The only numbers that matter cash on hand for primaries: Hillary $24 million, Obama $18.2 million

[Herman Munster]

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--campaignmoney0415apr15,0,4868230.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut

[Demeter]

1. Votes in Hand Outweigh Cash On Hand

and it's gonna get tight real fast. I doubt that there will be much doubt.

[Colobo]

2. Hillary $19 million, Obama $18.2 (for the primaries)

[Connie_Corleone]

3. Hillary has $19 million for the primary. The rest is for the general.

[ElizabethDC]

7. Nope, she has $24 million cash on hand for primaries

and $31 million overall. The $19 million is the amount of primary money she has raised since her announcement, but she also transferred money from her Senate campaign fund.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070415/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_money_27

[Imagevision]

29. Nope! Hillary can only use 6.9 million of what she has if she wins primary...

[skipos]

4. Actually, the only number that matters is the electoral count in the general election.

And I don't have much confidence in Hillary getting above 250.

[Colobo]

5. Herman, the title of your thread is inaccurate.

[Herman Munster]

6. No it's not

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1448

Hillary Clinton’s FEC report today reveals that the campaign has raised the highest amount of money in its first quarter of any presidential candidate ever – and has by far the most cash-on-hand to spend in the both the primary and general elections of any in the ’08 field.

“These numbers indicate the tremendous support for Senator Clinton from every walk of life and every part of America, and assure that we will have the resources needed to compete and win,” Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle said today.

Following are key details of the FEC report being filed today:

Total receipts in the first quarter: $36 million



$26 million was raised in the ten weeks between the campaign’s launch in late January and March 31.
An additional $10 million was transferred from the senator’s successful reelection campaign of 2006.
Cash on hand: $31 million



$24 million for the primary
$6.9 million for the general
Expenditures: $5 million

Additional details:



70,300 donations and 60,000 contributors
$19.1 million raised for the primary, $6.9 million raised for the general
Contributions raised from all 50 states, plus Washington, DC
$6 million in grass roots contributions (internet plus direct mail and telemarketing receipts)
Contributions of $100 or less: 80% (or over 48,000 people)
$1.58 million in debts and obligations

[ElizabethDC]

8. Yep, you're correct. n/t

[ieoeja]

26. Wrong. Obama raised more in the 1st quarter.

Clinton rolled over leftover cash from her Senate campaign into her Presidential campaign. She has more money because she started with more money. Obama actually raised more money from January 1st through March 31st.

And that despite the fact that Clinton's national campaign was over a decade in the making while Obama's was created mostly from scratch this past quarter.

[MichiganVote]

9. Hillary took just as much shit as Bill once upon a time. If she can raise it

and rub a few faces in it, I don't blame her. Good for her.

[flpoljunkie]

10. Speaking of numbers that matter: Obama 104,000 contributors Clinton 60,000 contributors

[Stephanie]

15. And how many of Clinton's contributors are already maxed out?

Obama can go back to his donors over and over again.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. Great point

If HRC couldn't beat Obama in the first quarter with all the corporate and fatcat backing she has, it is unlikely she will beat Obama over the entire year as her (relatively) small donor base maxs out and Obama is able to tap his average American donors for small contributions again and again over the year. Dean proved how effective this could be. Small donors will usually donate several times.

The real numbers that matter regarding fundraising right now are number of donors. HRC has already peaked. She is well-known and has no room for improvement. Obama still has relatively low name ID. As he becomes more well-known he will be able to increase his already large donor base.

[ElizabethDC]

18. Well, I don't know for sure, but

I know I'm not :hi: Seriously, though, I recall that. 86% of her contributions were $100 or less, so I'm sure she has plenty of room to grow.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[still_one]

12. This is your second post on how much money Hillary has raised compared to the others

Yes, money is important, but where the candidates stand on the issues are also important. I am not particularly happy the way Hillary supported the Iraq war. I also was not happy when she went to China, and critisized THEIR one child policy, and hope she does NOT win the nomination, however, WHOEVER wins the Democratic nomination, that is who I will vote for, and that includes Hillary, in spite of the fact that I do not believe she is the best choice, but compared to what the republicans have offered, and what they have given us, THAT IS THE ONLY CHOICE

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Issues apparently aren't important to HRC

Look at the "issues" page at hillaryclinton.com (her presidential campaign website)...

[ElizabethDC]

19. Issues aren't important?

at this link you can see her discuss children's health care, our troops, equal pay, energy, and an Iraq roadmap: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/hillcast/

Here you can read what she has to say about government reform, labor, civil rights, Iran, Iraq, voting rights, etc.: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/

You may disagree with where she stands, but that doesn't make the issues unimportant to her.





(Edited to add some punctuation)

[still_one]

21. The point that this thread and others are implying is that it is all about money

I sense that it may also provide a forum to bash the prospective candidates, especially Hillary

Hillary is not my candidate, but I will vote for her if she wins the nomination

[IChing]

13. The only numbers that really matters

are the amount of people that died and are have been injured in Iraq.
are the amount of people that are homeless
are the amount of people still held a Gitmo
are the amount of people in secret prisons
are the amount of people being spied upon
are the amount of people losing their jobs and homes to corporate greed



are the amount of people that are fed up
with this fucking system and don't want to go back to
the history of business as usual between candidates and the various parties.

[NormanYorkstein]

14. I am shocked it's so close

Two months ago I would never have guessed Obama would get this far.

[mckeown1128]

22. Don't forget Edwards....

I am surprised also that it is getting this close. I pray for a day when Obama and Edwards squeeze Hillary into a distant third place. I would be happy if Obama and Edwards were the only real choice left in the primaries. They both inspire hope and have sound policy

[w4rma]

24. Agreed. Edwards's ~$10 million is absolutely fine. (nt)

[Alexander]

20. Sure, if you think "cash" equals "votes".

Those of us in the reality-based community see that it's votes that matter, not cash.

But don't let facts get in the way of you plugging for Hillary Clinton.

[lostnotforgotten]

23. Will Not Vote For War Mongers - That Includes Hillary - I Don't Give A Damn

How much money she has!

[Larry in KC]

25. By that logic, the most odious billionaire is the clear frontrunner

[karynnj]

27. What about the likely ability to raise more in the months to come

A large chunk of Hillary's money came from being able to raise money for the Senate primary and general election. She wisely got as much as she could even though she did not have a strong challanger in either. This money was transferable to her Presidential run.

In reality, I think Edwards is right. All three main candidates have enough money to get their story out to voters.

[Tejanocrat]

28. The truth is Obama, HRC, Edwards, Romney, Rudy, and McCain all have more than enough cash to sail

well past the Iowa, Nevada (for Democrats), New Hampshire, and South Carolina caucuses and primaries, and by the end of those contests, both parties will more likely than not have a nominee. If by some oddball circumstance we don't have a nominee by then, whichever candidates are still in contention as a result of strong performances in the first four caucuses and primaries will see a huge new wave of funds come in as a result of those strong early showings.

The money primary is not a winner take all game -- it's a loser go home game. The clock is ticking on all the second tier candidates from both parties to find traction.