Obama Massively Out-Raising Clinton In North Carolina
Barack Obama goes into the North Carolina primary with a big advantage in money raised in-state: In March, the Charlotte Observer reports, Obama raised three times as much cash from North Carolinians as compared to Hillary Clinton. It's an indication of on-the-ground support that could do him well in the primary -- after all, donors large and small are guaranteed to come out to vote, and also to do everything they can to recruit their friends.
Ace Smith, the Clinton campaign's state director, says this only increases the stakes for Obama. "It's proving in this campaign cycle that money don't buy you love," said Smith. "The fact of the matter is, they spent just absolutely mind-boggling and historic amounts of money and haven't been able to close the deal. And to close the deal here in North Carolina, they'd have to beat us by high, high double-digits."
Why are we even bothering with the Clintons? They've lost, all they are doing is dragging the party down with them.
April 25, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The most interesting part of that was the Clinton campaign trying to set the bar at "high, high double digits."
Scared much?
April 25, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton is in debt, was once the leader, and is still losing, so that says what?
April 25, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go again.
Maybe if we ignore the Clintons, they will pack up and go home.
April 25, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wish it were that easy! What will it take? These folks have a death grip on this race!
Death grip....
April 25, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems the Clinton campaign is now beyond desperate, jusging by this now ridiculous flip flopping and goalpost-shifting. Now appararently we have to talk about "high,high,double digits" WTF.Just as we coming from Oblitergate...the Clinton proudly presents...DIGIgate!!!
April 25, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"high, high double digits"
What does that mean? Does he have to win by 94%?
April 25, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Something likt that but look to see it repeated endlessly. It smells like a new talking point, sure to be strung together with close the deal.
April 25, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would 9.7% count? o_0
Actually, this sounds like a challenge. Are they saying that if Obama does win by "high, high double-digits" (note that they keep it sufficiently vague) does that mean they'd finally concede?
(I'm imagining them saying: "No, a 50% lead, 75/25 does not constitute high. A 50 is a failing grade in any school in the country. Why can't he be the A-player that so many want him to be and beat us by 90 points?)
April 25, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
He misspoke, what he meant was, "Hight TRIPPLE didgits."
Obama needs to win, according to the Clinton Crazzies, by 999%.
April 25, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
This close the deal talking point is overdone to the point of nauseous, however, Obama is getting it done, much better than expected. It appears these talking points just keep spewing out of the Clinton campaign and Pat Buchanan, and it is inane.
April 25, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only way Hillary can get the nomination is for the Supers to swing to her.
That will create ANARCHY in Denver and there will be a WHOLE GENERATION of new voters that will feel shafted. Black voters especially.
April 25, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would make 1968 Chicago (inside the convention hall) look like a Love-In.
April 25, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ace Smith earned his (her?) pay for the week. That's nicely on message and pushing Obama's goalposts further out, if you accept the Clinton camp defining what "victory" is. Of course, Obama also can play the expectations game, and he did "win" Pennsylvania by his standards, if just barely, by coming in less that 10 points behind.
April 25, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
sure obama spent a ton of money. it is very expensive to get white people comfortable with a Black man as president. think how much money Coca-Cola spends to get you to drink something you already kinda like. for every dollar HRC needs, Obama needs 5 just to make it even.
April 25, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
And again, never mentioned, deliberately ignored by the media, he is also half white. So sick of the stereo type by MSM.
April 25, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
you're right, they never call him "the first bi-racial", never! It's the skin color bothers these racist. So childish.
April 25, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cane we please stop quoting Clinton flacks on what Obama must do? These liars and losers have been setting the standards for what constitutes an Obama "win" throughout the primary.
Hillary needs to win NC 65%-35%. That is the only way she can make up any ground in the pledged delegate race, which is the primary criteria on which the superdelegates will base their vote.
How do you like them expectations, Hillary?
April 25, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Ace Smith, the Clinton campaign's state director, says this only increases the stakes for Obama. "It's proving in this campaign cycle that money don't buy you love," said Smith."
Oh, shut the fuck up Ace - your candidate had the entire Pennsylvania political machine behind her and all she could muster up was a 9 point win and 10 lousy delegates? I'm a god fearing man, but sometimes, just sometimes - I want bad things to happen to Clinton surrogates.
April 25, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truly, I think these comments are fine. They just make her campaign appear what it has become, desperate and foolish. She has no real policy differences to speak about, his outlook on the future is an inspiration, so they are left with this tripe.
April 25, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to the superdelegate tracker at the Politico site and the endorsement list at wikipedia, Barack has the endorsement of six supers and 70+ North Carolina mayors and other state politicians. Near as I can tell, Hillary has the public endorsement of 1 super and no other North Carolina politicians.
April 25, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
On a side note, I couldn't help but notice how little Intrade has changed since the Penn primary.
April 25, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
This "closing the deal" thing is stupid - neither one of them has, but Obama certainly is closer by far to closing it and in effect has closed it already. She will never close it because she can't catch up.
They know how this works - this primary is not that different from the one in '92. They know that because they are running against Bill's success in '92.
And they aren't going to "close that deal."
April 25, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, for Clinton to close the deal with the super delegates, she's going to need to win at least 40% of the African American vote in North Carolina, if not more. Rep. Clyburn's comments yesterday really made that clear.
The media doesn't want to talk about it, and the snow white progressive blogosphere doesn't seem to want to talk about it, either, but Hillary has a serious, serious problem with black voters. And if she doesn't prove that she can win back African Americans, there's just no way she can be considered a serious general election candidate.
April 25, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's going to be slaughtered.
There's no fucking way she carries the AA vote anywhere in this country.
And they know that and that's what is wrong with Bill.
April 25, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you're right, but I plan on making this same point for the next two weeks in as many threads as I can. It's beyond ridiculous that the talking heads are going on and on about Obama's failure to win the white working class, when Hillary's problem with African American is much more pronounced. The most solid part of our base is completely rejecting her, and no one wants to talk about it.
April 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
fine with me - I'll just keep agreeing.
April 25, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a deal!
April 25, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thry're not rejecting her. They're just voting based on race and nothing else.
The AA vote is the most racist vote in America right now.
How sad.
April 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome. I like to think that a single tear was running down your cheek as you wrote this.
April 25, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah fogu2, and this phenomenon is surpassed only by the second wave feminist lockstep votes for Hillary Clinton in terms of identity politics. But, by the way, as you seem to be pretty racist yourself, you should really try to learn what the term actually means. For example, voting for a candidate who looks like you isn't racism. I suggest you look up the word in a dictionary and learn something.
April 25, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fogu is not aware tht Hillary had much higher percentage of the black vote before South Carolina. After Bills remarks ( which some have called playing the race card ) her percentage of the AA vote plumetted. So I think her low percentage of the AA vote is due to the campaigns insensitive remarks instead of just voting for the same race. Clyburn still has refused to take a position and remain neutral during the whole campaign.
Making Obama more black has hurt him with white voters in the rust belt. I will let others decide if this was a deliberate strategy.
April 25, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sort of lost as to the distinction you are drawing here. How is it that African Americans voting on race should amount to something other than a rejection of Sen Clinton? They are not voting for her, right? Surely that is what it means to reject a politician, no?
April 25, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Show me any prior presidential nominations that have had as high a percentage of blacks vote for the same candidate, repeatedly in virtually every state.
It does not exist. The vote is a purely race based one and no matter how many other reasons you look for, common sense tells you I am right.
Their plateforms are almost identical. There really is no other explanation.
Voting based on race. The most divisive trend, ever. Identity politics will ensure defeat in the general.
Greg, for someone so seemingly objective it is surprising you are reluctant to state the obvious here. And that is the major problem here, deception, fear of the truth and division. Obama represents all that.
April 25, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not declining to state the obvious. I am simply trying to understand what you are saying. If black voters are not voting for her (for whatever reason, racism included) then how is that different from saying that they are rejecting her? You said that they are not rejecting her, and I am trying to figure out how you arrive at that conclusion. Let us stipulate (for the moment) that the percentage of the black vote which Obama is receiving can be explained entirely by recourse to the hypothesis of racism - that still means that they are rejecting Sen Clinton, no?
April 25, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
" If black voters are not voting for her (for whatever reason, racism included) then how is that different from saying that they are rejecting her?"
The answer here is easy. Imagine if the race was Clinton vs. Edwards. Do you you really think that Clinton would not get a substantial portion of the black vote or do you really believe they would just sit out? No, they would vote in large numbers for Hillary which means they would be willing to support her. They are not rejecting her, they are just voting based on race.
Rejection is different than voting the preference of two acceptable candidates. And in this case their preference is undoubtedly based on race alone.
You can like both hot dogs and hamburgers and choosing one is not a rejection of the other, just a preference. And in this case the preference is race based and that is toxic for the party and the nation.
April 25, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't done the research, but according to this article African-Americans voting as a block is nothing new:
http://www.vdare.com/francis/black_voting_bloc.htm
Certainly a portion of the black population is voting for Obama because of his race, but just as certainly a large portion of Hillary's voters are voting for her because of her gender.
April 25, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been saying it for months.
April 25, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's over. Hillary has presented us with a candidate for the presidency of the United States who actively want to count votes from an election in which he opponent was not on the ballot. That is how far things have come. That adults in this country actually entertain this line of argument seriously also gives you insight into how far we have come as a country.
for her to succeed in her quest requires us to become something other than ourselves as a country.
April 25, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, 2-3x advertising and 5x overall spending advantage got Obama a 10% loss in PA. What will the same do in NC? Save is anticipated victory or lead to his defeat? Obama can't buy the election and as people continue to learn more about him, the cost per vote can get goes way up.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 25, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, you have yet to reply to the more than one person who has asked you to stop linking your site on every post. It is one thing to post a link relevant to the thread, another to just have it as your signature. Plus, as I mentioned, it sucks.
And so what he spent more money and lost? Mitt Romney spent millions of his own cash, and where'd that get him? By your logic Mike Gravel should be ahead in this thing.
April 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"So, 2-3x advertising and 5x overall spending advantage got Obama a 10% loss in PA."
First thing, its a 9 point loss(get it right) - also, the guy was damn near 30 points down more than a month ago. Obama is going to be our next president..
April 25, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
5x spending advantage? Surel you mean 10x, no?
Once again, where are you getting these numbers?
April 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"And to close the deal here in North Carolina, they'd have to beat us by high, high double-digits."
I seriously (!) thought they were talking about Clinton on first read. Because SHE is the one who needs to win every remaining contest by triple digits! Jeezy chreezy.
April 25, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
And after Obama beats her by high high double digits, Ace will say "Well, North Carolina doesn't really count, because it's not going to vote Democratic in the general, anyway".
Just giving y'all a taste of how the goalposts will, once again, be shifted.
April 25, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
O I know that how works already.
She'll be carrying those posts around with her during Obama's inauguration.
April 25, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is so mind-bogglingly stupid....
Since when has it been a disadvantage in politics to have more money?
The mental gymnastics the Hillary campaign asks us to do to follow her arguments are giving me a hernia.
April 25, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The argument that Clinton is more electable than Obama because he raises a lot more money than she does is something special, even by the debased standards of campaign-issued spin.
April 25, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
This just further proof that Obama's campaign is a bottom-up, grassroots-based movement with the potential to transform the political dynamic while Hillary is a classic, top-down, status quo, personality-focused, movement-less candidate.
April 25, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet this "money can't buy you love" line is *not* in her fundraising mailers.
April 25, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Snark of the day nominee!
April 25, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, he'll exceed Clinton's PA margin in NC. No doubt whatsoever.
April 25, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Continue with the Obama circle jerk while your candidate stumbles, falters, weakens and eventually falls behind at the stretch.
Clinton must be he nominee for the sake if the party and the nation.
Obama the Divider is a fake, a facade, a talking puppet. He is dividing and deceiving the Democratic party. How sad.
April 25, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well reasoned analysis!
April 25, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did Obamites switch from Kool Aid to Hawaiian Punch?
Jim Jones would not be pleased.
April 25, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
... and win the Nobel prizes for both medicine and literature in the same year, and end the drought affecting the western Carolinas and, heal the lame with his touch...
April 25, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
But in Obama's case, Love sure seems to be buying him some money.
April 25, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
!!!HILLMENTUM™!!!!
April 25, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The silent superdelegates are waiting for one thing:
Obama wins in NC and Indiana.
When that happens, it's game, set & match.
And no amount of Lanny Davis, Howard Wolfson, James Carville, Paul Begala and Clintonian spin will be able to counter that reality. Superdelegates will commit to Obama in droves.
April 25, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
From your lips to God's own ears. That said, I do not agree. I am pretty well convinced that the superdelegates will continue to trickle slowly off the bench, but the rate at which they do so will not change one iota regardless of who wins or by how much on May 6. I would love to be proven wrong, but I just do not believe that the supers will be any more strongly moved by Obama victories in NC and IN than they were by his long winning streak in Feb.
April 25, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does he have to win NC by "high, high double digits"?
Why wasn't that the metric in PA, where Clinton owned the entire Democratic machine, and started with a 25 point lead?
Her campaign is completely dishonest. Virtually everything they put out is a lie.
April 25, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that why Clyburn has already started with the race-baiting?
April 25, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
what will it take for these people to understand that there are rule to measure. Clinton has, what? 80% chance to get EVEN with Obama unless she changes the rules. Who says she can change the rules? Bill?
April 25, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The superdelegates aren't endorsing her. So I don't foresee them changing the rules to make her win. I'm just saying.
April 25, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same fundraising advantage was true of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. I think the real reason Obama will win in N. Carolina is race.
April 25, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink