WaPo: Clinton Hit $10 Million Mark Since Polls Closed In Pennsylvania
Hillary Clinton might have just reached Terry McAuliffe's prediction of raising $10 million since the polls closed in Pennsylvania. The Washington Post reports that the campaign has taken in more than $10 million, according to campaign aides -- a sum that was badly needed in light of her recent money problems.
On the other hand, the New York Times puts the number at only $8 million, though it's not clearly sourced. It's possible that the number was $8 million when the Times reporters found out, and then rose to $10 million afterward, or that different staffers have heard different numbers themselves.
Another thing that's unclear is how much of this money will be available for the primary. What is nearly certain, however, is that Barack Obama will still have more overall cash, as he went into this month with over $40 million on hand and barely any debts.
Late Update: The Times has updated their numbers, confirming that Clinton did in fact succeed in raising $10 million.








Comments (76)
She should have said 10 BILLION. Why the heck not? The misstatement -- really more of a typo -- wouldn't be much of a story in late May when FEC reports due, and general election between Obama and McCain is heating up.
April 24, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'M WITHDRAWING MY ENDORSEMENT
Dear Hillary,
Honestly I never saw this coming. I feel like a real deusche. I'll even take my old Energy Sec. job if you'll have me. These jagoffs are calling my Tuffs degree "creepy". Freakin Harvard brats! You think Bill would like a case of Scotch?
Sincerely
Bill Richardson (former Hispanic)
REMEMBER: Donate your spare "Change We Can Believe In" to ease the suffering of Harvard student loan deadbeats.
April 24, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
HILLMENTUM!
April 24, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, this is all based on the Clinton campaign....who are getting more disingenuous by the moment.
I believe McAuliffe said "on track towards 10MM".....not exactly something you could nail the spinmeister down on.
April 24, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
**Just gotta ask. Someone mentioned earlier the $10 million infusion to Hillary's campaign from her "previous campaigns." Does this figure in in any way? Anybody know?
April 24, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
$10 million? I guess she can pay her bills now. That'll leave her with... let me check my math... absolutely nothing.
April 24, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth Edwards may campaign on Hillary Clinton’s behalf in the upcoming North Carolina primary race... This is a rumor that is going around on the web... does not make it true.
Also.... Guam Caucus is coming up on May 3rd... how come no one seems to be talking about it?
April 24, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because your namesake doesn't believe that caucuses count, unless they result in win for her. So, Guam's relevance is still to be determined. But of course, you know this....
April 24, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reason is that there are only 4 delegates so in order to get anything other than a 2-2 split you would need to get 75% of the vote.
April 24, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll believe it when I see it. Did she ever pay the bill from the UC Davis marching band? Oh yeah and Mark Penn's townhouse is still being remodeled, he needs to pay the contractor!
April 24, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder who it's all coming from, in light of the fact that more and more people are learning of the mathematical impossibility of her victory. Big-money donors maybe?
April 24, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me, for one. It's the second time I've send me five hundred dollars. You see, hard as this is for you Obamans to understand, just about half of the Democratic party believes in Hillary.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
April 24, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who says we Obamans don't believe that? You do, but that doesn't make it true. What we Obamans do believe, what Clinton and her followers used to believe, is that nomination is determined by delegates.
April 24, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. Delegates and superdelegates. You Obamans seem to forget on a regular basis that your guy can't get to the promised land without superdelegate votes. Just like Hillary.
April 24, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. Should've said "sent her" instead of send me. Cats on the keyboard.
April 24, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#PA
The above link... shows that with 99% of the vote counted and only 1 County still not finished... hillary clinton wins 81 delegates and obama wins 69 delegates.... it also shows that she got 55% of the vote to Obama's 45%... 55 minus 45 equals 10.... so yes, she won by 10 points... the above site and other news channels do NOT show her winning by 7.0 to 9.9% of the vote.... Not sure where the obama supporters and hillary haters are getting there facts... but even if she did win by 7 or 9 points... how come obama was not able to win pennsylvania after spending all that money and time in pennsylvania.... how come he has not been able to win the really big important democrate states, how come he has not be able to kick hillary clinton out of the process.... how come he can't reach above 50% of the vote in the national polls.... how come the race is so tight?
Sorry but i believe alot of the superdelegates and pleaged delegates are going to begin moving towards Hillary Clinton as the months go by... And if there was no chance of her winning this....how come she won pennsylvania... how come she won ohio and texas.... how come it seems that she might win the other states (besides north carolina)...its because people believe that she still has a chance of winning.....
Also, if you look at the popular vote (without counting florida or michigan) she is not losing by much... when you include florida and michigan, she is winning the popular vote... also she is not losing by much win it comes to pleaged delegates.
Guam Caucus.... according to news channels in Guam, Hillary Clinton has raised more money from there then Barack Obama.... also it looks that she might win the Guam Caucus too.... the winning strik is on her side:) GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!
April 24, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, for one, she didn't win Texas -- lost that state's hybrid primary and caucus system by 3 delegates, I believe it was. Answering your rhetorical question about how Obama can be nearly certain to win even as she wins some states requires some background information about how the Democratic Party's nominating system works -- If you're curious, you can find out about it from numerous free public sources.
April 24, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
when you include florida and michigan, she is winning the popular vote
Only if you don't include the caucus states. With the caucus states, she is far behind in the popular vote, even with those two states (one in which Obama didn't campaign and the other in which his name did not appear on the ballot).
Check out the Real Clear Politics site to see how the actual popular vote currently looks (hint: it's Obama across the board).
April 24, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
And when Clinton counts her votes in Michigan, doesn't she also exclude any of the "Uncommited" votes for Obama? So, isn't she essentially saying that no one in Michigan voted for Obama? This when, I believe, in the Michigan national poll, Obama actually leads Clinton.
A couple of big assumptions there on my part, but this argument just doesn't hold water.
April 24, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's great that Hillary's campaign can now achor their hopes on Guam...That's real political terra firma. Logic like tht kind of makes Idaho look as important as New York!
April 24, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"anchor their hopes" that is.
April 24, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, NO. ID could never be as important as NY because ID voted for an Obama win.
If Guam does not vote for a Hillary win, then Guam will be as unimportant as ID.
However, if Hillary wins in Guam, then Guam will be as important as NY.
April 24, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The page you linked to currently shows the vote totals as:
Clinton total votes - 1,260,208
Obama total votes - 1,045,444
So, adding the two together, we get a total vote of 2,305,652
Now, if we take 1,260,208 and divide by 2,305,652 we see that Clinton's percentage of the vote is 54.657338%
If we take 1,045,444 and divide by 2,305,652 we see that Obama's percentage of the vote is 45.342662%
Now, we subtract Obamas percentage of the vote from Clintons and find that the spread is 9.314676
Or, to make it simple, we round down to 9 points. CNN is rounding their percentages before doing the math to make it pretty for their page, but in fact, she beat him by just over 9 and not by 10.
April 24, 2008 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but ur argument is peppered much with the words "might", "seems" in a weak and disingenious attempt to flesh out the Clinton camp's argument to stay in the race.U wrongly cite Texas under the Clinton column,Flo & Mich,Ohioe,PA,Guam and u laughably call this a winning strik(sic).First of all you cannot legitimately put a claim for Hillary on states she did not win (Texas went to Obama FYI),Flo & Mich do NOT count, and the upcoming primaries have only been poll-tested so cannot count till after voting.Which means we have to consider what we know now to be fact namely: Obama leads the delegate count, popular vote, states won,close supers count,money raised and the sum of that paints a different picture indeed.It looks like that Obama fellow is AHEAD of Clinton and has a better chance of gaining the nomination.
April 24, 2008 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Honey, your candidate doesn't HAVE months. This thing will be over by June 3 at the latest - that's a little over 5 weeks. Please get a grip and stop spewing nonsense. Popular vote is NOT how we select a Democratic nominee. If you don't agree, go lobby the the DNC to change the rules AFTER THIS PRIMARY. It is disingenuous and dishonest for you to continue to pretend that the supers are going to give any credence to this metric just because your candidate says so.
April 24, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
HillaryClinton08 -
Let's make this math simple for you. The CNN link you provided rounded up the percentages which shows a 10 point win. But if you take the actual vote counts and create your own percentages with at least one decimal point then the difference is 9.3 instead of 10.
I'm not saying that is much of a difference but obviously you think that that extra 0.7 means that the Supers should just rush to her today and end this thing.
Here is my formula which again I took these numbers from the CNN page you referenced!
Votes Percentage
Clinton 1,260,208 54.7%
Obama 1,045,444 45.3%
Total 2,305,652
Difference 9.3%
Enjoy!
April 24, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/24473/show_us_some_real_money_hillary
April 24, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why isn't the MSM investigating this? If this is another HRC BIG FAT LIE, is it not the responsibility of media, as the watchdog of government to get to the bottom of this?
I swear this woman is verging on voter fraud! I think Dubya/Cheney are her American Idols!!
April 24, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"watchdog of government" -- quaint!
April 24, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
tonnyb over at DKos has observed that the donation tracker on Obama's site has recorded approximately 54,000 NEW people in the 24 hours after the Mass. polls closed. Using the to-date average of $96 a pop, that adds up to about $5,000,000 from first-time donors alone. That doesn't include previous donors, many of whom certainly donated again, so he probably pulled in a lot more than that.
Obviously this is a rough estimate of his 24 hour post-Mass intake, but it's clear that Obama has added a solid chunk of cash to his already substantial war chest. It's good that Clinton supporters have stepped up to help her pay off her campaign debts, but it's hard to see how Hillary is going to have the resources to earn the 30-40 point margins she's going to need in the remaining states if she still expects to win the nomination.
April 24, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I posted that fact here first, but it has been largely ignored. At kos there have been over 200 comments in 2.5 hours or so.
April 24, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Posted here.
April 24, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot that if Obama wasn't in the race, she would be winning....
April 24, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am amazed that the press falls for this every time. The last time she claimed huge fundraising figures, her reports proved she was lying (think "sniper funding"). She counts "pledges" which may never come to the campaign, and she counts money for the general election, which she can't spend. Based on her past fund-fibs, she probably raised about $3-5 million (still good) but hardly enough to make her competitive in the next eight contests (especially since Pennsylvania drained her coffers). She will have to spend all of her money in Indiana while Obama is cleaning her clock in North Carolina and splitting the delegates in Indiana.
April 24, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.gftunion.com/
TEAM HILLARY GUAM GETS THEIR WAVE ON
Dozens of Guam’s Hillary supporters took to Guam’s streets with a traditional wave. The crowd included union members from both the IAM and GFT, men, women and children who believed that Hillary will make a great President. Chants of “Let’s put a women in the White house!”, “A vote for Hillary is a vote for families!” and “Hillary’s a friend of Guam” rang out across Marine drive for nearly two hours. Hundreds of cars responded with horns and waves and stopped to collect Hillary bumper stickers.
Clinton has Union Backers in Guam
contact info. for guam caucus
Taling Taitano, a Democratic national committeewoman, said that she is actively working to garner votes for her candidate, Hillary Clinton.
"We are 'Team Hillary' and we're looking for delegates, and if they are interested in running to support Hillary, they can contact me or Rena Borja," Taitano said.
Borja may be contacted at 687-7362 and Taitano can be contacted at 482-2234.
Clinton tops Guam political donations & Bill Clinton stresses Guam's importance in presidential race
http://www.kuam.com/news/27544.aspx
April 24, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
How pathetic are you that you are setting your hopes on GUAM???? Who doesn't even vote in the general election??? I'm not denegrating Guam, but honestly, come on. They're not a big state, are they? So they don't count - oh, and they have a caucus, which also doesn't count to Team Clinton. Keep moving those goalposts, girl...
April 24, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dozens? I'm sorry but that just seems funny to me. 24 people in Guam are supporting Senator Clinton!
I appreciate your support for Senator Clinton, and Guam certainly has a role to play in the primary. I just question the word choice of the author of that piece - dozens.
April 24, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
WTF is a Democrate? Is that the box they are going to keep Bill in?
April 24, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Democrate is where they keep Mark Penn.
April 24, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
To no one's surprise, Hillary's campaign has been asking her maxed big donors to start donating to her general election fund in a deceptive (shocking!) effort to make it appear as though more money is flowing in that really is.
In any case... how cares how much money she's raised. The race is over. Despite any concerns the Superdelegates will never overturn Obama's 100+ pledged delegate lead because they know it would destroy the party.
HillaryClinton08 stop deluding yourself. Unless you want to help McCain win the White House, it's time to start supporting the Dem nominee - Obama.
April 24, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Clinton's problem is that her big donors were already giving to her general election campaign. That money cannot be used for the primary, ,i>and if she doesn't make it to the general (which she won't), it must be returned. The bulk of what she took in during her Feb. haul, was general election money. Seems as though her "donors" are hedging their bets.
April 24, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Former President Bill Clinton Discusses Hillary's Campaign And War Reparation Bill With Guam's Ray Gibson
Pacific News Center Staff Reporter 24.APR.08
9:55 a.m. Former president Bill Clinton calls his wife and presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, the most supportive member in the Senate for the war reparations bill and says she is advocating for a complete health care plan that includes coverage to the territories.
President Clinton hopes a Clinton will be available to campaign on Guam before the scheduled caucuses. He called in for an exclusive interview with Ray Gibson on the Breakfast show this morning. Here is the entire interview:
http://pacificnewscenter.com/
April 24, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guam Backs Sen. Hillary Clinton's Presidential Bid
Pacific News Center Staff Reporter 04.APR.08
7:05 p.m. Guam - Residents of Guam say they will back United States presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton after she pledged her support for the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act.
In a press release, Clinton said she will continue to advocate for the passage of the bill, and its enactment into law this year. The presidential aspirant also vowed that if the bill is not passed in Congress, she will ensure that Guam survivors and their families will be fairly compensated if she gets elected.
In an earlier interview with the Pacific News Center, Guam's delegate to the U.S. Congress, Madeleine Bordallo, said she would seek the assistance of the Democratic presidential candidates. The first to show support for the War Reparations Act, Bordallo said, would win her support.
Meanwhile, Clinton said the legislation is timely in light of the impending military buildup. - Pacific News Center - Guam, Saipan, CNMI, Asia-Pacific...http://pacificnewscenter.com/
April 24, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's pinning her hopes on Guam and its nine delegates?
States like Colorado and Virginia don't count, but GUAM! Guam counts*!
*Unless it goes for Obama, in which case, Guam is insignificant.
April 24, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe, I said the same thing upthread - great minds think alike! :)
April 24, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
guam caucus is in 9 days..... GO HILLARY!!
I'm sending 90.00 to hillary....we must win guam caucus on May 3rd and Indiana on May 6... and try for a shocker on May 6 in north carolina:):)
April 24, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
HillaryClinton08, to respond to your questioning the margin by which Hillary won, I will produce for your some simple math, that even a simpleton can follow, taken from the link you yourself provided.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#PA
Now, remember how you get a percentage? Divide the total number of votes Hillary/Barack received by the total number of votes.
So if
P = Percentage of vote Candidate received
H = Votes for Hillary
B = Votes for Barack
T = Total votes
With 99% of the vote being reported, the votes are as follows,
Hillary Clinton: 1,260,208
Barack Obama: 1,045,444
Total votes: 2,305,952
P = H/T = 1,260,208/2,305,952 = 0.546 = P = 54.6% (Hillary)
P = B/T = 1,045,444/2,305,952 = 0.457 = P = 45.7% (Barack)
Now, the margin of difference in their percentages:
54.6 - 45.7 = 8.9 = 8.9%, rounded up would equal 9%.
This HARDLY constitutes 10%, and thus negates the argument that Hillary won by double digits. It even negates CNN's own reporting.
Any response...?
April 24, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The total vote is actually 2,305,652, not 2,305,952.
My math works out as follows:
Clinton total votes - 1,260,208
Obama total votes - 1,045,444
So, adding the two together, we get a total vote of 2,305,652
Now, if we take 1,260,208 and divide by 2,305,652 we see that Clinton's percentage of the vote is 54.657338%
If we take 1,045,444 and divide by 2,305,652 we see that Obama's percentage of the vote is 45.342662%
Now, we subtract Obamas percentage of the vote from Clintons and find that the spread is 9.314676
Or, to make it simple, we round down to 9 points. CNN is rounding their percentages before doing the math to make it pretty for their page, but in fact, she beat him by just over 9 and not by 10.
April 24, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yet my point still stands. Hillary absolutely did not win by a margin of 10%. Thank you, though, the more insight, the better.
April 24, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't waste your breath - Hillary08 is fact-challenged and is immersed in magical thinking (like so many of the Clinton supporters here). It's sad.
April 24, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll confess to being ignorant on the mechanics of fundraising, so if this seems like a stupid question, I won't argue the point:
Any rate, is it at all possible the Clinton campaign had at least some of these donations lined up prior to Tuesday and announced them to create the requiaite (and, at this stage, meaningless) sense of momentum coming out of PA?
April 24, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton was begging for money in her PA victory speech last night, and I've seen multiple news stations repeating that plea for cash. The talking heads have gone out of their way to say that Clinton needs money, and I've no doubt that plenty of Clinton supporters who don't pay enough attention to realize that she's lost this thing already were more than happy to login to her site and kick in a few bucks.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that she'd fudged some of the numbers, but then I wouldn't be very surprised to learn that she hadn't either. Clinton still has a lot of supporters (just shy of half of the democratic party), and plenty of those people would be more than happy to give her cash.
April 24, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
A. Clinton probably does do better in a lot of key swing states. Maybe Obama inspires Democrats in solidly red states like Idaho and in places like Vermont, but it seems blazingly clear Clinton plays better in FL, OH and PA. It's legitimate for super-delegates to consider this.
B. Obama really has never accomplished much of anything on his own. Without affirmative action, it's a near certainty he'd never have made it to HLS, and unlike his classmates, he qualified automatically for the HLR, and his career as a community organizer fails to impress much, and he was a lawp prof for a while but without having to demonstrate any scholarly ability at all, even if he was a "popular" teacher. OK, and a few years in the IL statehouse and a couple of years in the Senate. Man, it's a thin resume, with no demonstrated ability under real-life conditions.
C. Obama has a fruitcake "spiritual mentor" who wears a clown costume and who says crazy ignorant shit. That ought to give you pause to think.
April 24, 2008 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, go away. You are spamming the threads with your bullshit and making a complete jackass of yourself. Go post your racist comments on Hillaryis44.org - they'll LOVE you there.
April 24, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Mila, thats not going to cut it. The way that affirmative action works is not how you suggest. It does not allow for people to get in who didn't have adequate qualifications for entry. What it does do, is give a comparative advantage to minority students who are the same on paper as non-minority students. Put simply, minorities who aren't qualified, just like non-minorites who aren't qualified, DO NOT get in. The strongest statement you could make is to suggest that he got in over similarly qualified non-minority applicants. Of course, you could only say that if you had inside knowledge of the decision to admit him to HLS, which I'm guessing you don't have. So basically, what you've said is ignorant.
April 24, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, becoming editor of the Harvard Law Review has absolutely nothing to do with affirmative action.
April 24, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still think they are inflating their numbers as a PR tool.
Call me cynical, but I know how the Clintons roll.
April 24, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lux, I totally agree. And, of course, we won't know the full story until the middle of May when they do their FEC filing. I don't believe a word of what they're saying. Looks like Friday might be a bad day for the Clintons...think any news org. will pick it up?
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/trial_date_in_paul_vs_clinton_to_be_set_on_friday/
Just saying...
April 24, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of where people are putting their money....
ahem, check Intrade today. Hillary got a tiny bounce from 14.5 to 17 percent out of PA. Now, two days later, she has already lost most of that increase, and is, guess what, maybe a whole percentage point above where she was pre-PA...... and pre-PA, her chances were quite dismal.
Hillary has been near or under 15% on Intrade for a long time, while Obama has stayed about 80% consistently. Another way of saying this: 8 out of 10 are betting on Obama, while only 1 in 7 are betting on Hillary.
April 24, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another double digit controversy!
April 24, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be shocked if at least 50 percent of whatever they really did raise (can Hillaryland be considered any more trustworthy than the Bush White House?) wasn't for the general. They're still an old-fashioned high-donor big money operation.
April 24, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check your calculator: your Obama figure should be 45.3 not 45.7. Ergo, margin is 9.3. I'll grant you 10% is a generous rounding, but you're not entitled to your own math.
April 24, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rounding doesn't work that way. You either include the decimal point or you round to the nearest; not up to the nearest. The number was 9.3 so we should either say 9.3 or we should say 9 or even add contextual words and say "just over 9 points" or something like that but not 10.
I'm an analyst professionally and I constantly have to fight the fact that many people I work with regularly make crazy rounding and such like this in order to spin the data their way. I always win these arguments because there is no ethical argument for using fuzzy numbers when the actual numbers are right in front of you.
April 24, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't believe this for a minute. There's no way her tired old campaign can generate new cash.
April 24, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that it really matters. $10 million, $8 million, $5 million. It's all just barely enough to pay off her out-standing debt.
But, is there really no objective way to verify their claims?
April 24, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a chance in hell that Guam will go for Clinton.
April 24, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's have a little fun with the numbers.
Let's suppose that Obama removes his name from the ballot in Guam, giving Hillary all 9 delegates.
Now, tell me how she closes the delegate gap.
April 24, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
$10 million in 24 hrs is impressive, however, the fact that the Clinton campaign was able to accurately predict the total makes me wonder how much of that total had been previously negotiated and scheduled for 4/23 to pump up the "tide is changing" storyline. I also wonder how much of it was contingent upon Hillary winning PA by double digits.
Much of the total may well have been delayed until the day after the primary, either because the big money donors were waiting for proof that her campaign was still viable or to enhance her bounce out of PA - probably a combination of both.
April 24, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's people really did say they raised $10million under heavy sniper fire, rather than really saying they raised $8million under heavy sniper fire.
April 24, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're lying. Just like they been lying every step of the way when it comes to fund raising numbers.
When the numbers come out weeks from now for this period, no one is going to remember, let alone be able to prove they did raise this but that's what they're counting on.
This is all for the benefit of Super delegates.
And if this figure is even close to being real, how much was 1) loaned by the Clinton's themselves, 2) is for the general , 3) from big supporters who are already over the limit and will have the $$ returned later.
They have been full of sh*t since day one on all issues, but especially the fund raising numbers.
Remember the first quarter of the race in January 2007?
Obama announced his numbers and then Clinton came out with figured just a little above and took the spot light off his incredible take.
Months later, when the didn't matter, the Clinton campaign "corrected" their figures DOWN and called it a "bookkeeping error".
They are Clinton's. They are LIARS.
April 24, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. Should've said "sent her" in stead of sent me. Cats on the keyboard.
April 24, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
a reminder to those who INSIST that its Hillary who can't catch up.Um NEITHER, I repeat NEITHER will Obama reach the number required to clinch the nom. The *magic* number is 2025, or 2014 depending.
Yes Obama is ahead but thats all, it has to go to the convention! The process says all 50 states should vote and he heard, its called democracy at work!
I keep reading that Hillary can't catch up when Obama is only slightly ahead and the rules say he has to reach the required number for her to hang it up.
To those who criticize her, at least be fair. And those like MODO-DO who are saying just quit to Hillary sound like communists, very un democratic.
April 24, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I found out that somehow Hillary has injected $10 Million into her campaign before March 31st. The Federal Election Commission website shows that she received $10 Million from a "Previous Campaign". It is odd that that exact figure is what the Clinton aides are touting. I personally have doubts that she has raised that much.
Mathematically, it verges on impossibility. Terry McAuliffe announced that the surge in funds came about from the help of 50,000 new donors. That means that each new donor would have to give a very generous $200 each. That is quite a stretch of anybody’s imagination. If there were a total of 80,000 donors over the 24 hour period after the primary, they would have to give and average $125 each to reach $10 Million and that is still a very generous figure.
I think that the campaign injected the $10 million before March 31st, then came out with the enormously astounding figure after the PA primary just to show that they are still solvent. The question still remains. Where did this $10 million come from?
Check out the FEC figures here:
http://www.fec.gov/press/presssummary.pdf
April 24, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
200 average donation from regular voters sounds bugus to me also.
April 24, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just about every comment here is a question or outright rejection of Hillary's fundraising prowess. Many commenters have said they donated to Obama as a reaction to Hillary's fundraising "news." This is good. It shows what a dedicated, committed activist base can do.
Just think, if Hillary inspires this kind of ill-feeling among democrats, imagine what kind of antipathy she will inspire among repubs if she were to some-how, in spite of every metric being against her, become the democratic nominee.
April 24, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will believe Hillary's $10 million number at the same point at which I will believe that the skies will open and a chorus of angels will come down from the heavens singing Celine Dion songs and bearing the crown for her coronation.
April 24, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink