Hillary Clinton’s campaign has said today that they are on track to raise $10 Million in 24 hours. As of noon today, the Clinton campaign has had 60,000 donors – 50,000 of which were new donors.
After Hillary Clinton’s solid win against Senator Barack Obama last night in Pennsylvania, the Clinton website (HillaryClinton.com) reported a major increase in web traffic and donations.
Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania after competing with Obama for 6 weeks since the last primary. She was outspent 3-1 by her opponent, and recent polls had them separated by 4-5 points. This win provides Clinton with the momentum and resources she needs to finish out the remaining contests and head to the Denver Democratic Convention.
Please share widely!
It will be enough to keep her in the race, but won’t be enough for her to win a significant portion of the remaining races. Her win was solid but still well below what she needed. It looks like she is going to pick up only about 10 pledged delegates on Obama, which doesn’t put much of a dent in his lead. Furthermore, she didn’t do any better in PA than she did in OH, so I don’t think this is going to give her any more momentum now than that win gave her back then.
<
p>So it is all going to come down to the superdelegates. Can Clinton convince a supermajority of the remaining superdelegates to go for her and risk the wrath of the majority of people who chose Obama over Clinton. It is not impossible, but I think it is highly likely. I give Clinton no better than a 1 in 10 chance of pulling it off.
<
p>
I know we’re in the Internet age and all (amazing those tubes) but 50,000 new donors today alone? Really? That would really surprise me given:
Her high negative ratings in polls,
Her winning by ten points yesterday (as compared to a wipeout),
Her losing superdelegate support, reportedly, and,
That her chances of winning the nomination, at least as reported by the media, are still extremely slim at best.
<
p>In a few weeks when the FCC reports come out it’ll be interesting to see if these numbers hold true.
Guess what, it happened. Since January Hillary’s campaign has reached out an asked supporters for help and they have responded over and over again. No matter of what you personally think of her, she has brought more people out to vote and register as Democrats, and IMO it has rivaled Obama’s impact. I see it as a strength of the party and what can be accomplished in the general.
Yes, I have been paying attention, have you? The original post said 50,000 NEW DONORS, not the ones that give “over and over again”. That is what I questioned. I did not question her integrity, her patriotism, her ability to motivate youth, supporters, independents, yeti or anything else. Just the 50,000 number.
Yes, you did just question her integrity.
<
p>Hillary hasn’t pushed for small donations until the beginning of the year. Prior to that it’s been assumed that she had endless amounts of money. It wasn’t until they leaked that they were having trouble making payroll (and yes, I think they leaked that themselves) that she was getting a lot in small donations. So I think she has a lot of untapped resources with individual supporters.
<
p>
Re-reading my comment you’re correct, I did question her integrity. However, even if the PA results were reversed (Obama won by ten points and claimed 50,000 new, never before donors) I’d still question the number. It seems unusually high.
It does show old politics from Hillary and new politics from Obama, Howard Dean showed everyone the power of reaching out to individuals and the kind of money that small donations can produce. She kind of figured that out a little too late.
I have heard that Obama also got around 50k new donors and he lost, so I don’t see why Clinton could not have done the same or better after winning.
when it was all totaled, it came to be 80,000 new donors in 24 hours.
Ap story
I contributed to Hillary on the internet. I was “inspired” by the BS and spin to reach out and help. I don’t care about her negatives, which have been greased by a biased media. I don’t care about the spin about the Penn. outcome, because it’s buffalo snot. And as for losing super delegate support – well, I’d rather see her roll the dice and see where it stands in August instead of cutting and running.
<
p>So, yeah – I can see 50,000 new donors over the internet.
I’m having a hard time with 50,000 new donors as well. This press release came out yesterday at noon, maybe 14 hours after her victory. That’s one new donor every second, at a time when most people were sleeping.
<
p>I’m guessing that there’s a reporting window where she probably did get 50,000 new donors in the days surrounding PA, which is still pretty impressive, and they just decided to parlay it into some sort of post-primary bounce.
…but, nonetheless, it’s true. In fact, it’s 80,000 new donors.
<
p>I’d say that’s mighty impressive.
<
p>You may have been sleeping, but apparently 80,000 other folks were not.
When a candidate spends three times as much on a campaign and is the supposed front runner, a loss by 10 percent is a wipeout. Obama’s momentum has been slowed considerably and Hillary Clinton can win the nomination. I bet some of the 50,000 new donors are people from Pennsylvania who just voted for her and wanted to back their votes up with a financial push as well. I bet they also are people from Indiana and NC who want to be able to vote for her.
Having your 20+ point lead whittled down to less than ten is definitely a wipeout in my book.
Just because he had more TV commercials doesn’t excuse that.
Besides her campaign’s “bittergate” engineering, and bringing up Louis F at the debate to fan the racial flames, still didn’t get her the win she needed to be more convincing.
I am still amazed that people can not give credit where credit is due when it comes to Hillary Clinton.
<
p>When you are outspending your opponent 3-1 in a market over the course of 6 weeks, and you can’t gain more than 5%, it says a lot.
<
p>However, when you are being outspent 3-1 and are the underdog in the race, and you win with a 10-point lead, that’s impressive.
Not too bad considering the demographics.
…on which polls you looks at and which ones you believe.
<
p>If you look at the last 50 polls taken before the primary in Pennsylvania, only 2 have Clinton leading by 20 points or more. The rest of them have an average of 10-16 percent lead for Clinton.
<
p>Taking into account the actual statistics, not just what was hyped on a flawed poll or two, Clinton stayed pretty steady during the onslaught from Obama.
You said “over the course of 6 weeks”. The early polls at the beginning of that period showed the 20 point spread. The closer polls were much later.
but it looks like she'll need to borrow (or raise) much more than that to keep in play.
starting a root canal at 10 AM, breaking for lunch, coming back for more at 1 PM and then riding the root canal until, well, it’s “mathematically” impossible to save the tooth.
<
p>Forgive me if I’m a little underwhelmed.
…but I think Hillary has had an impressive week. The momentum has certainly shifted her way…for now, anyway.
<
p>Give her a little credit. After being written off time and time again, outspent by 2 or 3 to 1, and called upon to drop out of the race, she scores a very impressive win in a major state. Both candidates gave everything they had to win this state, and she scored a big victory over Obama. And now, 80,000 new donors in 24 hours raise over $10m for her…I’m not underwhelmed. I’m impressed.
it’s no small feat.
<
p>and it looks as though as much as Obama was trying to compete, the tallies on his web site (before they were taken off) showed he had only raised about $1.6 million in the 24 hours after the primary.
<
p>what Clinton and her supporters were able to bring about in PA and the hours after is impressive, any way you look at it.
I am impressed also.