« NC/IN Open Thread | Main | Final Thoughts Before Bed »

May 06, 2008

Comments

Even if she does take Indiana, at this rate no one's going to be awake to see it. Some folks at Clinton HQ are probably righteously pissed that they've already pretty much missed the coverage window; the last thing everyone saw before going to bed was probably Obama. Given the perceptions game at stake here, that's pretty huge.

Even if she does take Indiana, at this rate no one's going to be awake to see it.
I must admit to having some suspicions that some Obama-friendly (or Clinton-unfriendly) Lake County elections officials could be keeping a lid on their results just to cause problems for the Clintons' spin crew, and to monkey withher victory speech. The officials have, in theory, the power to do this, without tampering with a single vote.

Clinton still doesn't know for sure she's won it; she can't claim victory until she knows, unless she risks looking like a fool; and she's got less than half an hour before the East Coast does their 11 o'Clock news - and towards the end of that window they'd have to carry her live, which for a candidate having a bad night is hardly a certain thing.

... and even as I negotiate the Captcha Clinton starts her speech, in full-on firebreathing mode, "on to the White House", gas-pump reference, and all.

It is time for her to withdraw, so we might say,

"Nothing in her campaign became her like the leaving it."

I think that yo are right as far as supers go. Unfortunatley I think that you are wrong as far as many HRC supporters go. In her efforts to appear viable HRC has woefully misinformed her supporters. Some of this was to get money of course. The negative side effect for the Deomcratic party of her disinformation campaign is the existance of a pool of HRC supporters who are convinced that she is close to winning and who might feel robbed when she doesn't. And of course they have not been robbed. She has lied to and misinformed her own base about her chances.

Examples: all the nonsense about FL and MICh being disenfranchised and the nonsense about her being the winner there. The playing with numbers gamnes. The false insistance that there is a correlation between winning Dem primaries in certain states and winning the genral in those states. The overemphasis on certain states and the de-emphasis on delegate totals. The chanting of "Yes she can" when the objective reality is that no she can't.

She has been keeping hopes artificially high. I don't know how those supporters, under tha false impression that she was close to wining, are going to feel when she loses.

Buh bye, Hillary!

Hillary is wearing too much makeup. She looks like Joker.

I disagree with your conclusion though Publius. Hillary is for Hillary. If she stays in she will either:

(1) Win the nomination when the next Obama flap hits hard; or
(2) Damage Obama in the general, thereby justifying a run against McCain in 2012.

There is no reason for her to exit the race. Obama scorned Hillary. Never underestimate a scorned woman. They are like badgers.

i don't buy the theory that she's trying to wound him for 2012. look, i like the clintons a lot. i'm just not ready to ascribe such bad faith to them

Be afraid of what you wish for, people. Those who demand politicians that give up without fighting to the last gasp should ask themselves how well that strategy served their country's interests in 2000.

Another lie: in her speech she referred to the outcome of these two primaries as a tie. There is no sense in which the outcome is a tie. Obama will, once the dust settles, move ahead in delegates relative toher.

Fighting to the last gasp is great if you are fighting for your gtetam. HRC isn't . She's fighting against half of her own party for her own benefit.

OK, 40k voted in 2000's Democratic Primary in Marion County, IN. Today Obama won that same county 120k to Clinton's 40k, for a total of 160k.

Lake County is what we are waiting on. 18k voted in Lake Country's 2000 Democratic Primary, and 50k in 2004's. [I couldn't find primary vote numbers for 2004 in Marion County]

In short, if Lake County's turnout jumps like Marion's, and if Obama wins by a wide a margin in Lake as he did in Marion, then he wins Indiana.

This is why the race has not been called yet.

Come on Gary! It's a long shot, I know...

I noticed that Clinton asked for money in about the fourth line of her speech this evening - she must be really broke to make such a crass plea.

"Be afraid of what you wish for, people. Those who demand politicians that give up without fighting to the last gasp should ask themselves how well that strategy served their country's interests in 2000."

Sure, because Barack Obama and George W. Bush: same level of threat to the country.

Or maybe not.

"Come on Gary! It's a long shot, I know..."

Hey, I took care of Colorado's vote and North Carolina's; Indiana will have to be up to someone else.

Actually I think I had the Lake County IL, not Lake County IN numbers...

But I found another place: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2004&fips=18&f=0&off=0&elect=1

This concurs that Marion had 40k votes in 2004's Democratic Primary, and says Lake Country had 45k! So if Lake mimics Marion, it was Gary what won it.

"Sure, because Barack Obama and George W. Bush: same level of threat to the country."

Way to miss the point. If they won't fight to the end in the primary. they won't fight to the end in the general. It's a dirty business.

Examples: all the nonsense about FL and MICh being disenfranchised and the nonsense about her being the winner there. The playing with numbers gamnes.

I'd guess that it is quite probable that Clinton would win Michigan today based on results from Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which have a lot in common with Michigan. Likely Kentucky and West Virginia will go for Clinton. The "flyover states" actually should have at least some say in elections, like it or not.

Dear Publius, I trust you are well.

I dislike both Hillary Clinton and Obama. But since I dislike Hillary more, I'm not sorry she may soon be forced to give up.

Sincerely, Sean

byrningman,

Obama took Marion County 120K-60K, or 2-1. It's 80% bigger than Lake. Give Obama the same 2-1 edge in Lake and he gains 33K votes on Clinton. That's not quite enough.

Still, there's a psychological element around the percentages. 51-49 sounds lots closer than 52-48, and if you have to go to decimals it sounds like a tie. If Obama can up to 49.5%, forcing the media to report tenths of a percent, I think it will have an effect.

Lake is coming in. Check the CNN Indiana page. He's just cut Clinton's lead in half.

I'd guess that it is quite probable that Clinton would win Michigan today based on results from Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which have a lot in common with Michigan.

...except for Michigan's much larger black population, of course...

hilzoy,

See my comment on publius' thread. If the early ratio (3-1) holds up in Lake County Obama will carry the state.

i don't buy the theory that she's trying to wound him for 2012. look, i like the clintons a lot. i'm just not ready to ascribe such bad faith to them
Yeah, that's not what this is about. This should all be read in the context of a play to get the VP slot. Every primary drives the wedge between the Hillary and Obama supporters deeper, and putting her on the ticket is the easiest way to bring them back. Likewise, the requests for donations make sense in that light as well -- though she might not have much on hand right now, she still has a ton of funds that can be spent only on the general election.

Those are two huge bargaining chips. What'll happen is that the rest of the primaries will play out, and then Hillary will basically go silent and let Obama get ripped by McCain for a bit. Meanwhile, the media will relentlessly drive the "has Obama burned too many bridges in the primary?" narrative.

After he's felt the heat for a while and the campaign's emotions have been redirected from Hillary to McCain, the prospect of the funds and the easy reconciliation with her base will start to look very attractive. No other potential VP will have anything to offer that even remotely competes with that.

I'd get used to that fact. In the meantime, there's absolutely no practical reason for her to drop out of the race. If her goal isn't to win, then more primaries and more fundraising is nothing but upside.

Bernard,
Obama took Marion County 120K-60K, or 2-1. It's 80% bigger than Lake.

Yeah I'm not sure how big the voting block is exactly in each county, but I got the impression no one else is either, what with new registrations, purged registrations et alia. Knowing absolutely nothing about Indiana, I'm just working on the basis that Lake seems to have had about the same amount of voters in previous Dem primaries as Marion, so maybe it could have a Marion-like impact?

Looks like we'll find out soon...

I'd guess that it is quite probable that Clinton would win Michigan today based on results from Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which have a lot in common with Michigan.

I don't know about that. Michigan is most similar to Wisconsin, only with more blacks and young people. Obama won Wisconsin handily. Indiana looks like essentially a tie at this point, and again Michigan has a lot more blacks and young people than it does. Pennsylvania and Ohio were decided by large concentrations of Clinton's best constituencies, old people and quasi-southern copperhead Democrats. Michigan doesn't have that many of either.

The "flyover states" actually should have at least some say in elections, like it or not.

Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, Kansas, North Dakota, Idaho, etc. aren't "flyover states"?

This notion that only Clinton can win in flyover country isn't merely debatable - it's been contradicted over and over and over and over by empirical evidence to the contrary.

I wouldn't extrapolate out from the Lake County results we've gotten. The demographic info I posted elsewhere suggests that while Gary is likely to go overwhelmingly for Obama, the rest of Lake County is not. So a lot depends on which 28% we're looking at; and the results suggest it's out of Gary.

"Be afraid of what you wish for, people. Those who demand politicians that give up without fighting to the last gasp should ask themselves how well that strategy served their country's interests in 2000."

Get real. The Primary is not the General. The fact that Obama is pretty much playing a "prevent defense" does not mean that he'll do it in the General Election. He's already won, he doesn't have to fight hard now. And, he'll need Hillary's support later. So he has every reason to be nice to her. In the General, Obama will have nothing to lose and he can get ugly if he needs to. He really doesn't need McCain's support after he beats him. In fact, he'd be wise to stay far away from anything McCain would support. Unless McCain does another massive flip-flop, of course.

Hmmm...:

"On MSNBC, Tim Russert just reported that Hillary was scheduled to appear on the morning shows tomorrow.

But, says Russert, she canceled all her appearances."

This should all be read in the context of a play to get the VP slot.

Maybe. But if she is willing to settle for the VP slot another strategy is to call Obama and offer to drop out in exchange for it. Could he refuse? I doubt it.

One thing is clear. Even if Clinton carries IN, it's going to be by a very narrow margin, quite likely less than 1%.

I don't see how she can maintain viability in the face of that.

Maybe. But if she is willing to settle for the VP slot another strategy is to call Obama and offer to drop out in exchange for it. Could he refuse? I doubt it.But she doesn't gain anything by doing that, and she potentially loses a lot by tipping her hand. I doubt he wants her as VP, particularly now, and if he knows that he holds all the chips he's got all the more reason to fight against it. It makes much more sense for her to keep doing what she's doing right now.

NB: Wow, he might actually win IN. Damn.

But she doesn't gain anything by doing that, and she potentially loses a lot by tipping her hand.

Not sure I agree. If she keeps on trying to be a spoiler then emotional issues start to come into play. She has a window now to say, "I fought until it was hopeless, and now I think fighting on is just damaging the party."

If she keeps it up she loses that.

Hillary Clinton is no fool. She knows her chance for the nomination is gone. If she wants to be the VP nominee her case is at its strongest right now.

"Never underestimate a scorned woman. They are like badgers.
Posted by: Brick Oven Bill | May 06, 2008 at 10:47 PM
"

Er . . . they're stocky and low-slung with short, powerful legs, huge foreclaws, and distinctive head markings? [*]

Huh.

-----

Shrek: Ogres are like onions.
Donkey: They stink?
Shrek: Yes. -- No!
Donkey: Oh, they make you cry.
Shrek: No
Donkey: Oh, you leave em out in the sun, they get all brown, start sproutin' little white hairs.
Shrek: NO. Layers. Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. Onions have layers. You get it? We both have layers.
[sighs]
Donkey: Oh, you both have layers. Oh. You know, not everybody like onions

I see Bernard is pushing for an Obama-Clinton ticket. My $.02 on the matter, at some risk of a threadjack (short version is, bad idea):

Certainly, picking someone who can connect to poorer white voters - whether that's a Clinton supporter like Strickland or Rendell, an Obama supporter like Tim Kaine, or someone who so far as I know hasn't endorsed, like Sherrod Brown or Jim Webb - would make a lot of sense. And within that category, or even outside of it, picking someone strongly identified with the Clinton camp could help to heal the party.

But picking Clinton would be a disaster. Not only has she said all sorts of things about Obama that would be thrown at the ticket; not only would adding her be the antithesis of "Change"; not only would it undermine the campaign's entire Iraq narrative; not only does Clinton remain unvetted, with none of her financial dealings adequately examined and none of the Clinton foundation's dealings even disclosed; not only would adding her to the ticket bring out the Republican base like nothing else could; but what if the ticket overcame all those electoral problems and actually won?

Imagine an Obama-Clinton White House. Obama will have to appoint a lot of ex-Clinton officials, if only because anyone who was an ambitious Democrat interested in public policy twelve years ago worked in the Clinton administration. They're the ones with the experience, and they'll be seeded all through the administration. Does Obama want an administration of which an unknown but significant fraction may be more loyal to his veep than to him? A veep with their own campaign platform and a complete policy staff more experienced in the executive branch than is his (see: Cheney, Dick)? Not to mention Bill; what could Obama do with him?

According to TPM, NBC is saying Clinton will hold no public events tomorrow. That would be a big deal -- the WV primary is just a week from now, so it's not as though she has nowhere she needs to be.

Just to be clear -- I think there'll be a huge push for a "unity" ticket (in fact, it's already happening), regardless of whether it's a good idea or not. Personally, I think it's a bad idea and I hope it doesn't happen, but I still think there'll be a ton of pressure for it, and that it'll come to seem much more palatable as time goes on and people focus on November.

Is there any reason to believe that Clinton would want to be Obama's running mate? Surely she wouldn't want the Vice Presidency as an end in itself; it's not as good a job as being an influential Senator.

So she'd only want it if she was planning to run for President again and she thought it would help her. And I'm not seeing that. If an Obama-Clinton ticket loses, then Clinton would be in a worse position to run in '12 than if she weren't Obama's running mate. And if an Obama-Clinton ticket wins, well... I suppose she could run in '16, but at that point she'll be in her late 70s, which is pushing it.

I don't thinkthat HRC as veep is a good idea. As Warren says: what would Bill's role be? Because he would want one.

I'd like to see Bill put in charge of something--a thinktank or institute or some such entity--that would focus on developing sustainable economies in the face of global warming for the impoverished areas of the world. Thsi would include of course finding ways to stop the developed world from hogging all the resources. He could work in parallel with Gore on the partical aspects of coping with climate change and the resulting economic upheavals. Maybe he could win a Nobel Prize!

And I also think that HRC needs to get some kind of promenent role but I am less certain of what the role could be because i don't think that she is a very effective manager. It would be logical in a way for her to get a leadership position in promoting health care initiatives, but she didn't do well at that last time around and she showed in her primary racce that she is too dependent on loyalists and too tin-eared and clumsy at persuasion. She is good at being a wonk but wonks tend to be behind the scenes people, not the leaders.

My .02!

I suppose she could run in '16, but at that point she'll be in her late 70s, which is pushing it.

She was born in 1947. She will be in her late 60's in 2016, not late 70's.

I think a unity ticket would be a horrible idea. She has said too many things she'd have to walk back from. (Not ready to be CinC, etc.) Plus, as others have said, I think that Bill would have to be a dealbreaker.

I really, really hope this idea dies in its infancy. There are other people who can credibly appeal to Clinton voters.

The "flyover states" actually should have at least some say in elections, like it or not.

A statement which, in addition to begging the question of whether Obama supporters think "flyover" states should have say in elections, has the benefit of having nothing whatsoever to do with the reason why Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates. But thanks for playing.

I'd guess that it is quite probable that Clinton would win Michigan today based on results from Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which have a lot in common with Michigan.

And a lot of major differences. I suggest a basic geography class.

...........and now for something completely SCARY.

A McCain/Clinton ticket.

Think about it. She could use the money that she collected for the general. The white blue collar voters and Hillary women are cemented with McCain. Obama is left with African-Americans and eggheads. Maybe 8 states.

allmaya, I think you forgot the part where the Republican party self-immolates at the prospect of putting "that woman" into the White House. McCain's conservative bonafides are weak enough as it is, but tying his star to Clinton would be even worse.

It's been said already but: as a member of a flyover state, I'm quite ok with how my vote got counted, thanks all the same.

Turbulence,
They might have a wee bit of gastrointestinal distress.
But isn't winning EVERYTHING for them?

I think BOB completely misunderstands how the badger game works.

Is there any reason to believe that Clinton would want to be Obama's running mate? Surely she wouldn't want the Vice Presidency as an end in itself; it's not as good a job as being an influential Senator.

I think it would be a good idea for Obama to publicly offer her the spot on the ticket--in a few weeks, when tempers have cooled--and then I think she'd refuse it. She can have a great deal more power as a Senator from New York--perhaps the first woman Majority Leader?--than she would have as Vice President.

But that said, I'd really like Obama to choose one of the many qualified women in the nation as his running mate. I mean, let's make this election as historic as we can.

But that said, I'd really like Obama to choose one of the many qualified women in the nation as his running mate. I mean, let's make this election as historic as we can.

I think a lunch pail Democrat like Webb or Kaine is a more likely (and smarter) pick. Obama has won the nomination, but he does need to win over blue collar voters to win in November, and a veep pick that further cements him as the candidate of diversity-loving upscale urban liberals won't do that. Sure, he may alienate some women, but I think they're less likely to defect to McCain than blue collar men are.

Can we not make the "woman scorned" and "too much makeup" comments? I dislike Hillary Clinton as much as anyone, but being sexist about it doesn't help Obama's case, it just keeps the women who are voting for Hillary pissed off at Obama.

I think that Obama should pick a woman VP that isn't Clinton, because the women who supported Hillary and feel slighted by that perceived sexism are more likely to swing back left than hard-core racists who won't vote for a black man.

And Nancy Pelosi has already come out several times and said that an Obama/Clinton ticket is a bad idea. I'm quite sure most of the party feels the same way.

I think that Obama should pick a woman VP that isn't Clinton, because the women who supported Hillary and feel slighted by that perceived sexism are more likely to swing back left than hard-core racists who won't vote for a black man.

Are they gonna vote for McCain, verbally incontinent, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-war old man's man whose got a long history of making sexist cracks? I suppose there's a danger that many of them might stay home. Unless the veep Obama chooses has a lot of cred with the working class, though he could bleed those voters - even the ones who aren't racists - to McCain, who I think stacks up pretty well as a counterpoint to the effete liberal snob the Republicans will try to paint Obama as. Ideally, he picks a running mate who appeals to both. Anybody know of any white working class female Democrats with foreign policy and executive bona fides?

Sarah J., BOB isn't interested in helping Obama. He is interested in returning us to a period of history in which neither Clinton nor, likely, Obama would have been able to vote, much less run for public office.

I picture Brick Oven Bill holed up in a compound (shards of glass cemented on top of surrounding walls, snipers sitting in the canopy of his jungle) at the headwaters of a steaming river in Belize, like Colonel Kurtz with dial-up.

We see him in the frame from the neck up, like Brando, massive and torpid below, but still light on his feet.

Formidable women, left in his sour world wake, swim upstream, gleaming knives clenched in their teeth, faces blacked, joined by serpents, seeking Bill's throat.

Others leopard-walk through the jungle, awaiting nightfall, honing their machetes on breadfruit, ready to spring.

Country music, lamenting lost dogs, balky trucks and uppity divorce attorneys cuts through the humidity from the compound's P.A. system.

You are eminently riffable, Bill.

Thank you. ;)

You are eminently riffable, Bill.

Thank you. ;)

It's the least he can do...

Time for our bedtime horror story:
Once upon a primary season there was an ambitious woman that had good reasons to believe that she could and would win. But then the black man took it from her, although she fought him long and hard. But then the three servants of the VRWC, the Rove, the Rush and the Unnamed One appeared before her and offered their poisonous advice.
"Go forth and call him", said the Rove.
"Demand that he drops out of the race or you will run as an independent", said the Rush
"And Joe Lieberman will be your VP", said the Unnamed One.
Then they left her as they had come, and she deliberated about what they had told her.
to be continued

Actually, I wasn't pushing for an Obama-Clinton ticket at all. The point I was trying to make was that if she does want the VP slot now is the time to ask for it.

VP nominee or not, I do think she has an opportunity at this point to make a big difference in November. Withdraw, support Obama vigorously, get her supporters behind him, etc. That would also put her in the role of a great uniter of the Democrats, rather than a die-hard spoiler.

If Clinton goes Independent in the GE, or even just doesn't back Obama, she's done. It's possible--even probable--that she might siphon enough votes away from Obama to swing the election to McCain. But she'd be a dead letter in the Democratic Party. Most of her access, fundraising and support would dry up virtually overnight.

Won't happen.

This should be the end, but I'm not sure. Sometimes life is like a horror movie and the dead keep coming back to haunt you.

That said I have another question: what is with loaning money to your campaign? I understand self financing a campaign--Issa or whatever. I don't understand "loaning". It seems more ethically troubling than straight-out self-financing. Let's say you win but have loaned yourself (I guess I mean your campaign) $10 million and it has $0 in the bank. Does that mean that the next $10 million (plus interest) you raise while in office for your next campaign goes right into your pocket? Doesn't that end up sounding suspiciously like bribery? Why are McCain and Clinton both doing this weird loan thing? (I assume it is some game being played with election laws, but it seems to me that we shouldn't be encouraging this loan thing unless I'm deeply misunderstanding it).

Your word in whoever listens ear!
Could still be used as a threat (with the example of Lieberman as alleged corroboration that it could work). Not that I think Obama would fall for this though.
Since the general election will be close in my opinion, a rogue Clinton run would ruin the election for the Dems (as would a rogue runner on the GOP side). Would be interesting*, if both sides would field such a maverick.

*as in "May you live in interesting times!"

Does that mean that the next $10 million (plus interest) you raise while in office for your next campaign goes right into your pocket? Doesn't that end up sounding suspiciously like bribery?

Yes. But so do a lot of other aspects of campaign finance. Suppose you let it be known that you are prepared to donate, not lend, $10 million to your own campaign, but donors step up and provide it instead. Same thing, isn't it?

"Suppose you let it be known that you are prepared to donate, not lend, $10 million to your own campaign, but donors step up and provide it instead. Same thing, isn't it?"

I don't really understand 'instead' in the hypothetical. While I suppose there is a theoretical limit for campaign expenditures, it is clear that having $20 million dollars in a presidential race would be a great thing, so having $10 million in donations PLUS $10 million of your own money would be great. The point is that once you give your own money to the campaign it is gone. You made a decision to commit a certain amount to your own success and for most legal applications of political power, that money will never be coming back to you. (Bill Clinton's recent um, incredible success notwithstanding--though I'm not sure it really should be as some of it smacks of serious corruption anyway).

If you do it that way, there isn't the direct gain of $10 million dollars after you win when you raise money for the next 4 years.

Spending your own money is actually spending it. Loaning it means that later you get to have fundraisers that put $10 million directly into your pocket.

Right after posting I thought of what the key distinction is for me:

Even in revolving campaign contribution situations the money has a limited purpose--it can only go to current or future campaigns. Once a rich person give $10 million dollars to a campaign, that money is limited to campaign use until it is gone.

A campaign 'loan' doesn't work that way. It lets that $10 million dollars come back to the politician for general use on anything. And if the campaign is in the hole at the end when they win, it lets contributions go directly to the poltician--not for the limited free speech-related campaign purpose.

"If they won't fight to the end in the primary. they won't fight to the end in the general."

Why?

You're saying that the reasons to fight are identical? That there can't be -- as is almost always the case -- someone reasonably close to you in policy positions that is running against you in a primary, and either you or your opponent would be good for the party, while in the general election you're running against an apparent monster who must be defeated at all costs, and thus it would be perfectly reasonable to fight up to a certain point in the primary, and then concede, whereas in the general, you'd want to fight through a far greater set of negative consequences?

So far as I can see you are asserting something completely contrary to reality as we know it, in asserting that there are no such distinctions, and in asserting that behavior in a primary would somehow predict behavior in the general election.

But I guess John Anderson's not "continuing to fight" for the Republican nomination in 1980 clearly demonstrated that he wouldn't fight in the general election, so that never happened.

Adam: "Every primary drives the wedge between the Hillary and Obama supporters deeper, and putting her on the ticket is the easiest way to bring them back."

I'll bet you a nickel that'll never happen; want to take me up on that?

And do you really think Senator Clinton would prefer to be Vice-President than to be Senate Majority Leader in a few years?

"After he's felt the heat for a while and the campaign's emotions have been redirected from Hillary to McCain, the prospect of the funds and the easy reconciliation with her base will start to look very attractive."

Funds? What funds? Her campaign is in deep debt.

Sebastian,

You are correct if the amount the candidate is willing to donate to her own campaign is independent of the amount of contributions. I'm not sure it works that way in real life, especially near the end, when time remaining is short.

It would also be a problem if the campaign were in debt, not to the candidate but to other lenders. Doesn't the candidate often guarantee such loans? So post-campaign contributions are in effect direct gifts to the candidate.

"Doesn't the candidate often guarantee such loans?"

I have no idea if that is a common practice, but if they do it looks shady to me. Now of course it isn't actually shady. Moral paragons McCain and Clinton are doing it.... ;)

but if they do it looks shady to me.

No doubt. But who's going to lend money to a political campaign without some sort of recourse to someone? It's not like campaigns build up assets or earnings streams that can be used to repay the loan. Unless you consider the office itself an asset that can be used, if you win. But then you're back to something that looks like bribery again.

Maybe the loans can be securitized and sold. Investors could diversify by holding a portfolio of candidate loans and the prices could be used, like Intrade quotes, to assess the chances.

Just for the record, I wrote this comment at 12:05 a.m. last night, a few minutes after the comment I responded to.

I then left the computer I was using, and this morning saw that the captcha hadn't worked, and all I knew was that there was some comment that hadn't posted' what it was, I had no idea, but I knew that if I backed up, on this computer, what I wrote would vanish. So I filled out the captcha. But there were no other responses to Adam when I wrote it yesterday. For the record.

"Can we not make the 'woman scorned' and 'too much makeup' comments?"

Since you're responding to Bill, obviously the answer is no.

And directing responses to Bill to everyone else, instead, seems inappropriate, given the general regard Bill's opinions tend to be held in. It'd makes as much sense for me to ask you not to make such comments about Senator Clinton. You're as responsible for Bill as the rest of us are, or are not.

Directing responses to the individual that made the comments you are responding to, on the other hand, and not generalizing to everyone else with requests that we don't do what we've never done, would seem appropriate.

Gary, glad to see you're safe and settled.

I found the Kinko's receipt in my car. Do you want it?

"But who's going to lend money to a political campaign without some sort of recourse to someone? It's not like campaigns build up assets or earnings streams that can be used to repay the loan."

I'm not sure I'm worried about it. Why should campaigns get loans at all?

Why should campaigns get loans at all?

Good question.

I can see it in the early stages, before there's been time to build a contributor base, and so on. Otherwise you have to build up a treasure chest to even consider a candidacy. Once things are moving there might be an argument against it.

Campaigns, like businesses, need money to get started.

Sure, I guess the better question is "why should campaigns get loans toward the end of their life cycle" or "why should incumbents get loans"?

For a non-incumbent I guess I can sort of see it in the very earliest phases (though I still wouldn't allow loans from their personal money). But this deep into the cycle I just can't see a legitimate need for it. You should be able to live off your donors at this point. If you can't, you need to spend less. If that means you aren't competitive, oh well. (And it isn't all about money anyway. There are numerous rich candidates who tried to fund their way into large offices and found that they couldn't). (Issa's Senate bid leaps to mind). You might be able to pull it off at the House level, but governor of a large state, Senator, or President? I don't really think so.

"Once a rich person give $10 million dollars to a campaign, that money is limited to campaign use until it is gone."

Sebastian, your notion that money donated to a political campaign is limited to campaign use until it is gone is entirely incorrect. See PART 113—USE OF CAMPAIGN ACCOUNTS FOR NON-CAMPAIGN PURPOSES (2 U.S.C. 439a) and so on: Oh, crap, this computer won't copy PDFs sanely. Anyway, the text is there.

"I found the Kinko's receipt in my car. Do you want it?"

No, thanks, but I really wish you had come up to get the stereo, and the various canned foods (who doesn't need tomato sauce?), and a bunch of other stuff I had to give you, even if you didn't want either of the Pentium Is, or monitors, or the DVD stands, or bookcases, or coffee maker, or microwave, or bed, etc. I had all sorts of extra unopened soaps, and lightbulbs, and just a ton of perfectly good stuff that my plan was to offer you.

I kinda hate that my a****** landlord got left the stuff instead.

Otherwise, I owe you a thousand tons of thanks. Alas that you weren't free on Saturday afternoon or evening, or Sunday, when all I had to do was lie around and kill time, with no tv or computer or phone, and we could have had as much actual relaxed hanging out time as you would have been free for, which I guess was none.

Altogether, I owe you endless thanks for the help, John, and endless apologies for not being available for anything resembling a normal get together, let alone lunch, due to my still frantic packing on Friday. (I did get the rest of what I needed done on Friday night, and to the PO Saturday morning, and even without missing the Comcast guy coming on Saturday, which was very touch and go.)

Now I definitely owe you a meal.

Btw, if you could email me your snail address, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

(I was disappointed nobody commented on our joint comment; peons!)

"Sebastian, your notion that money donated to a political campaign is limited to campaign use until it is gone is entirely incorrect."

While I didn't read every word of the Federal Register you link, the gist of it is that personal use of campaign funds are prohibited. There are various exceptions (and the old per se rules where pruned back a bit) but the prohibition on personal use remains. (The main loophole I see is found in fact-finding trips--they don't have to be directly campaign related and seem to double as vacations).

But so far as I can tell from a quick look at that, campaign funds are limited to campaign use or in one's duties as an official. Which seems definitionally just a hair broader than I initially discussed. But my point remains about loans allowing campaign contributions to be transformed into "personal use" money. Using campaign money for personal use is prohibited.

No sweat, Gary.

It occurred to me half way down 93 that I'd forgotten the stereo and the hammer.

Oh well.

I was pooped. Please find a place below the 34th floor next time or at least get a building with an elevator. Sheesh!

It wasn't so much the steamer trunk of bowling equipment, including the pins and an extra ball, or the suit of armor with chainmail and various weighty implements of Lancelot-like hacking and whacking in the name of courtly love, or the 13 sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica, including addendums, or the 27 or so 10-gallon jugs of heavy radioactive water just in case of what I'd like to know, or the upright piano (with piano player) you placed on my back, or the life-size granite sculpture of Hilzoy, or the deep freezer marked "WARNING: Do not thaw DaveC.", or even the 1965 VW bus we had to disassemble, lug piece by piece down to the parking lot, and reassemble ..... no, it wasn't any of those items that made me hit the wall .....

... it was looking up [after carrying the shetland pony down (we all want a pony; turns out Gary has one) on my shoulders and loading the last of the 311-strong collection of lava lamps into the van] and spotting you peering at me over the balcony with a martini in one hand and a bag of Cheetos in the other while reminding me that the screwdriver we needed to remove all of the bathroom fixtures was in the first box I'd carried down hours earlier underneath the pony and all the rest.

I kid.

It was a pleasure.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad