(Untitled)

[jonathansfox]

Hillary Clinton's campaign began this month with $9 million in cash on hand that was usable for the primary campaign, and $10 million in debt.

Barack Obama's campaign began this month with $42 million in cash on hand that was usable for the primary campaign, and less than $1 million in debt.

Comments

[jonathansfox]

Or, maybe it'll prove that the person who has what it takes to win will always raise the most money. Certainly Obama more than most politicians got his $ from a large number of voters.

But we know that it's not the case that the winner's winning traits automatically make them a better fundraiser, because the eventual winner doesn't always raise more money. The same fact disproves that money buys wins though.

The fact is, money and popularity are linked, in that they help buy each other. Obama's money doesn't come out of nowhere, it comes because people donate to his campaign, even many who usually don't -- I even caught my mom making a donation to him. I did too. The result is certainly that he's muscling out Clinton in campaign activity and advertising intensity, but that's why his supporters gave him the money. They want him turn it into votes. So a step back means largest number of highly passionate supporters = win in politics? That's a less exciting conclusion

[sweetanyanka]

What I love/find interesting about it is that two years ago very few (none?) would have predicted that Obama would have more financial resources than the Clintons.

[jonathansfox]

Back then people spoke of the unsurpassed "Clinton fundraising machine".