About that $2 billion everyone knows that Hillary will raise?

[MannyGoldstein]

Apparently, all is not well.

NY Times: Democrats Seek a Richer Roster to Match G.O.P.

WASHINGTON — Over the last few months, Harold M. Ickes, a longtime ally of Hillary Rodham Clinton, has helped organize private meetings around the country with union leaders, Clinton backers and Democratic strategists. The pressing topic: Who will step up to be the Democrats’ megadonors in the 2016 presidential race?

Republican contenders have already secured hundreds of millions of dollars in commitments from a stable of billionaires, including a Wall Street hedge fund executive, a Las Vegas casino magnate, a Florida auto dealer, a Wyoming investor and, of course, the Kansas-born billionaires David H. and Charles G. Koch. But none of the biggest Democratic donors from past
elections — for example, the Chicago investor Fred Eychaner, the climate-change activist Tom Steyer and the entertainment mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg — have committed to supporting Mrs. Clinton on nearly the same scale.

Oh, and @#$% you, NY Times, for trying to trivialize Bernie and O'Malley:

The leading super PAC backing Mrs. Clinton, Priorities USA Action, has won commitments of only about $15 million so far, Democrats involved with the group’s fund­raising said. And while the absence of a competitive race for the Democratic nomination gives Mrs. Clinton more time to catch up with Republican rivals, her allies are planning to push the party’s wealthiest donors for more money than most of them have ever given.

[Agschmid]

1. We should work hard to raise money for the party!

Need a big war chest against the Republicans!

[brooklynite]

2. This is about the SuperPAC, not the campaign...

...The $100 M for the Primary and $1 B for the General (don't know where you got $2 B, that's not what she told me) are direct campaign contributions, and there's been no report that the campaign is lacking for funds.

But since Bernie won't need that kind of money to win, I guess Hillary won't either...

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Observers are calculating 5 BILLION total for the race to the White House

this includes all candidates, and both the primaries and the general.

For perspective, give or take a few million, this is the annual budget for the County of San Diego.



This is also why Common Cause is having a cow and I am endorsing big money... not a candidate.

[bigtree]

3. so the claims that she'll run a billion dollar campaign are turning out to be bullshit?

The Ascent of Hillary, the $.2.5 Billion “People’s” Candidate

Clinton Poised to Raise $1 Billion

...this was used to bash Clinton here. So surprised this isn't true.

[AtomicKitten]

5. this is where that figure came from

This campaign will begin on a small scale and build up to an effort likely to cost more than any presidential bid waged before, with Mrs. Clinton’s supporters and outside “super PACs” looking to raise as much as $2.5 billion in a blitz of donations from Democrats who overwhelmingly support her candidacy.

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/us/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-campaign.html
Hillary Clinton Announces 2016 Presidential Bid
By AMY CHOZICK APRIL 12, 2015

[bigtree]

6. NYT

...shocked to see that unattributed claim from that political shit-stirrer of a reporter.

[RobertEarl]

7. I predict

That after Bernie wins the nomination he will take some big money. But mostly, he will just tell the big money people to spend it on ads attacking the republicans so Bernie can get a semblance of fair and balance on media ad buys.

That way Bernie is not bought by them and they can legally spend as much as they want for getting rid of republicans.

[DFW]

8. We don't have to match them dollar for dollar

But we DO have to pay attention to the unpleasant business of fund-raising. It's an unfortunate fact of American political life that with enough advertising, the Republicans could convince their followers to jump off a cliff, and even convince them to pay for their trip to the cliff our of their own pockets. Voting for Republicans is a slower suicide that is a lot easier sell, and 30 million American voters will vote R for no other reason than Fox "News" told them to. Denny Hastert was a Democrat all this time, after all, don't ya know? Foxsuckers now know it. If Fox told them 2+2=5, 30 million Americans would immediately assume their pocket calculators were defective.

In late July of 2012, the eventual winner told me to my face that he could overcome a gap of $1 billion for him and $1.25 billion for his opponent. He did not think he could overcome a gap of $1 billion for him and $2 billion for his opponent. Willard did not have $2 billion, and our guy did win. If the Republicans smell blood this time, then this time, thanks to their inside men, Roberts and Alito, I think they'll find their $2 billion. So far, considering the poor class of candidates they have offered so far, I don't think they'll blow their $2 billion on the presidential race, and again concentrate on Congress and Statehouses instead. Should they somehow come up with a credible candidate for the White House, I think $2 billion would be their starting ante, and not a ceiling.

We'll probably never raise $2 billion. Not Hillary, not Bernie, not O'Malley, not Webb, not Chaffee, nobody. That's just not the nature of our beast. We can make up the gap with a decent message and some party unity, once the candidate is decided. If we can't manage that, I think the 2016 presidential race will be a classic lesson in how to lose a sure thing.