Experts unite! How can Obama pull this off?

Clinton Camp: Obama Will Outspend Us
By JIM KUHNHENN – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign, lagging far behind Barack Obama's fundraising this year, expects to be outspent by Obama in upcoming Democratic nominating contests just as it was in Feb. 5 states, her strategists conceded Wednesday.

Officials with both campaigns have said Obama raised $32 million in January and that Clinton raised $13.5 million, a significant gap between the two that allowed Obama to place ads in virtually every Super Tuesday state and to get a head start on advertising in primaries and caucuses over the next week.

In a teleconference with reporters, Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn said Clinton was having a "record day" raising money over the Internet on Wednesday.

"We will have funds to compete," he said, "but we're likely to be outspent again."

Asked whether Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had decided to dip into their own wealth to finance the campaign, Penn said, "I'm not aware that they have." Campaign communications director Howard Wolfson said he would inquire. The Clinton's financial disclosures, which reveal only broad ranges of assets, place their wealth between $10 million to $50 million.

Clinton's name recognition and lead in polls in some of the bigger upcoming states give her an advantage and Obama's higher spending rate did not translate into victories in several states Tuesday.

But the terrain ahead features contests in the short term that are favorable to Obama. On Saturday, Obama and Clinton will compete in Louisiana and Nebraska primaries and a caucus in Washington. On Tuesday, Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia hold primaries.

The Clinton camp is counting on March 4 matchups in Ohio and Texas and an April 22 primary in Pennsylvania. All three are expensive states in which to campaign.

Obama's camp signaled that he was ready to invest money in those states as well. "We think we're in strong financial position so if we choose to do so in the later states we'll have the ability to do that," campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters Wednesday.

Clinton spent $15 million in December going into the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Her campaign spent at least $9 million in the last two weeks of January advertising in Super Tuesday states. Obama spent about $11 million in Super Tuesday advertising.

Clinton raised $23.7 million in the last quarter of 2007 for the primary elections compared to Obama's $22 million. Both had about $18.5 million cash on hand for the primaries going into January. But Obama roared to a fundraising lead in January by collecting money at the rate of at least $1 million a day and attracting more than 170,000 new donors.

Obama also has a money advantage because he has raised more money from small donations than Clinton. An analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks trends in political money, found that Obama raised about a third of his money in 2007 from donors who gave $200 or less. Only one-third of his money came from donors who have given the legal maximum of $2,300, compared to Clinton who raised about half of her money from "maxed out" donors and only 14 percent from donors of $200 or less.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iU_P23eyGmxqE8EEa7ba6r86BpIwD8UKVA1O0
 
How Obama Out-Strategized Clinton
by Randy Shaw‚ Feb. 06‚ 2008

The story of Super Tuesday 2008 is really quite simple. The Clinton campaign assumed several months ago that it could knock its competitors out of the race through big wins in New York, California, Massachusetts and New Jersey. It seemed to forget that the rules for apportioning delegates undermined this “big state” strategy, and by bypassing campaigning in a large number of other states, Clinton allowed Obama to rack up huge delegate percentages in places like Idaho and North Dakota. Obama better understood the rules of the game, and took advantage of Clinton’s ceding of states and delegates. Those complaining about Obama’s lack of focus on California and the large states learned last night why this strategy made so much sense. For example, according to Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Obama will take 23 of Kansas’ 32 delegates, and 46 of Minnesota’s 72. While the media was obsessed with Clinton’s victory in New York, between that state and Obama’s home base in Illinois, Obama will end up with 15 more delegates. For Obama to win 13 or 14 of the 22 states was inconceivable only a few weeks ago, and having overcome the steep challenge of Super Tuesday, he now heads toward a string of states where he is likely to prevail.

Big v. Small States:

Media coverage of Super Tuesday seemed as confused as the Clinton campaign about the rules of the contest. As much as commentators emphasized Clinton’s victories in “delegate rich” New York and California, they ignored the fact that the congressional district-based delegate selection rules largely prevented Clinton from translating her popular vote success into large delegate hauls.

Obama understood this well. On a conference call last night when Obama was trailing badly in Missouri, campaign chief David Plouffe told us that Minnesota---a caucus state that Clinton ignored--- would deliver more delegates to Obama then Hillary would win in hard-fought Missouri.

He was righter than he thought. Obama staged a remarkable comeback victory to win Missouri, so he will get the benefit of a slight majority of that state’s delegates in addition to his huge edge in Minnesota.

In state after state, Clinton made little or no effort to prevent Obama from winning high percentages of delegates. Again, if the rules prioritized large states this strategy would make sense, but the rules reward the opposite.

Some say that Clinton avoided caucus states because she knew she would lose. But she did win the popular vote in the Nevada caucuses, and it is hard to believe that she could not have worked to reduce Obama’s huge victory margin in states like Colorado and Minnesota.

Red vs. Blue States:

Clinton not only erred in putting all her eggs in the basket of a few large states, but she also failed to use Super Tuesday to prove she could expand the Democrats’s general election base. She did win Oklahoma and Tennessee, but the other states she won, with the possible exception of Arizona, are very blue states.

Obama, in contrast, sent a message that he could be competitive in the entire Rocky Mountain region, and potentially in some Southern states. At the very least he showed that, unlike Clinton, he has a chance with these voters.

The Latino Vote:

When word got out that New York’s Latinos had gone for Hillary by a 72% margin, it sent a troubling message for what could befall Obama in the west and southwest. But Obama won Colorado in a landslide, won 44% of the Latino vote in Arizona, and is proving competitive in heavily-Latino New Mexico.

Clinton apparently destroyed Obama among California’s Latino’s, winning nearly 70% of the vote.

But before everyone starts talking about Obama’s “Latino problem” and how he must change this electoral dynamic, consider that the next several primaries and caucuses involve few Latino voters. So a linchpin of Clinton’s electoral success will not be available to help her in the coming weeks.

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/How_Obama_Out_Strategized_Clinton_5343.html
 
BB is to dumb to be an idiot.
Way more people are registared dems, and the anti-war movement is 70%.
Anyone with an IQ above room temp know it's hardly a fact than Mcain the fossil will win.
 
Presidential candidacy

In 1968, President Johnson began to run for reelection. In January 1968, faced with what was widely considered an unrealistic race against an incumbent President, Senator Kennedy stated he would not seek the presidency. After the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, in early February 1968, Kennedy received a letter from writer Pete Hamill (later acclaimed author of the novel Snow in August). Hamill wrote an anguished letter to Kennedy noting that poor people kept pictures of JFK on their walls and that Robert Kennedy had an "obligation of staying true to whatever it was that put those pictures on those walls." Kennedy traveled to California, to meet with civil rights activist César Chávez who was on a hunger strike. The weekend before the New Hampshire primary, Kennedy announced to several aides that he would attempt to persuade little-known Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota to withdraw from the presidential race. Johnson won an astonishingly narrow victory in the New Hampshire primary on March 12, 1968 against McCarthy. Kennedy declared his candidacy on March 16, 1968 stating, "I do not run for the Presidency merely to oppose any man, but to propose new policies. I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and because I have such strong feelings about what must be done, and I feel that I'm obliged to do all I can."

According to linguist Desmond Derbyshire Kennedy had already decided to run for presidency years earlier in November 1965, while visiting the linguist and taking a bath in the Nhamundá river in Brazil[15].

McCarthy supporters angrily denounced Kennedy as an opportunist, and thus the anti-war movement was split between McCarthy and Kennedy. On March 31, 1968, Johnson stunned the nation by dropping out of the race. Vice President Hubert Humphrey, long a champion of labor unions and civil rights, entered the race with the support of the party "establishment," including most members of Congress, mayors, governors and labor unions. He entered the race too late to enter any primaries, but had the support of the president and many Democratic insiders. Robert Kennedy, like his brother before him, planned to win the nomination through popular support in the primaries.

Kennedy stood on a ticket of racial and economic justice, non-aggression in foreign policy, decentralization of power and social improvement. A crucial element to his campaign was an engagement with the young, whom he identified as being the future of a reinvigorated American society based on partnership and equality.
Tired, but still intense in the last days before his Oregon defeat, RFK speaks from the platform of a campaign train.
Tired, but still intense in the last days before his Oregon defeat, RFK speaks from the platform of a campaign train.

Kennedy's policy objectives did not sit well with the business world, in which he was viewed as something of a fiscal liability, opposed to the tax increases necessary to fund such programs of social improvement. When verbally attacked at a speech he gave during his tour of the universities he was asked, "And who's going to pay for all this, senator?", to which Kennedy replied with typical candor, "You are." It was this intense and frank mode of dialogue with which Kennedy was to continue to engage those whom he viewed as not being traditional allies of Democrat ideals or initiatives.

It has been widely commented that Robert Kennedy's campaign for the American presidency far outstripped, in its vision of social improvement, that of President Kennedy; Robert Kennedy's bid for the presidency saw not only a continuation of the programs he and his brother had undertaken during the President's term in office, but also an extension of these programs through what Robert Kennedy viewed as an honest questioning of the progress that had been made in the 5 years since the President's death. Kennedy openly challenged young people who supported the war while benefiting from draft deferments, visited numerous small towns, and made himself available to the masses by participating in long motorcades and street-corner stump speeches (often in troubled inner-cities). Kennedy made urban poverty a chief concern of his campaign, which in part led to enormous crowds that would attend his events in poor urban areas or rural parts of Appalachia.

On April 4, 1968, Kennedy learned of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and gave a heartfelt, impromptu speech in Indianapolis' inner city, in which Kennedy called for a reconciliation between the races. Riots broke out in 60 cities in the wake of King's death, but not Indianapolis, a fact many attribute to the effect of this speech.[16]

Kennedy finally won the Indiana and Nebraska Democratic primaries, but lost the Oregon primary. If he could defeat McCarthy in the California primary, the leadership of the campaign thought, he would knock him out of the race and set up a one-on-one against Hubert Humphrey (whom he bested in the primary held on the same day as the California primary in Humphrey's birth state, South Dakota) at the Chicago national convention in August.

Assassination

Main article: Robert F. Kennedy assassination

On June 4, 1968, Kennedy scored a major victory when he won the California primary. He addressed his supporters in the early morning hours of June 5, 1968 in a ballroom at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. He left the ballroom through a service area to greet supporters working in the hotel's kitchen. In a crowded kitchen passageway, Sirhan Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian, opened fire with a .22 caliber revolver and shot Kennedy in the head at close range. Following the shooting, Kennedy was rushed to The Good Samaritan Hospital where he died the next day.
Robert Kennedy's Grave in Arlington National Cemetery
Robert Kennedy's Grave in Arlington National Cemetery

His body was returned to New York City, where he lay in state at St. Patrick's Cathedral for several days before the funeral mass held there. His brother, Senator Ted Kennedy, eulogized him with the words, "My brother need not be idealized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it."

Senator Kennedy concluded his eulogy, paraphrasing his deceased brother Robert by quoting George Bernard Shaw: "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'Why not?'"

Immediately following the mass, Kennedy's body was transported by special train to Washington, D.C. Thousands of mourners lined the tracks and stations, paying their respects as the train passed by.

Kennedy was buried near his brother, John, in Arlington National Cemetery. He had always maintained that he wished to be buried in Massachusetts, but his family believed that, since the brothers had been so close in life, they should be near each other in death. In accordance with his wishes, Kennedy was buried with the bare minimum military escort and ceremony. Robert Kennedy's burial at Arlington National Cemetery was the only one to ever take place at night. Coordinates: [show location on an interactive map] 38°52′52″N 77°04′17″W / 38.88118, -77.0715

After the assassination, the mandate of the Secret Service was altered to include protection of presidential candidates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy#Presidential_candidacy
 
blackascoal said:
How Obama Out-Strategized Clinton
by Randy Shaw‚ Feb. 06‚ 2008

The story of Super Tuesday 2008 is really quite simple. The Clinton campaign assumed several months ago that it could knock its competitors out of the race through big wins in New York, California, Massachusetts and New Jersey. It seemed to forget that the rules for apportioning delegates undermined this “big state” strategy, and by bypassing campaigning in a large number of other states, Clinton allowed Obama to rack up huge delegate percentages in places like Idaho and North Dakota. Obama better understood the rules of the game, and took advantage of Clinton’s ceding of states and delegates. Those complaining about Obama’s lack of focus on California and the large states learned last night why this strategy made so much sense. For example, according to Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Obama will take 23 of Kansas’ 32 delegates, and 46 of Minnesota’s 72. While the media was obsessed with Clinton’s victory in New York, between that state and Obama’s home base in Illinois, Obama will end up with 15 more delegates. For Obama to win 13 or 14 of the 22 states was inconceivable only a few weeks ago, and having overcome the steep challenge of Super Tuesday, he now heads toward a string of states where he is likely to prevail.

Big v. Small States:

Media coverage of Super Tuesday seemed as confused as the Clinton campaign about the rules of the contest. As much as commentators emphasized Clinton’s victories in “delegate rich” New York and California, they ignored the fact that the congressional district-based delegate selection rules largely prevented Clinton from translating her popular vote success into large delegate hauls.

Obama understood this well. On a conference call last night when Obama was trailing badly in Missouri, campaign chief David Plouffe told us that Minnesota---a caucus state that Clinton ignored--- would deliver more delegates to Obama then Hillary would win in hard-fought Missouri.

He was righter than he thought. Obama staged a remarkable comeback victory to win Missouri, so he will get the benefit of a slight majority of that state’s delegates in addition to his huge edge in Minnesota.

In state after state, Clinton made little or no effort to prevent Obama from winning high percentages of delegates. Again, if the rules prioritized large states this strategy would make sense, but the rules reward the opposite.

Some say that Clinton avoided caucus states because she knew she would lose. But she did win the popular vote in the Nevada caucuses, and it is hard to believe that she could not have worked to reduce Obama’s huge victory margin in states like Colorado and Minnesota.

Red vs. Blue States:

Clinton not only erred in putting all her eggs in the basket of a few large states, but she also failed to use Super Tuesday to prove she could expand the Democrats’s general election base. She did win Oklahoma and Tennessee, but the other states she won, with the possible exception of Arizona, are very blue states.

Obama, in contrast, sent a message that he could be competitive in the entire Rocky Mountain region, and potentially in some Southern states. At the very least he showed that, unlike Clinton, he has a chance with these voters.

The Latino Vote:

When word got out that New York’s Latinos had gone for Hillary by a 72% margin, it sent a troubling message for what could befall Obama in the west and southwest. But Obama won Colorado in a landslide, won 44% of the Latino vote in Arizona, and is proving competitive in heavily-Latino New Mexico.

Clinton apparently destroyed Obama among California’s Latino’s, winning nearly 70% of the vote.

But before everyone starts talking about Obama’s “Latino problem” and how he must change this electoral dynamic, consider that the next several primaries and caucuses involve few Latino voters. So a linchpin of Clinton’s electoral success will not be available to help her in the coming weeks.

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/How_Obama_Out_Strategized_Clinton_5343.html
Click to expand...

How do you know about Beyond Chron? I used to read it for to get the progressive thoughts in the City and because it made me laugh but I would have thought it was known by locals only. I guess not?
 
cawacko said:
How do you know about Beyond Chron? I used to read it for to get the progressive thoughts in the City and because it made me laugh but I would have thought it was known by locals only. I guess not?
Click to expand...

I like Beyond Chron .. started reading it while in SF working years ago.

I didn't think anyone knew about it be me and SanFraners.
 
Topspin said:
superfreak is a gay cyclist that tiny seat for hours on end cramps his brain.
I have been for Obama since the medical MJ issue and Hillary threatening to steal our profits.
I was only with Clinton cause she was a dominant frontrunner.
Click to expand...

Funny, because when she was the "dominant frontrunner" many told you that you were counting your eggs before they hatched and you laughed at the possibility of Obama to come back. Weren't you the one laughing and chanting.... she has a 20 point lead????
 
blackascoal said:
You're too kind.

He isn't just a fool, he's an idiot.

With all the republican meltdown going on everywhere one can look .. like most republicans, he just likes to hear himself talk.

TWO-THIRDS OF ALL THOSE WHO VOTED YESTERDAY VOTED DEMOCRAT.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to that stat? Because I am inclined to call bullshit based off of what I saw from CNNpolitics.com
 
Battleborne said:
Hillary or Obama will lose in the general...just a fact of life...Hillary is a socialist as is Obama...'Kumbia' rhetoric is a lost cause...!;)
Click to expand...

You are a socialist. You have absolutely zero fiscal conservative crediblity to call anyone else a socialist.

Welfare state enabler.
 
Superfreak said:
Do you have a link to that stat? Because I am inclined to call bullshit based off of what I saw from CNNpolitics.com
Click to expand...

What he fails to mention, if I am correct, is that Democrats had voting in five more states than did Republicans so it is not an apples to apples comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top