If Gallup is right and Hillary has as much support as Obama

[NJmaverick]

Why is she broke and Obama is swimming in money??? Seems to be that talk is cheap.

What is even more amazing is that Hillary has the support of most of the big Dem donors. So for her to lose the fund raising battle speaks volumes about who PEOPLE really support.

[NightWatcher]

1. because Rush is telling his peeps to vote for her, but not donate?

[Kahuna]

26. BINGO!!!!

:applause:

[dsc]

2. money equals speech

you sound just like George Will.

[NJmaverick]

4. 1.3 MILLION + donors = REAL SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE

the rest is BS

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. more precisely the number currently stands at 1,363,785 with.....

nearly 30k new donors in a 48 hr period. Seems to have spiked in the wake of that "DEBATE", I think he'll hit 1.5 mil donors before May 6th. We're keeping tally here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5525876

:hi:

[stillcool]

23. I have never re-upped...

my donations to a candidate as I do now. Every time another hit-job is lobbed against my candidate, every time verbal missiles are employed I re-affirm my support, and my investment in my candidate and my future. Considering the unlikelihood of Obama's success I am more than happy to be one of those million plus to help make that happen.

[adoraz]

3. Obama had a big lead for a long time

it was about time, things will return to normal soon. Don't get too excited.

[IsItJustMe]

5. Since McInsane already has the nomination wraped up, Republican dead enders are cross over voting

for Hillary.

[saltpoint]

6. She retains considerable support but has squandered a lead and lots of

cash.

In their private discussions it's likely that her strategy team knows she will not be the nominee.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Sending Money To A Candidate Is An Act Of Desparation

Clinton supporters know they don't need to send money to her, because she will win comfortably without extra money. Obama supporters, however, are desperate to prop up their candidate as he falls further behind.

Understand? :eyes:

[NJmaverick]

11. Are you serious???? You only send money to candidates if you are desperate???

That has to be the strangest idea I have heard in quite awhile. I send money to a candidate that I feel is really good and I want to see get the job. If I don't care for the candidate I don't send them any money.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. I Was Being Sarcstic, Sorry

:hi:

[jackson_dem]

8. Her base is working folks, Obama's is affluent Dems

His supporters can easily shell out $200, $500 bucks--her supporters can't. There is an undercurrent of a class war between Obama and Clinton and she is the candidate of working folks

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

14. but his supporters don't

they give an average of $103 dollars at a time. They aren't ponying up the max $2300 at a time like Billary's biggest supporters. Obama is clearly a candidate of the average person. She is the candidate of the "I'll do favors for you if you support me with money" candidate.

[NJmaverick]

16. Exactly! Hillary's donors are tapped out as they are against the

donation cap.

[jackson_dem]

27. Exactly. Working folks can't pony up $103 several times

Obama has as many $2,300 donors as Clinton. The difference is Obama has an affluent base that has no problem making several "small" donations. If someone gives $103 three times that is $309, a considerable chunk and something that is out of question for working folks.

[Zachstar]

35. You would try ANYTHING to try to discredit Obama eh?

Well face the toast. The core of Clinton's donors are long time donors who have maxed out long ago. She is not pulling in as many of the new donors as Obama has.

[NorthCarolina]

15. I believe the average Obama donation is more like $106, not $200 to $500 as you indicate

Not wanting to doubt your credibility on this though, can you please point me to where you got these figures as they are quite different than what I was able to come up with in my searches.

[jackson_dem]

28. You are correct

I was making a point that it is easier for his supporters to donate than hers. One person who replied to me made a very good point. He said they donate "at a time". His people can easily make several small donations. $103 three times comes out to $309. Working folks can't do that. Obama's base is of people who pay $4 for coffee. Clinton's supporters are those who get $1 coffee.

[NorthCarolina]

30. I quite sure he gets plenty of $10 donations too though

so I'm not so sure I would attribute all his support to rich latte sipping liberals. I know he has quite a following of young voters and they are not likely to be donating in high amounts, just that there's lots of them and it all adds up. To say his people make several small donations of say $103 which times 3 equates to $309. The math itself is true, but the supposition is pure speculation as none of us really have any way of knowing for sure in what exact amounts the dollars are coming in.

[jackson_dem]

31. What we know is the difference in the popular vote is 1.4%

So why is there a huge difference in fund raising? The explanation is his supporters are more likely to be able to afford giving money to a candidate.

[NorthCarolina]

32. Is there a point in trying to define the contributions in terms of

someone giving $100 or $500 when they are all personal donations? Do we parse Hillary's $2,300 donations for lobby groups? Not really, because what is the point. It could be that he's raising more money simply because he's more popular as is reflected in the pledged delegate count, the number of states won, and the popular vote count. If Hillary were ahead in all of those then it would be my guess she would be out raising him then. I think the $$ follows the victories for the most part.

[JackORoses]

25. her 'supporters' won't even shell out $10

That's what happens when you run a name-recognition campaign.

She is not a candidate of the working class. She is the candidate of those who don't pay enough attention to Politics to look for much more than a famous name. They don't care enough to spend their own hard-earned cash on Hillary.

Whereas, Obama supporters are personally invested in his Campaign.
We are willing to do without in order to assure our Victory because we know the long-term benefits to the Nation.
In fact, if you look at the numbers, you will find that Obama has thousands more working class donors than Hillary does. Why is this?
The reason she is broke is because all her affluent donors have maxed out.

The real class warfare in this Primary is between the Corporations and the American People.
Hillary is the candidate of the Overlords,
Obama is the candidate of the Public.

[jackson_dem]

29. That is a very condescending attitude as to why workings folk vote for Clinton

Working folks can't take a chance on slogans. That is a big reason they prefer Clinton. She has a record, Obama doesn't.

[JackORoses]

38. she has a record of lies and manipulation.

Anyone who takes any time to research the candidates will discover this.

Some people just don't bother, so they vote for the name they are familiar with.

[shimmergal]

39. Sorry, I just can't believe that

about Obama being the candidate of the Public.

How many times have we heard him say the corporations will have "a place at the table"? They'll eat him alive. Obama, however bright, doesn't have the experience or subtlety to pursue a stealth approach, and he's unwilling to take on any of them directly.


Strangely enough, in the past few months, Hillary has come up with more initiatives that help Real People up against the corporations than Obama has. Realizing his biggest early supporters were giant financial service firms doesn't give me much confidence either. I think we're in a pickle.

[Zachstar]

33. As opposed to Clinton supporters maxing out?

Did you not read the reports of Clinton donors trying to find a way to get more money to her that they have?

[goclark]

36. Seems her base includes the MSM

and now that she and McCain are speaking as one voice,she has the power of many traditional people.

The power base that owns Diebold lock stock and barrel.

That is worth more than $$$'s.

[4themind]

9. It was from April16-18

So perhaps it's reflective of the post debate mood among those polled. It's not how I felt, nor how I expected the effect to be. But in this poll, at least, that seems to be the only explanation, other than just statistical noise, for what we see here. Let's see if it holds up.

[JVS]

10. LIVs don't write checks

[onehandle]

12. The media pretty much pronounced her dead.

So people are not "wasting" their money.

Anyway, the poll shows how out of step DU is with America.

[NJmaverick]

13. The media? How about the math?

Also do you think DU is who is giving Obama his 10s of millions?

[onehandle]

19. How literal of you.

The math is certainly against her. The media has been saying it for months.

DU being No measure of reality is another thing, but nice try.

[NJmaverick]

20. If the math is against her, don't blame the media

[onehandle]

24. I don't blame anybody and I didn't say that I did.

The FACT that she is LOSING is being reported by the media so nobody is giving to Hillary even though her base of support is nearly as much as Obama's.

I'm glad I'm not committed to either of them, because apparently blind faith makes you THICK.

[DrFunkenstein]

17. Because This Race Is - And Will Be in The GE - About Voter Turnout

The Clinton people can bitch about MoveOn and the caucuses, but the fact is that caucuses measure voter enthusiasm and a campaign's organizational strength at the grassroots level. Obama wins both big time.

Likewise, the polls show McCain and Obama roughly even, but the enthusiasm gap is enormous and it is EXTREMELY unlikely that McCain will even come close to the fundraising or voter turnout of Obama.

Keep in mind that polls represent LIKELY voters, and Obama's movement represents the UNLIKELY voters, too.

[Robbins]

21. BS

Much of Obama's support comes from regular people not big donors.Have we all forgotten the story of
her big donors threating Pelosi?

[DrFunkenstein]

22. Um, Are You Sure You Are Responding to My Post?

Ironically, I posted the Pelosi story on DU.

[mystieus]

34. Machine

The Machine is behind her, but the wheels are falling off.