Obama's Fundraising Embarrassment

[Austinitis]

Obama outspent Hillary 3 to 1 in Texas.

He outspent Hillary 3 to 1 in Ohio.

He's outspent Hillary 3 to 1 in Pennsylvania.

And yet he just keeps losing in those states.

So we have to ask: Is it really that big a deal to raise lots of money if it doesn't do you any good? Is Obama doing anything more than wasting his supporter's money?

I mean, Obama supporters keeps touting his fund-raising lead as a metric on which he's winning. But if he loses after spending 3 times more money than Hillary, then a given Obama dollar seems to only be worth 33 Hillary cents. And he's not raising three times as much money as she is.

Which means Obama is effectively well behind Hillary in dollars raised. And that's an embarrassment.

:rofl:

[scheming daemons]

1. Um.... Knocked 30-point leads down to single digits in every case....

....and by the way..... he won Texas..... 99 to 94 in delegates.

[Austinitis]

6. But not, you know, by doing that whole voting thing

Besides, we're at a point in the campaign where we make a moral case to super-delegates. And winning pledged delegates against the popular vote (and this has happened a couple of times now) undermines Obama's moral case. He's going to be in trouble if she wins the popular vote.

[Marnieworld]

20. He's leading the popular vote too not just delegates

And it's hard to measure accurately with caucuses included but I read somewhere that if those were primaries he'd still be in the lead. If you dismiss caucuses then I guess you dismissed them when Bill Clinton won them and rage against Hillary for accepting them before the primaries right?

[cliffordu]

30. She won't win the popular vote with negatives like hers...

When she steps down will you go back right away

or wait till after the general is over??

[Umbram]

64. Type less, think more. (nt)

[zulchzulu]

55. Hillary's lead was always evaporated in two weeks time

Yeah, she "won" Ohio by lying about NAFTA. Grrreeeat...

[monmouth]

61. Uh....138 posts!!!

[Terran]

2. Um, last I checked

Obama won Texas. Not a nice try.

[rox63]

3. Obama got more delegates in TX than HRC

And Pennsylvania hasn't happened yet. All you've got is OH there.

[Yes We Did]

19. And she only got OH because of the rethugs.

Aren't they cute though. Spouting those Hillary talking points.

[PoliticalAmazon]

58. Sad: She can only win when Republicans commit vote fraud to help her....

and she can only win debates against Obama when she gangs up with two others against him.

She is a pathetic loser. It will be good to see her gone.

[americanstranger]

4. Wasting money?

Clinton's campaign has done such a horrid job of campaign spending, if you squint they look like Republicans.

- as

[4_Legs_Good]

5. Don't for get he's winning the nomination too.

And though I may be wrong, I *believe* that counts for something.

Keep on rolling.

David

[thewiseguy]

Seriously, the fact that he is raising more money is an embarrassment?

[livetohike]

7. She was expected to win those states by double digits

I think the laugh is that her campaign is a desperate flop :rofl:.

[LSparkle]

8. His campaign hasn't been in DEBTor required a $5M loan ...

If he has the money, he can spend the money. As noted above, it's allowed him to
come VERY VERY close in even the states he "lost" -- and to amass more delegates
overall as a result.

For you to call his fundraising or his campaign an embarassment is a case of pure
projection (because it's HRC who's been an embarassment on both those counts).

[Marnieworld]

9. If you mean an embarassment of riches

And PAs votes haven't been counted yet so why is that on your list? If Hillary wins by a <10% margin in PA she will never net enough delegates to catch up with him. It's about delegates. More delegates in TX is winning. By closing the amrgin of victory he is making it impossible for her to catch up with him hence winning overall.

It's just math ya know.

[anonymous171]

10. Actually he won more delegates in TX.

[FrenchieCat]

11. your ignorance is astounding.

and I have to imagine that your reasoning abilities must be quite limited.

[mckeown1128]

12. Ummm.. 3 states is a pretty small sample you think?

Especially when you selectively pick those three states. Obama has devistated Hillary elsewhere with much less money spent.

[Mooney]

25. And when one of those three states hasn't voted yet.

[Greyskye]

13. Troll's Posting Embarrassment

[Binka]

35. Saber Dysfunction! LOL!

[EFerrari]

14. That can't be as embarrassing as owing money all over the country.

[not_too_L8]

15. HE IS WINNING

[Jersey Devil]

16. He had to overcome the "inevitable" candidate who raised money for 8 years

That he is still even standing at this point is amazing. That he is thisclose to being the presumptive nominee is a miracle. Hillary has been the presumptive nominee since the day after election day in 2004. It takes a lot of money to overcome that.

[Writer]

17. Yes, because much of the money not spent on the campaign goes into Superdelegates' pockets.

The unwritten story of the superdelegate battle is the "I scratch your back..." aspect of endorsements. Typically what happens is that the candidate seeking endorsement contributes a substantial amount of money to the PAC of the candidate offering the endorsement. So it is (and has) been to Obama's benefit to raise this amount of cash, and we see the result of that in the endorsements he's received.

If Obama takes office, the candidate likely will contribute in kind. This happens in Congress every election year, especially with the nubes. You'll also see the candidates offer individual contributions, as well, with the same limits as any other citizen ($2300 primary/$2300 general).

~Writer~

On edit to include this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-schlesinger/superdelegates-show-me-t_b_87085.html

[Straight Shooter]

47. Oh, dear, those pesky side issues again.

You're tarnishing the knight's armor. :D

[bigbrother05]

49. Thanks, I did not know that.

[sakabatou]

18. Back to your cave...

[Binka]

32. Thor Tossed Her Ass Out

[kentuck]

21. Hillary does have the Democratic base in those states?

Do you know what that is worth? To have the governors and the establishment working for you? It is no easy task for any grassroots candidate.

[Arugula Latte]

22. He won Texas...How embarrassing for you.

[jenmito]

23. Funny. Wolfson said he's outspending her TWO to one. Not to mention his last name's not Clinton,

his spouse wasn't arguably the most popular Dem. president ever, and on and on... And he STILL has overcome HUGH leads by Hillary in every state!

[Mooney]

24. This post gives new meaning to the term "pretzel logic."

I've never read a post before where the fact that a candidate is raising more money than his opponent is evidence that the candidate is less popular than his opponent.

As we get closer to the end of this thing, the posts just get more and more bunker-mentality-ish.

[Binka]

26. I Smell An EmbarrASSment

Wait, that's YOU!

[NYCGirl]

27. He's kicking her ass. Worth every penny. NT

[shadowknows69]

28. He won Texas idiot

[Zachstar]

29. Obama won Texas. Board the failboat!

And if you call him turning a huge Clinton lead into 3-7 a bad investment of funding then you need to do some research.

[demwing]

31. Austinitis' Logic Embarrassment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5566465&mesg_id=5566465

[AtomicKitten]

33. OP's OP embarrassment.

[sniffa]

37. True, and it deserves no attention

[Milo_Bloom]

34. Obama won Texas.

And erased huge defecits in the other states.

[DefenseLawyer]

36. To quote the late Strother Martin

"Morons... I've got morons on my team."

[donheld]

38. Austinitis must be a brain eating disease

Barack won Texas

[onenote]

39. there's embarassment on this thread, but its not Obama's

First, Clinton would have spent more. If she had it. She didn't. And its been well recorded that her spending has been abysmally managed -- far less on television ads and more on consultants and other expenses.

Second, in February, Clinton spent around $1 million a day. Obama around $1.5 a day. And the results: for the month, Obama picked up 288 delegates and Clinton only ended up with 165. Money pretty well spent, I'd say.

Of course, you wouldn't say because you have to have something to cling to even if its not real.

[Debi]

44. $140 million to come in third in Iowa

(and yes, she STILL owes money to Iowa vendors x()


THAT is an embarrassment.

[rinsd]

56. Tied for 2nd if we going by delegate count.

[Debi]

70. Some how that doesn't make the $140 million expenditure

(and unpaid debt) any better.

(pssst - after the County Conventions - March 15th - the pledged delegate count is Obama 25/Clinton 14/Edwards 6)

[goletian]

40. ITS ALWAYS BEEN HILLARYS PRESIDENCY TO LOSE AND SHE LOST IT

obama is a newbie that is kicking hillarys ass, regardless of her decades of experience AND MAJOR name recognition. they need a rolling on the floor crying emoticon for you, buddy. its no laughing matter for hillary to be upstaged by a complete newb. with what you would call his "useless" spending, obama has managed to overshadow a "lifetime of experience" and major, major exposure to the american people for decades within the span of a few months.

ROFL

[Cant trust em]

41. Obama shows that given some time he can win anywhere

Four years ago no one knew who the guy was. One year ago he was down 30 points in nearly every poll you saw. A month ago he was down 20 points in PA, now he's within 5 according to most polls. Wherever he goes he picks up steam.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

42. No, you should be embarrassed by not understanding the proportional delgate system

It's not winner-take-all. The better Obama does in a state, the more delegates he gets, even if he loses. In fact, he lost the popular vote in NV and actually won in delegates. So the closer he brings the margin, the better for him. Had he not bothered to spend money in states he lost narrowly, he might be behind right now.

BTW, your candidate's money management skills are nothing to be proud of.

[shayes51]

43. Oh, God. You used "Obama" and "embarrassement"

in the same sentence. Better go see the Pope before your soul is condemned to hell. That is simply not allowed by the faithful.
:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[shayes51]

72. Thank you for your kindness.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. You're confusing democratic primaries with "winner take all" contests.

How embarassing.

[Adelante]

48. Money well spent

And spent wisely. I just can't wait to see Clinton's next FEC numbers to know if she's paid her Iowa bills yet.

[GoesTo11]

50. And yet he just keeps losing in those states. That's why he's so far down in delegates.

He lost in Ohio - a handful of delegates.

He won in Texas - a handful of delegates (won through the caucus, but fair with respect to your argument since that was part of where he spent money).

Pennsylvania hasn't happened yet.

As for not doing him any good, Hillary was supposed to win back most of her pledged delegate deficit in her firewall states of Texas and Ohio. This spending allowed him to retain the lead built in the previous month.

Just trying to use a little logical reasoning here.

[JoFerret]

51. How much per vote is that?

.

[Citizen Kang]

52. Obama won Texas

and his donors are regular people, not "Hillraisers" very much akin to George W Bushes "Pioneers" in 2000.


Upset that only corporate whores and lobbyists want to donate to Clinton? Boo Hoo

[rinsd]

Lampchop, here! Who ordered the Lampchop?

[BlooInBloo]

53. So wonderful to see all of these new DUers! And they're all Clinton supporters! Welcome!

[julialnyc]

54. She's only won Ohio............ "as far as I know"

N/T

[PoliticalAmazon]

57. Obama won Texas. Yet again, a Hillary attack against Obama...

...that is faulty.

[ShortnFiery]

59. Too bizarre! The Clintons started out with the money, the machine and 60% of the Black Vote.

Obama earned the respect of MANY Americans who have kicked in to his campaign.

The Clintons have proven themselves to be mean-spirited rabbit punchers. They need to realize that when times are hard and THE PEOPLE are actually paying attention, Lee Atwater's (Rove's late mentor) dirty tricks campaigning doesn't rule the day.

It cracks me up that DLC Clintonians are complaining because Obama's Campaign legitimately raised 2x more CASH than HRC. Too funny - you "free market capitalists" are seemingly "going socialistic" on us now? ... or is it ANYTHING to hold on to that God Almighty Political Power?

[Blomst]

60. With All of Hillary's Fame...

Hillary is the wife of a very successful two-term president. She has been in the limelight since the beginning of the nineties. Now, she is a successful NY senator. Obama was a relative unknown when he started his campaign. Hillary's husband, a former president and her daughter are stumping for her, non-stop, in the primary states which means that she more effectively reaches more people in more places. Michelle Obama has an occasional town hall meeting. Otherwise, it is pretty much Obama's own footwork that is responsible for his tremendous success. It is a major disaster for Hillary that she has not been able to pull off greater and more victories with all that initial wind in her sails. All that's left for her is to appeal to people's baser nature and their fears and hope that her dirty tactics will work for her.

[mod mom]

62. He won # of delegates in TX, GOP Cross over voters in OH and Provisional Ballot totals

are still out, he was behind 20 points in PA. The reason is is out spending her is BECAUSE HE CAN AND THOSE DONATIONS CAME FROM SMALL DONORS.

[nichomachus]

63. Faulty logic

Your post would make sense if you were talking about winner-take-all contests. However, this is a fight for delegates -- and he's winning there.

As someone pointed on on DU the other day, even if Hillary wins by bigger than expected numbers for the rest of the primary season (unlikely), she'll still be behind.

He's not "losing," except in your imagination.

[Vinca]

65. Considering Hillary was well known going into the race,

he's done amazingly well. Why hasn't she clinched the deal if she's so wonderful? By the way, she made a huge faux pas this afternoon. I heard part of her speech and now she's trashing Obama supporters as well as Obama. Guess her analytical thinking hasn't told her she would need us to win in November.

[mopinko]

66. let is sink

[Austinitis]

67. How do you let "is" sink?

Verbs float!

[SeaLyons]

68. K&R

[NJmaverick]

69. How did Hillary do in the states where the demographics didn't favor her

Pretty much got creamed. So while Hillary has squeaked out victories in states that were custom made for her to do well, she hasn't even been close when it's reversed. Pretty much shows who our choice should be.

[RBInMaine]

71. You need poli-sci 101.

You are dismissing the fundamentals of regionilization, demographics and the fact that she and Bill have been cultivating entrenched, establishment, machine support especially in the "larger" states of NY, CA, OH, PA, TX etc. for DECADES.
Obama has had to start from scratch. Money helps, but does not necessarily, especially in such a short period of time, wipe out long entrenched establishment and democragphic voting bloc support. The REAL story is how much he has been able to cut in to her territory and has so out-raised and out-organized her when you look at the ENTIRE national picture. Why didn't she lock in up on Feb. 5th?? Wasn't she "inevitable"??

[Austinitis]

73. After you take accounting 101

[TheDonkey]

75. Yes, he's wasted all that money and he is still in the lead by a healthy cushion

It's about the delegates, stupid.

[Texas Hill Country]

74. it does say something that he has to spend 3 times the money to even get close...

[CreekDog]

76. ok, then look at all the races

she had raised about the same amount of money as him until a couple of months ago and where did it put her?

[BlooInBloo]

77. 1) Jillions of people gave him money to campaign. 2) He spent money campaigning...

... 3) He should be embarrassed.

Bizarre.