Hillary announces best fundraising month yet

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hillary Rodham Clinton's aides today announced one of the best fundraising months of American political history, and the best of her campaign.

But Barack Obama one-upped her again, with a spokesman quickly telling reporters that Obama had raised "considerably more" than Clinton's $35 million in the month of January.

Still, Clinton's infusion of cash means that her campaign is unlikely to suffer the fate that sometimes follows a string of losses: bankruptcy. The money means she can maintain substantial television advertising in Ohio and Texas and, aides said, begin to build operations in the next round of states after March 4.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8761.html

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Democrats familiar with the Obama campaign's fundraising operation told ABC News his campaign is expected to have raised north of 50 million dollars for the month.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...d-cash-for.html

[GaryC 7]

Question, how are they raising so much money while they are saying we are having a recession? Somebody is making money.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Gary,

That's irrelevant. A recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of negative growth in aggregate GDP.

Fact #1: We do not have any evidence yet of two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The latest data we have is for Q4 2007, which was not negative (just very low). Most commentators/pundits I've read have said they believe we are in one. It will remain a belief (and not be a fact) until after we have had two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

Fact #2: Whether some people are making enough money or not has nothing to do with it. The metrics are based on aggregates. Even during bad times, some people make a lot. Smart investors, people with good skillsets, etc.

[GaryC 7]

Gary,

That's irrelevant. A recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of negative growth in aggregate GDP.

Fact #1: We do not have any evidence yet of two consecutive quarters of negative growth. The latest data we have is for Q4 2007, which was not negative (just very low). Most commentators/pundits I've read have said they believe we are in one. It will remain a belief (and not be a fact) until after we have had two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

Fact #2: Whether some people are making enough money or not has nothing to do with it. The metrics are based on aggregates. Even during bad times, some people make a lot. Smart investors, people with good skillsets, etc.

At a combined rate of $100 million per month that tells me that the economy must be doing well. But to hear both of them talk our economy is on life support. Either that or it's the dems who are the rich ones and not the reps.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

At a combined rate of $100 million per month that tells me that the economy must be doing well.

Gary,

Don't be naive. 100 mill is nothing.

From the BEA - Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased 3.3 percent, or $113.6 billion, in the fourth quarter to a level of $14,084.1 billion.

100 million / 14 084.1 billion = 7.1002052 × 10^-6

To put it another way, 100 million divided by our GDP is 0.0000071002052 . Or, 0.00071002052 % of total GDP.

Recessions are defined by movements in total GDP. Not by 'blips' like $100 million.

[GaryC 7]

At a combined rate of $100 million per month that tells me that the economy must be doing well.

Gary,

Don't be naive. 100 mill is nothing.

From the BEA - Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased 3.3 percent, or $113.6 billion, in the fourth quarter to a level of $14,084.1 billion.

100 million / 14 084.1 billion = 7.1002052 × 10^-6

To put it another way, 100 million divided by our GDP is 0.0000071002052 . Or, 0.00071002052 % of total GDP.

Recessions are defined by movements in total GDP. Not by 'blips' like $100 million.

Per month? And this is coming from half of our population not the population as a whole. And it is given on a voluntary basis.

The recession comment was a dig at the dems trying to paint the economy as rotten BTW. I know we are not in one. I think the economy is still doing well albeit slowing down.

Edited February 29, 2008 by GaryC

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

An annualized growth rate of 0.6% is not "well", Gary.

Again, you're mistaking the trees for the forest.

[Caladan 19]

Weren't you paying attention during the last couple recessions? VJ Troll's got it right. And, yes, the economy can be doing badly while some people have enough money to donate. By that logic, India isn't a developing country because a small percentage of people have lots of money. Even during the Depression there were rich people. (Also, you don't have to be rich to kick $100 towards a campaign. The real question is not that the Dems are richer than the Republicans, but who has more support in the form of small donors.)

We're not able to say we're in a recession yet, but between the housing collapse, tepid growth, and inflation, I would not be surprised if by July we're marking the first quarters of 2008 as a recession.