All About The Absence Of Benjamins

Hillary lost because she didn't have enough money?  So says campaign adviser Mark Penn:

While everyone loves to talk about the message, campaigns are equally about money and organization. Having raised more than $100 million in 2007, the Clinton campaign found itself without adequate money at the beginning of 2008, and without organizations in a lot of states as a result. Given her successes in high-turnout primary elections and defeats in low-turnout caucuses, that simple fact may just have had a lot more to do with who won than anyone imagines.

Well, credible candidates with a compelling message and high name recognition can generally raise money, especially with an ex-President in their corner.  The WaPo thought so in Feb 2007, anyway; OpenSecrets shows the Clinton fund-raising tailing off in the second half of 2007 as the campaign unfolded, as did Obama's.

Cogitamus reviews the players for those lacking a scorecard.

Comments

[hit and run]

Penn:
While everyone loves to talk about the message, campaigns are equally about money and organization.

What, if Penn had had more money the organization he was tasked to lead would have known that California was not a winner take all state?

As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?"

Someone's missing a little organization, in the head.

[Danube of Thought]

My favorite was when, wearing his lobbyist hat, he talked up the free trade agreement with the Colombians. The fact that he's an utter boor makes it all the sweeter.

[clarice]

The only thing missing from her campaign was Shrum but by then "I'm going to fight for you...." (his formula was always this line, spending a lot on ad buys of which he took a hefty percentage, and an ultimate loss) was there to be heisted for nothing.

[hit and run]

In a just world, Penn would find himself without the opportunity for gainful employment again.

Lucky for us, though, the Democrats are nothing if not for injustice.

Thus, some poor Democrat will turn to him for advice again and soon.

[hit and run]

Heh, Clarice, I was going to make my point -- and THEN bring up Shrum. But you beat me to it.

Same as it ever was

[MayBee]

Do you remember when the Democrats thought there was too much money and too much emphasis on image in the US Presidential campaign?

[Chris]

Not enough money? Wow. She probably raised more money in a primary than any candidate in history not named Barack Obama. And as BO demonstrated when he won eleven contests in a row, many of them caucuses, nothing succeeds in raising cash quite like victory. It allowed him to run out the clock in the post super Tuesday portion.

[Danube of Thought]

Here's Rick Davis of the McCain campaign, as quoted by Geraghty on Friday:

“'It’s a much more egalitarian environment, moneywise, than anyone’s willing to report,' Davis said. He explained a chart that showed John McCain’s campaign and the RNC having a combined $85.1 million ( 53.6 for the RNC, $31.5 million for McCain and their 'what we believe, pretty confident' estimates of their counterparts – $46.5 million cash on hand for Obama, $4.4 million for the DNC

“'We’re at least $35 million ahead of them in terms of cash on hand,' he concluded."

[BL]

Quick, follow the money!
I trust the FBI team investigating the Hsu matter and other campaign money fraud, will check for foreign bank accounts, before we have another Vince Foster incident, since he delivered monies to Switzerland for her.

[Daddy]

Well money buys a lot of stuff but it doesn't buy the media. She and Bill used to own the media who were happy to do billions of dollars of positive campaign spin for free. Once she lost the media to Obama she could never get that organ of influence back, no matter how much moola she had in her pocketbook.

[BL]

Maybe 89 over in the Flat Line thread already gave us the Swiss bank account numbers - or Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Channel Islands or the various BCCIs in the Caribbean :)

[Bunny]

I'd like to thank Hillary for making Obama spend 100's of millions just so he could limp to the finish line. And with his chief fund raiser behind bars, the next $200MM won't be as easy.

Hillary in '08!!!!

[PeterUK]

I think you have missed the real nub of this.Just as Hillary wants Universal Healthcare for all,this is obviously the start of a campaign for Universal Candidate Support.

[JM Hanes]

"Having raised more than $100 million in 2007, the Clinton campaign found itself without adequate money at the beginning of 2008, and without organizations in a lot of states as a result."

That's about as good as the case for firing Management gets -- which makes Hillary's real mistake pretty obvious to everybody not named Mark Penn.

[MikeS]

Hillary lost not because she ran out of money, but because she ran out of states. If those seven special states that Obama visited held primaries, it is likely that Hillary would have overcome Barack's tiny lead in pledged delegates.

[Jane]

So hers was the real 57 state strategy!

[Sara]

Money or Media?

Rassmussen reports:

Just 17% of voters nationwide believe that most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of election campaigns. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that four times as many—68%--believe most reporters try to help the candidate that they want to win.

The perception that reporters are advocates rather than observers is held by 82% of Republicans, 56% of Democrats, and 69% of voters not affiliated with either major party. The skepticism about reporters cuts across income, racial, gender, and age barriers.

Ideologically, political liberals give the least pessimistic assessment of reporters, but even 50% of those on the political left see bias. Thirty-three percent (33%) of liberals believe most reporters try to be objective. Moderates, by a 65% to 17% margin, see reporters as advocates, not scribes. Among political conservatives, only 7% see reporters as objective while 83% believe they are biased.

Given these results, it’s not surprising that 76% of voters believe the media has too much power and influence over elections. Just 3% believe the Fourth Estate has too little influence while 16% say the balance is about right.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Republicans believe the media has too much influence along with 80% of unaffiliated voters and 65% of Democrats.

...

Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting from the media coverage this year—Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage while 14% say that Hillary got the best treatment.

At the other extreme, 43% say Clinton received the worst treatment from the media. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say the media was roughest on McCain and only 15% thought the media coverage was most unfair to Obama.

Looking ahead to the fall campaign, 44% believe most reporters will try to help Obama while only 13% believe that most will try to help McCain. Twenty-four percent (24%) are optimistic enough to believe that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

Even Democrats tend to believe their candidate will receive better treatment—27% of those in Obama’s party believe most reporters will try to help him win while only 16% believe they will help McCain. A plurality of Democrats—34%--believe most reporters will be unbiased.

Among unaffiliated voters, 44% believe reporters will try to help Obama and 14% believe they will try to help McCain. Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans expect Obama to receive preferential treatment while only 8% believe reporters will try to help McCain.

[kim]

How's that kid?
==========

[Sara]

Kim, good news, he will be coming home from the hosptial late today, probably around dinner time.

[hit and run]

Sara, that's awesome to hear.

Awesome.

Best news of the day.

[Sara]

I've led a pretty quiet life in the last 7 years with caring for my elderly Mother until her death and then being so crippled up with my back. When the kids came to live, the house became a madhouse as only houses with young children can be. I didn't realize how energizing for me it was to have the little ones around. The house seems like such a morgue now, the quiet is driving me nuts. There is nothing more uplifting than the sound of a child laughing.

[vnjagvet]

Mark Penn and Scott McClellan are birds of a feather. Neither can face up to their own mistakes. Always better for them to blame someone or something else.

Proven losers who are legends in their own minds.

Why would anyone in their right mind hire them?

[vnjagvet]

Great news about Christian, Sara. Now you know he's got gramma's toughness genes.

[clarice]

Isn't that grand news,Sara?

[kim]

Bueno.
====

[Danube of Thought]

For those who think only American-born actors are morons, go to the link under my name. It seems to come with the profession, regardless of race, color, creed or national origin.

[clarice]

Maybe it's old age,DOT. He used to be a great bridge player/ (Michael Ledeen was often his partner.)

[centralcal]

Long ago and far away, I so had a crush on Omar Sharif. Glad to know that I have become not merely older, but wiser.

[cathyf]

Can somebody who has been paying attention explain something to me? Obama won lots of caucus states, while Clinton won primary states. I would assume that the number of caucus voters would be significantly less than primary voters. (You can vote anytime, all day, in a primary, whereas you have to show up at the exact time/place for a caucus.) So how are people comparing the number of votes?

For example, in some caucus state, there are 5 delegates up for grabs, and Obama gets 8000 votes to Clinton's 2000, four delgates to one. Then there is a primary state, with 4 delegates, Clinton gets 75,000 to Obama's 25,000 -- three delegates to one. So between the two states, Obama gets 5 delegates and Clinton gets 4. But it would be absurd to simply add up the caucus votes and primary votes -- Clinton would have 77,000 and Obama 33,000.

So when people say that Clinton has slightly more votes than Obama, what does that mean? Given that Obama won mostly caucus states Clinton primary states, that would represent a landslide for Obama.

[kim]

Funny he should announce this now, when it seems Iraq may actually be successful at democracy.

Islam has a concept related to proportional representation called 'justice'. To my meager understanding this concept conveyed the principle that even the least powerful member of a community still had rights.

I also know that Sistani studied Jefferson, Adams, and de Toqueville, because democracy is absent from the Koran. Little doubt that he has a theological rationale for democracy.
=======================================

[clarice]

cathyf, the dems had ridiculous rules for assigning numbers of delegates. IIRC they were hammered out when Jesse Jackson was a candidate and tend to give more weight to areas where the Dems won the last general election--i.e., inner cities.
As for the allocation of caucus and primary votes, each state sets those and I read today Texas still hasn't figured out what the final tally was.

[RichatUF]

cathyf-

I'm a bit lazy right now to look it up, but a number of states had delegates awarded in both a caucus and a primary. TX was the biggest of the messes, but I think WA fell into the same category. It was a perfect concoction of identity politics, impenetrable rules, and micropolling, with the predicitable results: a less than clear cut winner with the other side feeling "cheated".

[RichatUF]

I looked at the RCP cheat sheet and they have 6 different formulas to calculate Popular Vote. The little star by Washington shows that they could have indulged themselves with a seventh.

[Rick Ballard]

Rich,

The Nikkei is off 2% already. Tomorrow may be as interesting as the President's Day weekend. I suppose we could see a sharp snap back - the bond yield didn't move much on Friday at all.

I wish the commodities investigation would put out more news - I don't believe it was a very bright idea to announce "we're investigating" without doing regular follow ups.

[RichatUF]

Rick-

The news flow all week was all sorts of crazy. I'm still scratching my head as to why Trichet said he may raise euro interest rates after Bernicke was trying to stabilize the dollar.

I did notice that Sec. Paulson was over in the ME last week too.

I think if I hear another person on TV or read another article saying that the price of oil is "demand from China", I'm going to break something.

[kim]

Well we have the well known 'terror premium', now we can add the 'Persian Premium'. Oil jumped $12 a barrel when an Israeli politician rattled a sabre.
=============

[Jane]

Good Morning everyone! This morning the Obamabots were calling the adjective "liberal" a distraction. What a joke this campaign has become.

DoT, I watched that game (so you didn't have to). At this point you may not have to worry about game seven.

[Pofarmer]

- I don't believe it was a very bright idea to announce "we're investigating" without doing regular follow ups.

This is the govt we're talking about.

[RichatUF]

And this "Persian Threat" was only discovered Friday?

[kim]

Oh, no, Rich, just accentuated on Friday with a statement from the former Minister of Defense.
=========================

[Rick Ballard]

Rich,

I agree with you about "rising demand in China" wholeheartedly - it's amazing that the World Bank's minor reduction of the size of China's economy (by what, 40%?) didn't penetrate at all. PPP numbers don't buy oil, dollars do. Reducing China's economy to dollars shows that $135 oil will bankrupt China (and India) fairly quickly. Theoretically, a command economy should be able to react instantaneously to external basic cost increases. Instead, in both instances, political fear has negated any response whatsoever, bleeding off a decade's "net profit" in a year or two.

All that, aside from the fact that a slowdown in growth in the US puts a tightening tourniquet the scrawny neck of the Chinese economy to begin with.

[RichatUF]

Rick-

I had a passing thought that might be of interest regarding this? The rapid run up in oil and across the energy complex could be a run at the NYMEX itself. I'm focusing on the constant drumbeat of the "$150 price target" and what a disorderly unraveling might do. If NYMEX gets gummed up and is on the hook for hugh losses the trade is going to go elsewhere?

Took a quick peek and the short interest is only 2.5% on NYMEX, so I'm thinkin this dog won't hunt, and heretofore, don't really think anyone has looked at the risk of the exchange with prices this high. I haven't heard anything at least.

[clarice]

Don't miss Iowahawk's campaign--I love his defense and energy policies (per instapundit)
bombing Malibu

[RichatUF]

kim-

Israel has made belligerent comments regarding Iran on a regular basis. Oil moved about 2 dollars during the week of their attack on Syria (granted it moved up 15 from Aug07 to Nov07).

[kim]

You haven't read the comment or the discussion of its effect.
===================================

[RichatUF]

You haven't read the comment or the discussion of its effect.

What?

[kim]

The statement from the former Minister of Defense about bombing Iran.
===============

[kim]

Damn, why don't I learn to link? Oh, yes, now I remember.
=================

[kim]

It's Mofaz who is beating the drums. I can't remember where I read that his remarks spooked the market.

Look, Rich, you know a lot more about this than I do. Perhaps I'm wrong, and that remark had no effect Friday.
==================

[RichatUF]

kim-

I know who said it and the statement hit the wires something around 4 AM NY time Friday. Many former officials have been making comments re: Iran for years. Sure it had an effect, it's obvious, but it didn't justify an $11 move.

It felt like the "Spook the Market Wednesday" Nigeria attacks that were in vouge a few months back.