Obama has been spending a lot of money shopping,for superdelegate votes.Granted Hillary has contributed money also,but has not been able to "buy" as many votes as Obama.It would seem that this should trouble Obama supporters as he is always trying to portray he is going to be a different kind of politician.Looks like same old same old to me.
According to studies from Capital Eye-
"For those elected officials who had endorsed a candidate as of Feb. 25, the presidential candidate who gave more money to the superdelegate received the endorsement 82 percent of the time. In cases where Obama had made a contribution since 2005 but Clinton had given the superdelegate nothing, Obama got the superdelegate's support 85 percent of the time. And Clinton got the support of 75 percent of superdelegates who got money from her but not from Obama. For this update to the Feb. 14 study the Center combined contribution data with a list of superdelegates and their endorsements compiled by The Politico as of Feb. 25."
And a big shame on any super who votes because they have been bought and paid for,whether it is for Clinton or Obama.It does help me to see why Obama has been getting more superdelegate support,when Hillary is the apparent electable candidate according to all the recent polls.
From politico-Obama has spent $710,926 buying up votes,while Clinton has donated $236,080
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 7
http://www.politico.com/superdelegates/
Senators ~ 13 for Clinton, 18 for Obama, 17 uncommited
Representatives 77 for Clinton, 78 for Obama, 64 uncommited
Governors 11 for Clinton, 14 for Obama, 6 uncommited
Obama got the superdelegate's support 85 percent of the time.
And Clinton got the support of 75 percent of superdelegates who got money from her but not from Obama.
Hmm? must be that VooDoo math again !
There is nothing contradictory with supporting those who support you. When you give them money it does not go their bank account. This is all legit. They use the money to win their upcoming elections. You need money to run in this country. Clinton's inability to raise money is a vote of no confidence.
You take it as 'buying' votes. The American people certainly don't care. The money is used for politics not for buying groceries. Get a clue!
In terms of campaign money, the Democratic party would be smart to continue to back moderate candidates in close contests. One such contest is in Minnesota for Senate. This money raised for that contest is being wasted on a partisan Democrat who can't win.
The real story is not how much partisan Democrats are getting to campaign, but how much their ranks are thinning, year by year, as a percentage of Congress, and State offices.