Second Quarter Fundraising in 2007.

[MohRokTah]

At this point in 2007, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were neck and neck in the money race with Edwards running a close third.

Who is even close to Hillary Clinton at this point in 2015?

This is a vastly important consideration because without money, a candidate has no infrastructure and without infrastructure, a candidate cannot insure they get out the vote in the primaries.

If somebody other than Clinton is to take the nomination, something incredibly drastic MUST CHANGE on the fund raising front.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Who is even close? Sanders is miles ahead of hillary, and now O'Malley, too.

In terms of trustworthiness and ability to speak directly to issues and offer specific goals and solutions.

Hillary is only ahead in money, she's woefully inadequate by any measure that isn't related to corporate money and name recognition.

As more and more people hear Sanders' and O'Malley's messages, more and more will say "Meh, what did I ever see in Clinton?"

Shame she won't do the country a favor and step down.

[MohRokTah]

2. No money = no chance of winning.

Hate to be the bearer of political reality, but there it is.

The money race stayed very much the same until early 2008 when Barack Obama overtook Hillary Clinton in fund raising and it never changed after that.

Edwards was third until the day he dropped out.

Nobody else in the field came close to these three.

So unless you can somehow magically change reality to where political infrastructure is free, nobody stands a chance until the money race is altered.

[Exilednight]

3. It was a commercial that cost $800,000 for ten days of air time that cost Kerry the election. A

paltry sum compared to the amount of cash that will be raised.

[MohRokTah]

4. I am talking about the primaries, but spending money stupidly affects a candidates chances.

None of the three front runners in both the primaries and the money race in 2008 was that stupid with their money.

[Exilednight]

6. An election is an election, be it primary, GE or dog catcher. Not sure what your point is about

the amount of cash raised. Money is always spent foolishly by big dollar campaigns. Very little if it goes towards actual campaigning or paying people who do the grunt work. Her personal stylist and image consultants will make more than her policy advisors.

I worked on two presidential campaigns as an economic advisor and made $60k for about a 13 month period. Image consultants were making 10 times that amount plus expense accounts.

[NYC_SKP]

7. What's more, money can't buy you credibility, likeability, honesty, integrity, or passion.

If a candidate doesn't have these things, then the money doesn't help much.

[MohRokTah]

10. You cannot win if you do not win the money race, or at least come close.

No candidate is going to even be close to Hillary Clinton in the money race.

[NYC_SKP]

11. And that is simply a made up notion, there's no data to back that up, I call it flat wrong.

While it's fair to say that it takes some money, to suggest that the most money wins is inane.

You cannot win if you do not win the money race, or at least come close.

No candidate is going to even be close to Hillary Clinton in the money race.

The first statement is wrong, the second remains to be tested.

I think with half the money and none of the baggage, either of the two other candidates have a great chance.

[MohRokTah]

15. No, the made up notion is that somehow the guy with little to no money can excite enough...

people to win a national race.

It's simple idealistic nonsense.

[MohRokTah]

9. The point is, nobody is capable of defeating Hillary because nobody can come close to

her level of fund raising.

Believe what you like, reality cannot be altered by wishing.

[Exilednight]

12. What does money have to do with campaigning? Is she buying votes? Where is your data to back up such

A claim?

[MohRokTah]

13. Simple reality from 2007 primaries and mathematics.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were neck and neck in fundraising throughout with John Edwards a close third.

Nobody else in the race came close to the fundraising numbers of these three candidates

In delegates to the convention race, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were neck and neck with John Edwards a close third through most of the race.

Nobody else in the race were close to these three in the delegates race.

Obama pulled ahead in fundraising by March and sealed the deal on the nomination.

Money = winning.

Simple reality.

[Exilednight]

14. correlation does not imply causation.

[MohRokTah]

16. National election after national election, the same rule applies

In this case, it's proved reality.

Trying to wish it away with magical thinking is not realistic.

[Exilednight]

17. Yet, Kerry was beat by $800,000 dollars. According to your theory, we need not have elections.

[MohRokTah]

18. Pretty much.

The money race is the single best indicator of the winner in national elections.

When the difference between candidates approaches an order of magnitude on a national primary race, there is no chance whatsoever for the candidate in second place.

[tritsofme]

5. There is still a lot of denial out there, but it is just silly to pretend this is a serious contest

Hillary as a candidate is very unique, she is dominating the field in a way that even supposedly strong incumbent VP candidates that ran for president like Gore or Bush did not come close to accomplishing, each faced strong high quality opponents in their primaries.

Hillary's candidacy really does more closely resemble that of an incumbent president than anything else, and that is definitely reflected in the quality of challengers that have emerged.

[MohRokTah]

8. You can see the denial all over.

People can deny the importance of fundraising all they like, that does not alter the reality of the equation.