Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
He outspent her 10 to 1 in Pennsylvania!!!
Not really, but I notice that with each passing minute the legend of
her victory-in-the-face-of-unprecedented-obstacles seems to grow in the
writings of Gotalife, RStephen, Matthew Weaver, & al. By the end of the day I fully expect to read that she won despite being outspent 100:1.
So, might I ask where you folks making this claim are getting your numbers? The published reports that I have been able to dig up with a quick google search
claim that Obama spent $11,246,573 in PA while Clinton spent $4,852,541
on the same race. That comes to a margin of 2.3 to 1.
Mind you, that is still an impressive margin of outspending. Her
victory in the face of that sort of disadvantage really is
impressive. As such, why the need to exagerate it? You
simply make her accomplishment look smaller by comparison to the mythic
narrative you are crafting to replace the reality of the race.
Comments (15)
They just can't help it!
April 23, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Greg, "we" are not posting false 10:1 titles. I think you need to consider another visit to confession for your lying as it is becoming habitual (FYI, I'm still waiting an apology for your lying accusation a while back.)
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 23, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was an exaggeration, which Greg made quite clear in his post. Despite your denial, however, you did falsely claim that he outspent her 3:1 (or 4:1, depending on what you meant by "3x funding advantage").
April 23, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see that the joke rather went over your head. Allow me to explain it - you are claiming that he outspend her 3:1. This is not true; it is an exageration of the reality. Ten to one is just a further exageration for comic effect.
As regards the apology for which you are waiting, I can only infer that you did not go back and look at that exchange, because I did reply. I am sorry that I cannot find that exchange. If you can remember what thread it was in I would encourage you to go back and look at it.
The long and short of it was that I really cannot agree that my claim was anything less than true - you really have called Obama an "angry black man." I was not putting words in your mouth; you actually said it. That said, I gather from your response that you repudiate your own words, so I am sorry for bringing it up. In other words, my words were not lies, but I do apologize for them anyway.
April 23, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we wanted to get really technical, I think there were some media markets in which she was outspent 3:1 or more?
Has anyone here read Freakonomics? Makes a compelling argument based on past Senate races that money, past a certain point, is rather unimportant to an election result. Still kinda embarrassing though!
April 23, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Greg:
I nearly had a heart attack when I saw that headline!!!!
Think of the delicate hearts of your fellow Dems!
April 23, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the shock. I hope you clicked the recommend button before you went into cardiac arrest. :-)
April 23, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No reason at all to exagerate Greg. Beating 3:1 is unprecedented. I am not sure if it has ever happened before especially since he is the front runner going in.
April 23, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
3:1 is an exaggeration. It was 2:1 (or 2.2:1 if you want a little more precision).
If it truly is unprecedented (and I doubt it is), then that's because no one's ever contested a state where they were expected to lose by more than 20 points.
April 23, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, 2.3:1, not 2.2:1. Didn't proof-read my work.
April 23, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whichever, Not sure if you can ever find a frontrunner going in and outspending by that amount and losing. Dean in Iowa maybe? Kennedy in 1980? Not sure...but its a rare thing and not to be sneezed at.
April 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every time I set down to write a reply, I find the moment after I hit "send" that you have already beat me to the punch. I should probably get back to my grant-writing and let you field these posts for me. :-)
April 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not wish to remark one way or the other on the accuracy of this statement (I strongly suspect that it has happened before, in the history of this nation, that Candidate X has been outspent 3:1 by Candidate Y and still won against Y, so I am hard pressed to believe that it is really "unprecedented," but I do not care to research it enough to prove my suspicion). I would like to point out, however (because your post suggests that you missed the point) that Clinton was not outspent 3 to 1. She was outspent 2.3 to 1.
April 23, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, I heard she didn't spend a dime and had to grovel for airtime and beg on the streets of Philly for paper so she could print flyers, and those were donated by Catholic nuns who handwrote them, and poor naked children gave up their bread and water to feed Mark Penn. Bill had to be sneaked into Philly's seedy gentlemen's clubs because the campaign couldn't afford VIP tickets to the better ones. And Chelsea's trip to the gay bars was so she could pick up donations of gently used pantsuits for her mother to wear on the campaign trail. And poor Chelsea had to work the night shift at doughnuts shops across the state to get pocket change and stale doughnuts to feed the volunteers. Howard Wolfson actually commandeered a college radio station to broadcast non-stop pleas to vote for Hillary, after making a lengthy cross-country bicycle ride from Arlingon, VA to PA.
When I heard that I was in tears... from laughing so damn hard.
April 23, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I haven't actually seen anyone claim anything higher than 5:1, I'm pretty sure that you're right -- it'll be 100:1 by this time next year... or next week.
Oh, and Hillary raised 10 million... well she was 'on pace' to raise 10 million, after raising 2.5 million in 6 hours... or something.
Anyway, she's got more popular votes.
Or something.
April 23, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment