Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
one...two...tree

Show Us Some Real Money, Hillary!

22 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

As I suspected, the "Hillary raised $10 million online overnight" report that the Washington Post ran with earlier today was too good to be true. I don't know if the mistake is the reporter's or if someone at Camp Hillary was spinning a bit too fast, but there's no way they raised that much since her win in Pennsylvania yesterday.

An email from Terry McAuliffe, Clinton campaign chairman, that I received three hours ago, says "More than 50,000 people have contributed to the campaign for the very first time in the last 24 hours alone." If 80% of Clinton's donations are from new givers, that implies a total number of about 60,000 donations. If we're very generous and assume an average donation of $100, which is high for first-time donors, that gives Clinton a current take of at most $6 million.

Reading the Post's report from its Trail blog, which was by Matthew Mosk, it looks like the over-spin came from Hassan Nemazee, a finance co-chair for Clinton and longtime Democratic fatcat. A Google search shows Nemazee fed the same line to Business Week, which cited him for the news that Clinton supposedly took in $10 million by 2pm this afternoon.

Why am I bothering to knock this particular claim down to size? Because 90% of politics is about perception, and if a campaign is perceived to be running out of money, or floating in money, that affects what other people will think and do about it. Internet-driven fundraising is an amazing thing, because the costs are so low and the speed so seemingly instantaneous. But anyone who reports on it should be careful to remember that the campaigns can easily hype these numbers, and by the time anyone checks for the truth it won't matter.

The same is true, by the way, for the Obama campaign, as Patrick Ruffini has shown that the Obama campaign's online widget showing its donor total has occasionally behaved in odd ways. The best solution to this problem of verifiability, and the lack thereof, would be real-time donation transparency, as was practiced by the Ron Paul campaign. Unfortunately, that's hardly likely from a major campaign any time soon.

http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/24...l_money_hillary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline

maybe she can finally pay some of her campaign bills now.


* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

;)

[uPDATE: Daou confirmed for me that as of this morning, the Clinton campaign had tallied about 100,000 donations since Tuesday night, of which about 80% was from new donors. I retract whatever skepticism I had about the NYT and WP reports above, given these new numbers about total donors. It appears that the Times used the campaign's $10M claim without bothering to update the 70,000 donation factoid--hence my confusion.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Germany
Timeline

;)

[uPDATE: Daou confirmed for me that as of this morning, the Clinton campaign had tallied about 100,000 donations since Tuesday night, of which about 80% was from new donors. I retract whatever skepticism I had about the NYT and WP reports above, given these new numbers about total donors. It appears that the Times used the campaign's $10M claim without bothering to update the 70,000 donation factoid--hence my confusion.]

What does that say?

It is shameful that the liberal media is blatantly participating in the elections instead of reporting on the events. The likes of Matthews, Obelman and their ilk are egregiouly advocating for Obama. The same goes for printoutlets.

Yet...

While the media pundits issue daily barrage of calls/demands/predictions of how Hillary's bid for the presidency is doomed, millions of people are still supporting her and sending money for her to carry on this valiant fight.

Her bid for the nomination and the presidency will continue because of the people will which to this day has been thwarted by distortions and lame excuses such as party rules given. In the same breath, DNC poohbahs and the Obama campaign tout people's will in calling for the primaries to end prematurely by calling for Hillary to drop out of the race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Germany
Timeline

;)

[uPDATE: Daou confirmed for me that as of this morning, the Clinton campaign had tallied about 100,000 donations since Tuesday night, of which about 80% was from new donors. I retract whatever skepticism I had about the NYT and WP reports above, given these new numbers about total donors. It appears that the Times used the campaign's $10M claim without bothering to update the 70,000 donation factoid--hence my confusion.]

What does that say?

It is shameful that the liberal media is blatantly participating in the elections instead of reporting on the events. The likes of Matthews, Obelman and their ilk are egregiouly advocating for Obama. The same goes for printoutlets.

Yet...

While the media pundits issue daily barrage of calls/demands/predictions of how Hillary's bid for the presidency is doomed, millions of people are still supporting her and sending money for her to carry on this valiant fight.

Her bid for the nomination and the presidency will continue because of the people will which to this day has been thwarted by distortions and lame excuses such as party rules given. In the same breath, DNC poohbahs and the Obama campaign tout people's will in calling for the primaries to end prematurely by calling for Hillary to drop out of the race.

Could not edit so here's the edited version as reply.

What does that say?<br><br>It is shameful that the liberal media is blatantly participating in the elections instead of reporting on the events. The likes of Matthews, Obelman and their ilk are egregiouly advocating for Obama. The same goes for printoutlets. <br>Yet...<br>While the media pundits issue daily barrage of calls/demands/predictions of how Hillary's bid for the presidency is doomed, millions of people are still supporting her and sending money for her to carry on this valiant fight.<br>Her bid for the nomination and the presidency will continue because of the people's expressed will. That expressed will of the majority to this day has been thwarted by distortions and lame excuses for discarding the votes of people of florida. They use violation of DNC rules to discount the will of the people who took the trouble to vote for their candidate in Florida and Michigan. In the same breath, DNC poohbahs and the Obama campaign tout people's will or "manufactured" majority vote in calling for the primaries to end prematurely by calling for Hillary to drop out of the race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

Somethings fishy about it. Hillary hasn't been able to raise that kind of money in such a short time until now....and then all of sudden she breaks any record that Obama had. I smell fish. Call that what you will, but it doesn't make sense. It will be telling to see whether this sudden surge in donations continues or if it was just a curious blip on her entire campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

Don't look now but those DNC poobah's you are referring to include in relevant numbers Hillary and her following. They had the pull within the DNC back in August of '07 to stop the boycott from ever being issued. Only they didn't. Because pandering to the early states was deemed more important as she sought to wrap up the nomination by Super Tuesday. Didn't work out that way and now this is coming back to haunt her. Her gamble didn't work. Time she takes some responsibility for her actions.

On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably strategist Harold Ickes—voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)

On Sept. 1, the Clinton campaign issued this ringing statement:

We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.

http://www.slate.com/id/2188985/pagenum/2/

As the only top tier Democrat remaining on Michigan ballot, Clinton is all but guaranteed to win the state's primary. Michigan is tentatively slated to send 156 delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, but national party officials have threatened to take away those delegates if the state persists in holding its primary on Jan. 15.

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1100859_pf.html

I've got to words for Hillary and her supporters with seemingly short memories: FLIP FLOP.

Edited by Mr. Big Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Don't look now but those DNC poobah's you are referring to include in relevant numbers Hillary and her following. They had the pull within the DNC back in August of '07 to stop the boycott from ever being issued. Only they didn't. Because pandering to the early states was deemed more important as she sought to wrap up the nomination by Super Tuesday. Didn't work out that way and now this is coming back to haunt her. Her gamble didn't work. Time she takes some responsibility for her actions.

On Aug. 25, when the DNC's rules panel declared Florida's primary date out of order, it agreed by a near-unanimous majority to exceed the 50 percent penalty called for under party rules. Instead, the group stripped Florida of all 210 delegates to underscore its displeasure with Florida's defiance and to discourage other states from following suit. In doing so, the DNC essentially committed itself, for fairness' sake, to strip the similarly defiant Michigan of all 156 of its delegates three months later. Clinton held tremendous potential leverage over this decision, and not only because she was then widely judged the likely nominee. Of the committee's 30 members, a near-majority of 12 were Clinton supporters. All of them—most notably strategist Harold Ickes—voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement. (The only dissenting vote was cast by a Tallahassee, Fla., city commissioner who supported Obama.)

On Sept. 1, the Clinton campaign issued this ringing statement:

We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process. And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.

http://www.slate.com/id/2188985/pagenum/2/

As the only top tier Democrat remaining on Michigan ballot, Clinton is all but guaranteed to win the state's primary. Michigan is tentatively slated to send 156 delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, but national party officials have threatened to take away those delegates if the state persists in holding its primary on Jan. 15.

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1100859_pf.html

I've got to words for Hillary and her supporters with seemingly short memories: FLIP FLOP.

Not sure if you meant this for the other thread....but in any case.....metta just got...

timming_pictures_12.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
Somethings fishy about it. Hillary hasn't been able to raise that kind of money in such a short time until now....and then all of sudden she breaks any record that Obama had. I smell fish. Call that what you will, but it doesn't make sense. It will be telling to see whether this sudden surge in donations continues or if it was just a curious blip on her entire campaign.

Why the judging? God forbid you admit she did a good thing. Disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Somethings fishy about it. Hillary hasn't been able to raise that kind of money in such a short time until now....and then all of sudden she breaks any record that Obama had. I smell fish. Call that what you will, but it doesn't make sense. It will be telling to see whether this sudden surge in donations continues or if it was just a curious blip on her entire campaign.

Why the judging? God forbid you admit she did a good thing. Disgusting.

The way I see it (my opinion of course) is that Hillary yesterday implied that Obama is trying to spend his way to victory, but then she declares her sudden surge in donations as something triumphant. The Clintons are notorious for raising copious amounts of money...remember back in November when she had a 'lock' on the nomination? No other candidate at that time could touch her in terms of money. She then went on and spent that money, copiously, on things like snow shovels and high priced advisers...and then her money quickly ran dry.

So, I have no doubt that her win in PA would bring in much needed into her campaign, but $10 million overnight? Seriously, that's more than Barack has ever been able to raise. I stand by what I said...it's smells fishy to me. Only time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
Somethings fishy about it. Hillary hasn't been able to raise that kind of money in such a short time until now....and then all of sudden she breaks any record that Obama had. I smell fish. Call that what you will, but it doesn't make sense. It will be telling to see whether this sudden surge in donations continues or if it was just a curious blip on her entire campaign.

Why the judging? God forbid you admit she did a good thing. Disgusting.

The way I see it (my opinion of course) is that Hillary yesterday implied that Obama is trying to spend his way to victory, but then she declares her sudden surge in donations as something triumphant. The Clintons are notorious for raising copious amounts of money...remember back in November when she had a 'lock' on the nomination? No other candidate at that time could touch her in terms of money. She then went on and spent that money, copiously, on things like snow shovels and high priced advisers...and then her money quickly ran dry.

So, I have no doubt that her win in PA would bring in much needed into her campaign, but $10 million overnight? Seriously, that's more than Barack has ever been able to raise. I stand by what I said...it's smells fishy to me. Only time will tell.

She had debts of over $9M! She won PA & the boost in her campaign made her raise money. What's to judge? Why? Why are so you so negative now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...