#98QBKiller Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Obama's money puts Clinton's 'inevitable' nomination in doubt Clink link for full article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/campaign.money.schneider/index.html WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Just when Washington insiders were beginning to think of Sen. Hillary Clinton's nomination as inevitable, here comes Sen. Barack Obama to shake up that assumption with stupendous second-quarter fundraising totals: $32.5 million raised, of which $31 million can be spent in the Democratic primaries. That's a bigger total take than Clinton's impressive $27 million for the quarter, and half again more than she raised for the primaries ($21 million). So who's the front-runner now? We're in the middle of the "invisible primary," the year before the election when no actual votes are cast but candidates compete for money and attention. Historically, the candidate who has raised the most money and leads the polls at the end of the invisible primary (i.e., December 31, 2007) ends up getting the nomination. Except when he doesn't. Howard Dean won the invisible primary in 2003, but was effectively finished a few weeks later after he came in third in Iowa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I think this number has to scare the crap out of Clinton and her team. I think it could have been anticipated in te first quarter, with the newness factor, but this proves it's not a fluke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 The GOP is smiling either way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I love looking at these numbers. Somehow I think all the money spent on elections would be better spent if given to poor people who need healthcare... what a waste... they need this money why? Because no one knows who Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are? I feel the same way about money on the right... that's a whole lot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 So is Al Gore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I love looking at these numbers. Somehow I think all the money spent on elections would be better spent if given to poor people who need healthcare... what a waste... they need this money why? Because no one knows who Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are? I feel the same way about money on the right... that's a whole lot of money. Nah. It's a drop in the bucket in terms of real costs like healthcare. We spend 31 million to build a single high school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Let me see didn't Dean have the most fundraising money last time, how did that work out :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 if they are paying for votes...holla atcha boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 It would be bad for this nation for Hillary to win. After 20 consecutive years of Bushes and Clintons, we need a new name and face, so that we have a chance to heal. The rhetoric and partisanship is so high right now. A new name won't solve anything, but at least it gives us a chance to have a slightly different conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I think this number has to scare the crap out of Clinton and her team.I think it could have been anticipated in te first quarter, with the newness factor, but this proves it's not a fluke. The Clinton campaign will take the gloves off when they get really worried. RCP Average Clinton 37.3% Obama 23.0% Edwards 12.0% Gore 15.0% Clinton +14.3% :yawnee: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Money doesn't equal support. Romney has raised more than any other candidate on the Republican side, and he's under 10% in the polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliffmark1 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Gore could beat either Obama or Clinton. He may run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I'm not sure that's true Cliff. Enviromentalism is an important issue, but it's not the only issue facing our country. Obama gives the nation a chance to move away from the political dynasties that have brought us into the mess we're in right now, and I think that as the race progresses that will only become more important. Gore already lost once remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I'd prefer the D's nominate Obama... it'll be interesting if he can counter the Clinton machine. If Clinton gets nominated, how is she going to defend the whole "Bush-Clinton" dynasty? I think any rational American could say, "Gee.. why do we need 2 families ruling this country?" I think this presidential race is going to be interesting... I actually don't see anyone dynamic on the side I disagree with. Obama seems compelling, but a lightweight... did he even serve 1 term in the Senate? He seems like a pumped up media creation. I think Giuliani would cream either of them. Problem is he has to get past Fred! I think Fred! would be a decent moderate too... at least different from Bush. I really want to see Fred! get serious about running for the Presidency. The Democrat's last debate was very embarrasing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Fergasun, I think that if you really start to take the time to learn about Obama you'll see that he's far from a lightweight. You probably disagree with many of his policies, (he has published far more detailed policy papers than any candidate in this election by the way) but to call him a lightweight is absurd. What exactly does a bunch of time in washington gain you except baggage? I mean, if you love the way our government has been functioning lately, you might disagree, but if you want real change, I can't believe his short tenure in washington is somehow a liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 I think Giuliani would cream either of them. Giuliani will flounder because of his stance on abortion, but I wouldn't count him out to win the primary by any stretch. I doubt he could beat out Clinton in the Presidential election and I'm sure he would lose to Obama. I think the primaries will be more interesting than the big one. Gore could beat either Obama or Clinton. He may run. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I think Hillary is already :pooh: her pants over Obama's showing. She's already trotting Hill Bill out again. I just have to wonder how long that's going to work. To me, that's a sign of weakness. In any event, if Obama doesn't manage to win the nomination I hope he doesn't tarnish his reputation by running with Billary.:puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 Ignatius, Good point. I really think I want to like Obama, even if I disagree with Democratic policy. It's true that people want to see that time in Washington, yet don't want to have the same old candidates... odd. What I'd really like to see is a wealthy independent run. Someone like Bill Gates? Someone like maybe the Google people? Someone successful, probably a minority, someone articulate that says... "I really care about the future of this country, I don't care about the future of my political party, I care about the future of my kids. I'm not going to push controversial unpopular legislation, I'm not going to push to outlaw abortion, I'm going to focus on building a strong and smart country that can grow.". I really would like to ditch the R's and D's for I's... someone that is technically saavy and intelligent, and willing to stand against both parties for things that make this country better. Someone that will even go so far as to say... "the whole notion of our Senators and Representatives spending their days in Washington is stupid, we have this thing called the Internet... let's connect via the Internet." And then when they realize broadband is crap here, they'll upgrade that. Someone that will be for school choice, someone that will be really hard on crime and push for states/localities to be hard on crime, someone that will build more prisons, someone that will be able to see what is happening. I really don't think there is anyone in the parties that can do that since they are so ****ing tied to damn idealologies. Sure, I'm a right winger, but I'll back off immigration and I'll back off abortion. If you want to know why people of California would elect Arnold this is exactly it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 It would be bad for this nation for Hillary to win. After 20 consecutive years of Bushes and Clintons, we need a new name and face, so that we have a chance to heal. The rhetoric and partisanship is so high right now. A new name won't solve anything, but at least it gives us a chance to have a slightly different conversation. There's not a snowballs chance that either will win. If the Dems are dumb enough to put either on the ticket, they will hand this election to any Republican candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo da Magnificent Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 There's not a snowballs chance that either will win. If the Dems are dumb enough to put either on the ticket, they will hand this election to any Republican candidate. I believe the Dems could nominate anyone on this side of Charles Manson and would win the next election in a walk. The Republicans with GWB will be like the Dems with Jimmy Carter in the 80's. You can't talk past that kind of dead weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 They can say all they want during their campaigns, but, if elected, the only real difference between Hillary and Obama would be that Hillary doesn't have a penis. And even that is debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I've made it known where I stand. And yes, there is a huge difference between Hillary and Obama. People need to do research before they start spewing off out of their ass. That being said, I wouldn't mind a Gore/Obama ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 I believe the Dems could nominate anyone on this side of Charles Manson and would win the next election in a walk. The Republicans with GWB will be like the Dems with Jimmy Carter in the 80's. You can't talk past that kind of dead weight. You know, that's what I thought too until GWB got re-elected. Don't underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted July 3, 2007 Share Posted July 3, 2007 As much as I like Obama personally, and think someone like him would be a fine person in office, I simply cannot vote for someone who wants to nationalize healthcare. If he gets rid of that platform plank, then I would seriously consider him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 As much as I like Obama personally, and think someone like him would be a fine person in office, I simply cannot vote for someone who wants to nationalize healthcare. If he gets rid of that platform plank, then I would seriously consider him You get points for not using the word "socialize." Obviously, aside from the war, healthcare is Obama's biggest objective so I don't see him abandoning it anytime soon. He's also pushing hard to better healthcare services to soldiers in the armed forces (the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act). What is your biggest objection to a revamped healthcare system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.