Queen Bee Hilary Makes The Most Honey

[MtSmalls]

While Hillary may have raised the most money in the first quarter, there are several things which have to be examined before declaring a "winner" in this case.

Hillary could raise $1 billion, and I don't think it would help her all that much. Money is used for getting your message out, and for defining yourself (or your opponents) during the election. Hillary has already been defined, and her message is already known (or everyon thinks it is, which amounts to the same thing in this world). So all the money is good for at this point is defining her opponents. And she doesn't need that much.

Secondly, how much of Hillary's money has come from donors that made the max contribution and can contribute no more? A careful examination should be done (someone with more information and time than I have) as to the number of donors who contributed $50-$200, and can continue to contribute that amount each quarter throughout the next year and half. That's where the momentum will come from.

Also, not all of the funds raised can be used in the primary, especially those funds from the donors that contributed the max. A portion of those funds can only be used in the general election, which is to say after July of 2008.

[CharlieDontSurf]

Both Clinton and Bush are awful just on different spectrums.

I will detest a Hillary White House just as much as a Bush White House.

I've voted in every election since 18 and if HC is the nominee I'll be voting for a third party for the first time..unless Hagel or someone interesting is the rep nominee

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
While Hillary may have raised the most money in the first quarter, there are several things which have to be examined before declaring a "winner" in this case.

Hillary could raise $1 billion, and I don't think it would help her all that much. Money is used for getting your message out, and for defining yourself (or your opponents) during the election. Hillary has already been defined, and her message is already known (or everyon thinks it is, which amounts to the same thing in this world). So all the money is good for at this point is defining her opponents. And she doesn't need that much.

Secondly, how much of Hillary's money has come from donors that made the max contribution and can contribute no more? A careful examination should be done (someone with more information and time than I have) as to the number of donors who contributed $50-$200, and can continue to contribute that amount each quarter throughout the next year and half. That's where the momentum will come from.

Also, not all of the funds raised can be used in the primary, especially those funds from the donors that contributed the max. A portion of those funds can only be used in the general election, which is to say after July of 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, all of these points are really relevant. The big story (in addition to the ridiculous amount of money being raised overall) is probably that Hillary didn't bury the competition, as some thought she might. Even Edwards's showing was pretty respectable.

Its on the GOP side, though, that I think the numbers are really telling. McCain finishing third is really bad news for him, and Romney's strength says a lot about his standing among core Republican activists desperate for a real conservative to get behind.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Both Clinton and Bush are awful just on different spectrums.

I will detest a Hillary White House just as much as a Bush White House.

I've voted in every election since 18 and if HC is the nominee I'll be voting for a third party for the first time..unless Hagel or someone interesting is the rep nominee

[/ QUOTE ]

I will never understand the rational behind prolific voters. Much less those who vote consistently republican or democrat. It makes me sad for the state of intelligence in our society.

your statement of clinton being as bad as bush is stating th e obvious. All mainstream politicians suck. thats the nature of our glorious two party system. Doesnt matter who you vote for, you will always get a jackass who claims to be just right or left of center, but is always exactly the same.

[4 High]

Obama has set up him the best with his 1Q regardless of what his final 1Q number is. He has by far the largest base of contributors which will allow him in all likelihood to lead in the 2nd and 3rd QTR fundraising which in the end is more meaningful then the 1Q. I think Obama and McCain came out of the 1Q as the top winners almost solely due to the large number of donors.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Obama has set up him the best with his 1Q regardless of what his final 1Q number is. He has by far the largest base of contributors which will allow him in all likelihood to lead in the 2nd and 3rd QTR fundraising which in the end is more meaningful then the 1Q. I think Obama and McCain came out of the 1Q as the top winners almost solely due to the large number of donors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have seen this take on things in a couple places but I am a little bit skeptical. I agree that having a lot of donors is ceteris paribus a good thing, but it might not mean the same for every candidate. With somebody like Obama, it might plausibly point to an ability to generate a lot of excitement and activity without a huge organizational infrastructure, especially among untapped parts of the populace. With somebody like McCain, however, who has more name recognition and a much bigger fundraising machine in place for a long time, it might mean that he has the organization to get a lot of tentative initial contributions but is struggling to get people to really commit because they are increasingly uncertain about him.

In any case, I have a hard time seeing McCain as a winner at this point, seeing as he finished third in total money and seeing as Romney's results seem to indicate that some networks of big GOP donors are volitionally lining themselves up elsewhere.

[canis582]

Whats the corolation between donations and performance in the primaries?

Does it allow the monied elite to control our nation's leadership?

What candidate represents YOUR interests the most? I'd say Kucinich from Ohio