Hillary's Hidden Campaign Crutch - Corrected
One thing that gets missed in all the back and forth about Hillary's campaign debt - and Obama's ability to outspend her - is the value of the time Bill Clinton is contributing to the Hillary campaign.
Take Pennsylvania, for instance. The Hillary camp view of the outcome is that Obama outspent her 2-to-1 in the state, and yet still lost by 10 points.
Here are the facts:
* Obama spent more than $11 million on ads in PA compared to Clinton's $5 million - slightly more than a $6 million, or 2-to-1 advantage
* Bill Clinton made more than 34 campaign appearances in Pennsylvania on Hillary's behalf between early March and mid-April, focusing on "Bubba Voters" in rural counties, to great effect.
* Bill Clinton gets about $150,000 on average for his speaking engagements.
Let's assume - conservatively - that between April 17 and April 22 (election day), Bill did another 16 appearances (conservative, given that he was telling staffers to give him 6 or 8 appearances a day during the last week before the PA primary). That would be a total of 50 Bill Clinton talks between early March and the April 22 primary, which at $150,000 a pop adds up to $7.5 million.
Add to that the under-the-table financial benefit of having PA Governor Ed Rendell's machine working for Hillary, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter's machine doing the same, and you begin to get a sense of the degree to which Hillary outspent Obama in the state.
And what did all this get her? Having effectively outspent Obama by something more than $2,000,000, she saw a 25-point lead shrink to below 10 points, and netted a measly 10 delegates from the process.
Bill Clinton is of course moving on to make similar appearances in Indiana, North Carolina, and beyond.
And the questions nobody seems to be asking?
* Why do those millions of dollars worth of contributed time from a former president not get counted in campaign spending totals?
* What kind of performance would Hillary be making in these primaries if Bill WEREN'T contributing that time, and what does that say about her own strength as a candidate?
* Is she counting on that same crutch to help her out when she's too tired to think straight as the sniper fire comes in at 3AM?
* Do the American people really want a president that needs that kind of crutch?
Take Pennsylvania, for instance. The Hillary camp view of the outcome is that Obama outspent her 2-to-1 in the state, and yet still lost by 10 points.
Here are the facts:
* Obama spent more than $11 million on ads in PA compared to Clinton's $5 million - slightly more than a $6 million, or 2-to-1 advantage
* Bill Clinton made more than 34 campaign appearances in Pennsylvania on Hillary's behalf between early March and mid-April, focusing on "Bubba Voters" in rural counties, to great effect.
* Bill Clinton gets about $150,000 on average for his speaking engagements.
Let's assume - conservatively - that between April 17 and April 22 (election day), Bill did another 16 appearances (conservative, given that he was telling staffers to give him 6 or 8 appearances a day during the last week before the PA primary). That would be a total of 50 Bill Clinton talks between early March and the April 22 primary, which at $150,000 a pop adds up to $7.5 million.
Add to that the under-the-table financial benefit of having PA Governor Ed Rendell's machine working for Hillary, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter's machine doing the same, and you begin to get a sense of the degree to which Hillary outspent Obama in the state.
And what did all this get her? Having effectively outspent Obama by something more than $2,000,000, she saw a 25-point lead shrink to below 10 points, and netted a measly 10 delegates from the process.
Bill Clinton is of course moving on to make similar appearances in Indiana, North Carolina, and beyond.
And the questions nobody seems to be asking?
* Why do those millions of dollars worth of contributed time from a former president not get counted in campaign spending totals?
* What kind of performance would Hillary be making in these primaries if Bill WEREN'T contributing that time, and what does that say about her own strength as a candidate?
* Is she counting on that same crutch to help her out when she's too tired to think straight as the sniper fire comes in at 3AM?
* Do the American people really want a president that needs that kind of crutch?
Advertisement
Exaggerate much? Tell only half the story much? Casey? Michelle Obama? Etc.
April 28, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, "left" let me get this straight:
Casey Machine = Rendell Machine?
Michelle Obama = Bill Clinton?
Left, you clearly know nothing about Pennsylvania Democratic party machinery. And you seem to exaggerate Michele Obama's star power.
April 28, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say they were equal. However, if you are going to do this kind of math, do it fairly.
And Hillary never had a 25 point lead in PA. The biggest RealClearPolitics average I see is about 16. She won by about 9.5 after Obama introduced himself. Swinging 6.5% of the electorate is not an impressive feat for Obama.
I am not buying what you are selling. The only people who are open to believe this are Obama supporters trying to find a silver lining in the PA loss.
April 28, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Silly left.
You can tweak the averages all you want, but the fact is that both Quinnipiac and PPP had Clinton up by more than 25 points before Obama started campaigning in PA.
But, for the sake of argument, whether the lead was 25 points, 20 points, or the 16 average you claim (provide specific references to your sources much?), I'll still stand on my claim that it's not so impressive that Ms. Clinton couldn't hold onto that lead with all the resources brought to bear on her behalf in a state with even friendlier demographics than Ohio. And I'll stand by my claim that a candidate who can't deliver without the crutch of a former president working full time on her behalf is not all that impressive.
To your other point ... you say Bill Clinton, Ed Rendell and Michael Nutter are "only half the story," and then you reference Bob Casey and Michelle Obama immediately following; is it unreasonable for the reader to do a little simple math and infer that you were in fact equating those contrasting. If that's not what you meant, then clarify. Or just snark & run.
April 29, 2008 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink