Any proof on Hillary's 10 million? This journalist says not...

[nonobadfish]

http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/24473/show_us_some_real_money_hillary


Show Us Some Real Money, Hillary!
By Micah L. Sifry, 04/23/2008 - 9:54pm Show Us the Money, Hillary!

As I suspected, the "Hillary raised $10 million online overnight" report that the Washington Post ran with earlier today was too good to be true. I don't know if the mistake is the reporter's or if someone at Camp Hillary was spinning a bit too fast, but there's no way they raised that much since her win in Pennsylvania yesterday.

An email from Terry McAuliffe, Clinton campaign chairman, that I received three hours ago, says "More than 50,000 people have contributed to the campaign for the very first time in the last 24 hours alone." If 80% of Clinton's donations are from new givers, that implies a total number of about 60,000 donations. If we're very generous and assume an average donation of $100, which is high for first-time donors, that gives Clinton a current take of at most $6 million.

Reading the Post's report from its Trail blog, which was by Matthew Mosk, it looks like the over-spin came from Hassan Nemazee, a finance co-chair for Clinton and longtime Democratic fatcat. A Google search shows Nemazee fed the same line to Business Week, which cited him for the news that Clinton supposedly took in $10 million by 2pm this afternoon.

Why am I bothering to knock this particular claim down to size? Because 90% of politics is about perception, and if a campaign is perceived to be running out of money, or floating in money, that affects what other people will think and do about it. Internet-driven fundraising is an amazing thing, because the costs are so low and the speed so seemingly instantaneous. But anyone who reports on it should be careful to remember that the campaigns can easily hype these numbers, and by the time anyone checks for the truth it won't matter.

The same is true, by the way, for the Obama campaign, as Patrick Ruffini has shown that the Obama campaign's online widget showing its donor total has occasionally behaved in odd ways. The best solution to this problem of verifiability, and the lack thereof, would be real-time donation transparency, as was practiced by the Ron Paul campaign. Unfortunately, that's hardly likely from a major campaign any time soon.

[AllexxisF1]

1. I find it suspect.

I find it suspect that she raised exactly the amount she owed in one day. After the world blurted out all night her 10 million dollar debt all of a sudden the next day it "appears" to be obliterated.

[Tippy]

2. The way I read it

She raised around 3 million and if the donations continued in the same manner it could amount to 10 million...keyword "could"

[BlueIdaho]

3. Its 3.5 Million - not 10. nt.

[RoadRage]

4. Ironic..

Obama just has a page on his website so you can see how many donations and how much total $$$ is coming in. Nothing secret about it - just out in the open.

Clinton spreads more lies through media channels willing to support her to over-inflate her number to try and get more money. But even most Clinton supporters realize at this point that rather then fund a candidate who CAN NOT WIN this primary, they'd rather fill up their gas tanks (at almost $4 a gallon - i think that might be a priority).

[HooptieWagon]

5. Today's St Pete Times reported it as "fact"

I suspect they didn't read the press release carefully. Reading between the lines and interpreting the typical Clintonesque parsing, it appears to me the $10 M figure is a target, not a done deal. 3 to 3.5 M seems like a more realistic achievement. I strongly suspect we are being subjected to more Clinton spin.

[RBInMaine]

6. Any way you can get this blasted out onto ALL the blogs and to MSM sites?

[nonobadfish]

7. I'm trying to send it to as many as I can...Help appreciated!

Ben Smith at Politico has it already up.