Korean Job Discussion Forums

[chronicpride]

Clinton having to self-fund her campaign:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Clinton_loaned_her_campaign_5_million.html

[Milwaukiedave]

I had mentioned this in another thread, but didn't post the story. $10 million isn't that much and I'm sure they will pick up fundraising wise.

I gave again to Obama's campaign just after that story came out about the $32 million in fundraising. My mom just emailed me and said that she is going to support Obama and I'm trying to get her to donate.

On the other hand Mormon Mitt is giving money hand over fist to his campaign. I don't want to take the thread off-topic, but I think Romney is the one who's in big trouble.

[chronicpride]

It's worth noting that the Clinton campaign isn't making any clear distinctions that her $5 million is on top of the $13 million she raised in Jan. If it was, lord knows that they'd be spinning an $18 million figure, before Super Tuesday. It's clear then that they were only able to raise $8 million funds in January, if you exclude Clinton's money. That's brutal. And that's despite polls showing that she holds national leads throughout Jan.

I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton self-funds more campaign money than she is able to publicly raise in Feb. She has no choice but to forego aggressively campaigning and advertising in Feb contests, and stake everything on Texas and Ohio in March. Obama is likely going to be coming off of a sweep of almost every primary and caucus in Feb, and Ohio and Texas airwaves will be drenched with his ads. If she loses one or both, it's over, as the Clintons will have to make a decision about their livelihood, in the event that they don't get the nomination. Bill is the breadwinner due to his stature being able to charge money for public speaking events. Do the Clintons put the bulk of their net worth on the line, knowing that Bill's public speaking allure and prestige will likely not be able to draw the same money, if Hillary loses?

[Kuros]

[chronicpride]

If so, then that's a lousy ploy, as Giuliani just tried the same thing in Jan and failed.

Besides, over 75% of her donors are already maxed out.

As for Obama, $6.2 million raised so far, in the past 26-27 hrs.

[Czarjorge]

Unless Obama can sweep all the remaining contests a backroom deal is going to decide this thing. Billy is going to bend elbows on enough super delegates to get the nomination for Hillary. It sucks, but Obama is only up by one delegate at this point, and even if all the caucusers for Edwards go Obama he still can't win without super delegates and Clinton is up by over 250 of those. That leaves 500. Save your money for the general.

[Milwaukiedave]

Wow...$6.2 that quickly....what are we up to almost $40 milllion since the beginning of the year? (I've been in Seoul for Lunar New Year and have limited internet/cable access so I'm out of the loop a bit). I guess I might have to get off the can and send more money.

What is so damn cool is my mom just said she's going to send money. It's pretty shocking given her past opinion of politics. I've been bugging her for a couple of months now. Yep, I have to match her donation now.

[Milwaukiedave]

[Milwaukiedave]

[chronicpride]

[Julius]

So logically the best candidate is the person with the most money? wow.

"Obama has more money than Clinton! We better vote for him!"

[chronicpride]

The issue is not necessarily who is vote-worthy due to how much cash they are able to raise. The significance is what the money can enable the politician to do in regards to promoting themselves.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, advertising has become a critical factor when trying to raise mass awareness about things, whether its a new product, cause, etc...And in particular, politics. Due to supply/demand, the cost to advertise on radio and television has risen a lot over the past 20-30 years. For example, one of the most watched events on TV is the Superbowl. There is such strong demand for advertisers to run commercials during that time, that a 30 second ad spot cost an avg of $2.8 million during the 2008 Superbowl.

So now imagine the potential cost of a politician who seeks to raise national awareness of themselves and their platform, as well as in targeted primary and caucus states. Not just TV ads, but also radio and print.

Furthermore, raising awareness about a politician in state primaries, requires an organized ground game. Hiring and paying state staffers to get the word out. Leasing of office space. Promotional material. The more organized and broad one's state infrastructure is for promoting your campaign, stimulates much more awareness.

Therefore, the more money that a politician raises enables them to compete much more and raise awareness of themselves. On the other hand, a lack of funding causes politicians to have to campaign less in states and focus their resources on other states. We saw this with the also-rans in the GOP race, and we are now beginning to see this with Hillary.

[Kuros]

Some of the impressions on this thread need to be dispelled.

Clinton campaign opens its inner sanctum

[chronicpride]

Well, I'll be. The plan worked. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out over the next month. The white-color donors of Barack vs the blue-color donors of Obama. When her fund-raising tapers off again, will a similar stunt kickstart it again or will her women and low-income, low-education demographics start to consider someone that they don't need to factor in when doing their household budgeting?

[Milwaukiedave]