JVS
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-29-08 07:18 AM
Original message |
The Clintons, fundraising, and super delegates. What's been going wrong? |
|
Edited on Thu May-29-08 07:19 AM by JVS
I've seen a lot of talk over the years about how the Clintons are important to the party because they bring in the big bucks. The implication being that superdelegates wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them. While this may have been true 6-10 years ago, I am wondering whether this is still the case today. During this primary campaign Hillary has been plagued by financial difficulties. I read of threats to the DNC from "big donors", but if Clinton supporters are able to turn of the flow of money, then why is her campaign in the hole to the tune of tens of millions of dollars?
I suppose an examination of the campaign's finances would be in order. Is the Clinton campaign's insolvency an issue of too little income, or are the expenditures too great? If it is expenditures that are the problem, then theoretically the Clintons could still be major players in financing the party (just keep them away from deciding how to spend the money), but if it is an inability to draw money, then their political power is significantly eroded since their heyday. If they can't bring in the bucks they have very little to offer, and the super delegates would know this. Anyone have some input to help put the picture together?
|
SoFlaJet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-29-08 07:22 AM
Response to Original message |
1. they pissed through money faster than Motley Crue on heroin |
|
they had to have 3 jets fueled and ready to go at all times Hillary, Bill and Chelsea's....a million a day they were spending-are spending
|
JVS
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-29-08 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Are they good at raking in the dough though? |
SoFlaJet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-29-08 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. have you seen any pictures lately? |
|
they make you itchy just lookin' at them
|
lisa58
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-29-08 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. They have their donor list and it is maxed out... |
|
...they can raise a lot of money - just not from a lot of sources, which is why they started asking for money on the stump and giving out their web address.
|
mdmc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-29-08 07:30 AM
Response to Original message |
|
HRC did about 5 things wrong (The fact that Obama did these things right is impressive) 1. She ran as an inevitable Washington DC beltway insider. That is the last thing primary dem voters wanted (well, except for old man "Ace"). 2. She failed to play the game the right way (she thought it would be over after NH. Once Iowa imploded, it seems like they stuck to their same losing game plan). 3. Saber rattling versus Iraq and Iran. The sheeple turned on Bush and the Iraq war pretty quick. John Edwards picked up on it. HRC didn't seem to have a clue. 4. I don't know why she couldn't tap the feminist net/grass roots. I still don't know how the campaign fucked this up, except perhaps they didn't think it was necessary. 5. When the original game plan failed, not only did they not change it, they made it worse (mudslinging). All the gaffe-gates (wright, for instance) held a backlash for her campaign. Imagine all the black church goers that have heard their pastors say something in the heat of the moment. Think of all the liberals in the know. By trying to tie Obama to this shit, the Clintons themselves got dragged in. (As a Catholic, it would be like HRC saying, "His archdiocese his pedophilia. He can't be president." = I would be like, "Yeah I'm a Catholic, and the archdiocese was wrong. But my faith remains strong. Fuck your holier then thou self.")
ps- regarding the money - HRC felt it was no big deal. Everyone they know has millions of dollars to toss their way. They spent like drunk sailors, then ended up losing.
|
MannyGoldstein
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-29-08 07:32 AM
Response to Original message |
4. The Internet Changes Everything |
|
Obama handily outraised The Clintons.
The Clintons are relics of the pre-Internet age - when it was most cost effective to raise more money from each of fewer donors, and utter lies made in small-town stops could never get caught.
Today, thanks to the Internet, it makes sense to raise less money from each of more donors. And to be honest.
Vive la difference!
|
TexasObserver
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-29-08 07:38 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Simply put: it's a weak product, this Hillary thing. |
|
You can gold plate a dog turd, but it's still a dog turd.
|
gorekerrydreamticket
(422 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu May-29-08 07:43 AM
Response to Original message |
7. The Clintons brought in a lot of money on the assumption she would be President.... |
|
Now that things look differently, they probably won't be the fundraising dynamo that they once were...
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 10:59 PM
Response to Original message |