Dems Find Money Can’t Buy Love — But Does It Buy Delegates?
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are hot on the fundraising trail, but what does all that money really buy? (AP Photos)
Hillary Clinton can point to her nearly 10-point victory in Pennsylvania as a turning point for her flagging campaign — but at what cost?
For the $5 million she spent on TV ads in the race, she gained 10 net delegates. And for the whopping $11.5 million Barack Obama spent, he lost.
That means Obama dropped $157,534 per delegate on media advertising alone, and Clinton spent $60,240. At that rate, Clinton would have to spend another $26 million and Obama would have to spend another $47.4 million to clinch the nomination.
Of course, that’s assuming money brings votes. And the fact that the record amounts of cash spent on the Pennsylvania primary did little to change the dynamic of the race raises fresh questions of how effective bundles of money can be in putting an end to this never-ending Democratic battle.
“Ironically, the money is less important in this [election] than it would be in a congressional race,” Democratic strategist Susan Estrich told FOXNews.com.
Not that either candidate is likely to let up. The battle for every remaining delegate is so hard-fought, and the investment to date so massive, that the spend-o-meter will only surge in the approaching contests.
Obama still has a daunting war chest and Clinton pulled in $10 million in the 24 hours after winning Pennsylvania.
But will it make a difference?
“The streets are laden with well-financed campaigns” that haven’t been successful, Estrich cautioned, citing former Texas Gov. John Connally’s 1980 presidential bid. Connally spent $11 million on his campaign and only managed to secure one delegate — the late Ada Mills of Arkansas — who later was known as the “11-million-dollar delegate.”
“Money doesn’t guarantee you victory, but you need it for gas for the airplane. You need to keep the infrastructure going,” Estrich said.
In the bestselling book Freakonomics, economist Steven Levitt argued that the amount of money a candidate spends “hardly matters at all.”
In looking at hundreds of congressional races, he concluded it matters more who a candidate is, not how much he or she spends. Levitt suggested popularity drives fundraising and not the other way around.
This year’s race might just be a case of keeping up appearances.
Obama and Clinton both launched their presidential campaigns with staggering figures. Obama, who won the Iowa caucuses in January, spent $9.6 million on TV ads in the state and Clinton $7.7 million. Mathematically speaking, Obama averaged $384,000 per delegate in advertisement spending and Clinton $550,000 in that state.
As the race moved past New Hampshire, both candidates spent less in contests — until the Pennsylvania primary, which was the costliest for Obama so far. When the dust settled, Clinton earned 83 delegates and Obama 73, bringing their total number of pledged delegates gained to 1,593 and 1,724, respectively.
Democratic strategist Bob Beckel, who managed Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign, described the money spent by the two candidates as “mind-boggling,” but suggested it’s necessary in a race such as this.
“The person behind has to spend more money because they need it to catch up, that’s not unusual,” Beckel said of Clinton. “And Obama needed to spend money to close the gap and keep the margin down” in Pennsylvania.
“It boils down to this,” Beckel said. “If you got it, spend it if you know you’re not borrowing against your future campaigns.”
As the two candidates move into the next round of primaries beginning May 6, Obama is outspending Clinton on television commercials in Indiana and North Carolina by 2-to-1. Obama has been running ads in both states since March 28, spending more than $2 million so far in Indiana and nearly $2 million in North Carolina, according to TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, a political ad tracking firm.
FOX News’ Aaron Bruns and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
To blame Senator Clinton for bringing out Obama’s skeltons is like Bush blaming the congress for the mess we’re in now. We need someone who will take responsibility for what they do. It won’t be Obama or McCain. Senator Clinton is the only one I’ve heard say she expects the American people to hold her accountable for what she has promised in this campaign if she is elected President. I truly believe she is the only candidate running that will follow through and work very hard to make the USA a better place and I believe she is the only one that can do it.
I haven’t seen much of a back bone with the other two.
chuck - AND McCain’s qualification are?????????????????