinton, and three minutes later (29) she completely overruled the whole admission.

    (Using best Clinton voice and rolled-eye technique) YOU KNOOOOOOOW, Mary, grownups graciously acknowledge when they’ve made a mistake without making further excuses for it. Your inability to ever do this mirrors Clinton’s, and it’s one of the reasons why the majority of the country thinks she’s dishonest/untrustworthy and at least half of voters won’t vote for her under any circumstances. We’ve had eight years of a president who can’t change course when it’s the right thing to do, with disastrous results. We don’t need another chief of state whose ego overrules wisdom and good judgment.

  • Comments are closed.