Picture of the Day - 2
Clinton announces $27 million raised in 3rd quarter. $22 million in primary money. That's not too much over Obama's $19 million in primary money, but compare it to the Repubs.
Thompson reported $8 million. Romney reported $10 million (without the $7 mil. of his own money.)
Still waiting for Giuliani. (After this, I'm betting Giuliani doesn't want to announce today.)
(Hillary Clinton and Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums hold hands at Laney Community College in Oakland, Calif., Oct. 1, 2007. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma))
posted by mikevotes at
8:47 AM
14 Comments:
I disagree - 22 million is significantly more than Obama's 19 million if you take into account a) the buzz about Obama's fundraising prowess b) the buzz about the Obama buzz and c) the turning of the MSM this week against HRC (see Hardball transcript from last night for an example.)
You can bet if Obama outraised HRC by 3 million, we would hear from the press about how important that is. I maintain that if HRC can outraise Obama by 3 million, that means something, especially since her national polls and the NH and SC polls show her increasing her lead.
Given the money and the polls, Obama's only shot is to win Iowa. Even a squeaker will probably be enough to jumpstart his campaign. But as of now, he remains far behind her in the polls and now even behind her in the money race. Yes, he beats her w/ the press, but they'll turn on him pretty quick if it becomes obvious he cannot win (see Hardball transcript from last week's Dem debate where Tweety jumped all over Obama for not being able to close the gap w/ HRC.)
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 12:05 PM
Reality, I think you're right.
I think I did minimize somewhat.
I would guess it's because I'm beginning to buy into the inevitability argument like everyone else.
I think Obama does have one more window though, and I don't see it so much in Iowa (although that would be a key part.) I think the last window will be when Obama starts really spending his money on ads.
Obama needs to change the national tide (or perhaps stagnation.) Iowa would be a key milestone, but I think his problems go deeper than winning a primary. That would offer a big boost, but I think he's got to take down the inevitability. I think that's the main limitation.
His one strength is that he does have lots and lots of young and willing supporters who can do all the ground game if they can be organized well (and that's a task) although I don't know how his support is spread out geographically.
He's come to Texas a couple of times and had huge crowds, tens of thousands, of students and young people. If that can be harnessed into volunteers, that could make a difference.
I don't know how his support looks in Iowa, but you figure they should be able to ship tons of college kids from all over the east coast into New Hampshire.
(By the way, do you know if unspent primary money is rolled over into the general election fund?)
By
mikevotes, at 1:54 PM
I think that primary fund money can only be spent up until the party convention.
Here's a post in Washington Whispers in July from the Obama camp explaining why they emphasize raising primary funds over general election funds:
* General Election funds are not available until after candidate is officially nominated at the convention on August 28, 2008.
* Candidates will continue to raise and spend primary funds from the moment they become presumptive nominee (likely early in 2008) until the convention.
* There is no question that the eventual nominee will be able to raise sufficient funds for the general election, so there is no strategic advantage to raising general election funds now.
As for Obama's moment, I would agree that he still has a chance for a breakout moment. I think Iowa is it. It's hard for him to break out of the box he's in because he's trying not to attack her (Remember, he's about the politics of change), but he's got to attack her to shave some support away from her (or hope that Edwards does it for him.)
As for the young volunteers, remember all those volunteers Howard Dean bussed in to Iowa? It didn't help as much as everyone thought it was going to. Clinton has a top-flight team of political pros and the money to fund them. I think I would put my money on that if I were betting.
The exception would be if Obama had been able to translate his popularity into poll numbers. But so far, he hasn't. It feels to me like his chance to do so has passed. But I guess we'll just have to see.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 3:42 PM
I won't vote for her and I know lots of dems who feel the same way. She will just give us 4 more years of the same...I'll vote for Edwards, Obama or Dodd. Otherwise...I just will skip it...
By
Anonymous, at 5:24 PM
Oh. So, effectively, "left over" primary money is summer money meaning that only those last few months are general election funds.
So, that money gap between the parties in primary money is pretty important if the Dems don't spend it all in one place.
...
I think that Obama has to make his national break before that whith Iowa or NH as confirmation of momentum. With the compressed primary schedule, it'll be really tough to play the traditional momentum game if the pieces aren't already rolling your way.
And, regarding volunteers, yeah, that's what I was trying to say by organizing them. It's really tough to construct an operable machine with all those new parts on your first try. But, I still see that as a variable.
Out of state volunteers are probably far less important in the Iowa caucuses(the most dedicated party members sitting in a room) than they are in a more traditional election where phone calls, door knocks, and rides to the polls can bring you a couple points.
By
mikevotes, at 5:28 PM
Anon, but would you vote for her in the general election? That's a more key question.
Pick your Republican matchup, do you pick Clinton over Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain?
By
mikevotes, at 5:38 PM
i won't vote for her in any election. Dems will win regardless of who runs barring a major meltdown/PR snafu...but Clinton will just continue with current approach but with a shiny face and mouthservice towards some liberal agendas/taking care of citizens. She is too connected to AIPAC and corporate america...
By
Anonymous, at 5:55 PM
So, you just don't vote?
By
mikevotes, at 8:54 PM
in Clinton vs whomever...I just won't vote.
By
Anonymous, at 9:18 PM
Front cover of today's Post:
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has consolidated her place as the front-runner in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, outpacing her main rivals in fundraising in the most recent quarter and widening her lead in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
For the first time, Clinton (N.Y.) is drawing support from a majority of Democrats -- and has opened up a lead of 33 percentage points over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Her popularity, the poll suggests, is being driven by her strength on key issues and a growing perception among voters that she would best represent change."
She even beats Obama on the "electability question."
It's hers to lose.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 5:51 AM
So where DOES she stand on Iraq? Anybody know?
By
Anonymous, at 7:49 AM
Reality, I saw the ABC version on that poll.
Inevitibility is gaining momentum.
They are running a very saavy campaign. No mistakes, and a slow, well timed roll to the primaries.
...
Anon, For the purposes of this election, it really doesn't matter so long as she stays vague.
The perception is that the Dem candidate is more antiwar so that will pull the votes.
(And, yeah. It appears she'll keep troops there. She's structured her language to keep that possibility open.
I'm not saying it's right, but from an analytical point of view, she's triangulated the right position for the election. Just left of the Republicans to get all those votes.)
Elections are about perception.
By
mikevotes, at 8:04 AM
I think she stands exactly where Obama and Edwards stand on Iraq - none of them are promising complete troop withdrawals, at least not at last week's debate. If you want a president who is going to pull troops completely out of iraq, you have to vote Gravel or Kucinich. I know Richardson says he will too, but I'm not sure I believe him.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 5:40 PM
And, what Richardon says doesn't really matter when you get down to it.
Some troops will stay in Iraq no matter who comes around both for practical reasons, and because the lure of bases there is too sweet for any administration to let go.
Again, I see alot of "change of mission" talk.
The trick will be to keep some troops there, but still blame everything on Bush.
By
mikevotes, at 6:13 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home