Clinton Spent $212 Million on 18 Million Votes

June 9, 2008

Click to Read

Clinton Spent $212 Million on 18 Million Votes
The NY Daily News reports on Clinton's costly loss: "Eighteen million votes: $212 million. Some 1,926 delegates: $109,823 a pop. Blowing the biggest head start in presidential history: priceless. From anointed to also-ran, Hillary Clinton spent more money to lose a primary election than any candidate in Democratic Party history." The story breaks down just how that amount of money could have achieved the goals she was championing.

Comments

28 Comments

True Song 5 years

Wouldn't the same record have been set if Obama had lost? And didn't Mitt Romney set some sort of record as well? I think the campaigns just get more expensive every year.

Jillness 5 years

I understand Harmony! :) I agree that it is sooooo not productive or helpful to bash Hillary right now. There were so many people that feel really strongly for her, and people should be respectful of that. Hugs! :)

harmonyfrance 5 years

Thanks liliblue. I think I'll sign off right now. See you in a few days everyone. :)

liliblu 5 years

Harmony do what Hillary is doing right now and Obama did over the weekend. Avoid politics. Do not watch the Situation Room, Hard Ball, Race for the White House, anything on Fox, AC 360, or Olberman for at least a couple of days. It helps. When my beloved Dallas Cowboys lose a game, I don't watch sports shows for a week. It keeps me sane.

harmonyfrance 5 years

I know Jill. I regretted it after I said it. I guess I just wish everyone was being as supportive as you and the Obama campaign. My point was that it's over and we should work together and "they" should stop bashing a candidate that so many of us felt so strongly about. I know that didn't come accross and it was worded badly. I'm just exhausted. I mean there are people saying that it wasn't even an historic run because they don't like her. I didn't mean to disappoint you girl. I guess I just need a short break from all this.

Jillness 5 years

"It certainly doesn't make me want to run over to Obama when his supporters are STILL bashing her." This was disappointing for me to read. Obama and his campaign are being competely supportive of Hillary, please don't let some random supporters affect the way you think about Obama. There are extreme supporters of every candidate that say things that are uncalled for and clearly it is not a reflection of the candidate.

harmonyfrance 5 years

:rotfl: Steph! Leave Hil alone :sing:

bellaressa 5 years

Getting ready to sing MJ's Leave me alone(substituting Hil). Should it really matter how much she spent - that is for her to deal with not everyone else to weigh in.

stephley 5 years

Mailings are the worst - we could probably reverse global warming just by stopping that junk! Maybe they should make c-Span a basic channel everywhere since it could be a public service. As for the stupid and lazy - it's okay to discriminate because they'd be too lazy to sue or they'd go to the wrong people to do it.

kastarte2 5 years

I think they should do away with mailings too. Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns put out negative mailings about the other that were in some cases full of completely false accusations. It is a waste of resources.

janneth 5 years

"Put their campaign appearances on c-Span, interview them on c-Span - tv ads just sell them like products to people who are too dumb or too lazy to read anything." Would this discriminate against people who are dumb or lazy?? :?

janneth 5 years

If you need cable tv for c-span would that discriminate against the poor?

harmonyfrance 5 years

I COMPLETELY AGREE STEPH! :true:

stephley 5 years

Put their campaign appearances on c-Span, interview them on c-Span - tv ads just sell them like products to people who are too dumb or too lazy to read anything. Make it so campaign ads on tv can't be more than the candidate speaking directly to the camera - they can still screw around with bookcases in the background but if they lie or bash their opponent, it comes right out of their mouth. A horrendous amount of money goes to t.v. advertising and no one really benefits except the t.v. guys.

janneth 5 years

One of the big problems is the bias on the news shows. And I don't have any idea how to fix that.

TinkerbellSF 5 years

Wonder how much Mark Penn cost.....

harmonyfrance 5 years

It's just SO frustrating because it is so hard to find unbiased news. I just know that somehow we elected Presidents before we had ALL of this technology. Maybe there should be a limit as to how many ads? Or a limit on how much money they're allowed to spend? I don't know what the solution is. BUT 212 million is RIDICULOUS...and Barrack way out-spent her. His total is even larger.

janneth 5 years

aw shucks.

janneth 5 years

I don't mean that online advertising is not effective in general, I mean for political candidates.

janneth 5 years

If they take away tv ads, how will they get their message out there? We agree that the networks have their favourites, so how can the candidates counter that? There is no effective way yet to advertise online. Google?

harmonyfrance 5 years

:hug:

janneth 5 years

Harmony, I agree with you that the Daily News article was insulting and just meant to bash her. Sometimes, as a feminist, I feel sad that we are not celebrating our first woman nominee.

stephley 5 years

Steph and Harmony: there's no hopeless cause that we can't love.

harmonyfrance 5 years

I agree with getting RID of television ads steph.

stephley 5 years

I saw a piece this weekend that talked about how ALL the candidates have spent and what it could have done for their causes. It made me think that we might want to consider taking television advertising out of the campaign - it's too expensive and too negative. If you're going to run for president, you have to run to win and spend what that requires - what's the point of taking any donor money if you're going to defeat yourself by counting pennies?

Link Love

28 Comments