• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hillary Clinton took a gamble with her own money, lost, now she's crying for help

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Does anyone know if the campaign debt to outsiders has to be paid prior to any personal loans?

It would really blow dog if these politicians on both sides were able to run up as much debt as they wanted via normal campaigning and personal loans and then get to pay the loans back first and then stop even trying to pay back everyone else.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, this is common practice.

Well it's common practice for politicians to be corrupt liars, doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out for it, or accountable for the debt.

She could easily pay that out of her own pocket.
 
No sympathy for her at all, no one forced her to use her own money and she knew what she'd be facing if she didn't win. Hillary could have kept a stiff upper lip about this and gained perhaps a hint of respect for it (don't recall Ross Perot throwing a pity party like this) from her detractors, but now this will be thrown into the "Oh she's crying again!" bucket.

Meh.

Exactly. The big guys will live, but the small caterers and sound companies, for example, were really taken for a ride. She's a disgrace.


You need help (but then most people here know that already I suppose) For years you've applauded the Bush admin for screwing everything they've come into contact with, far more egregious than some sandwich vendors and sound technicians getting stiffed, yet Hillary is a disgrace for having money problems.

Your criteria for 'disgrace' is as warped as the rest of you it seems. :disgust:

You cheerleaders are the worst.
 
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Guys, this is common practice.

Well it's common practice for politicians to be corrupt liars, doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out for it, or accountable for the debt.

She could easily pay that out of her own pocket.

Obama is not using (and cannot use) any donations given to him to pay off her debt, he is simply asking people to do it. If they want to, they want to... it's their money. What's the big deal?
 
This whole thing is rather annoying. It's easier for a lot of people to pay 5 dollars than one person to pay 10 million. And Democrats can benefit from a happy Clinton. Also there is a natural tendency to be generous in victory.

On the other hand she borrowed money to stay in a race she was losing and caused lots of extra grief to folk like me who didn't want her to win, and there's the whole business of personal responsibility. I don't like the idea that she could gratify her egotistical need to continue a race she couldn't win and avoid the consequences any more than I like the idea that Bush has not been impeached. A lack of character isn't fixed in any one party, but because the Republicans make a big issue of their pig behavior they call character, I don't much like seeing Democrats act the same.

Somehow I see her getting the money which will just encourage the next egotistical candidate to think she or he can also pull this off. I don't like that either. I don't like punishing losers either though so whatever happens happens I guess. I'm not sure were I want to come down on this. It's all part of the pain in the ass that comes from being a nice person, I guess.
 
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I cant imagine how hard Hillary's life is going to be if she doesnt get that 10mil back. I should dip into my meager savings to help her out so she doesnt have to do the unthinkable, like fly 1st class commercial instead of a private jet. Man that must be hard.

Seriously. While I'm an Obama supporter and I don't hate Hillary this seems wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I remembered Bill making $250K for speech appearances. Hillary asking for handouts to pay off her failed campaign is a bit much.

she and Bill could spend the rest of the summer making speeches at private dinners to pay back the debts, but that's going to limit their ability to raise funds for Obama and other democrats across the country.

the faster Billary gets back to pimping themselves out for the party the better.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
She didn't exactly screw up - she simply gambled and lost. Had she won the nomination, that much money and more would have poured in.

It's also not necessary to posture her as not acting "manly" in not accepting this monetary loss. If you're $20 million in the hole, you might as well rouse what supporters you've got and see if they can help you out.

Back in February/March, after Obama won like 13 in a row, it was pretty obvious the math would never add up to a win for her.

It was a gamble before it became obvious she would never win. After that, it was a screw up to stay in the race, loaning herself money in a race that had only one conclusion.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: mundane
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: yllus
She didn't exactly screw up - she simply gambled and lost. Had she won the nomination, that much money and more would have poured in.

It's also not necessary to posture her as not acting "manly" in not accepting this monetary loss. If you're $20 million in the hole, you might as well rouse what supporters you've got and see if they can help you out.

But she kept going on even after it was statistically impossible for her to win.

It depends on the definition of "statistically" 😀
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with mundane, even at the end she could win if she could get the super delegates.
Look how fast the candidacies of Dean and Hart collapsed after a single scandal. If Obama made a single mis step, Hillary was poised to swoop in and bag the lot.

Do the democratic math, almost one fifth of the delegates were of the super type and with
proportional allocation rather than winner take all in the elective primaries. In a two person race, one candidate would have to win 62.5% of the elective primary votes to win against a candidate who could rally all the supers to their side. And there simply was not that 25 point spread difference between Obama and Hillary support saying the voters were over ruled by super delegates. It was Obama by a nose with Hillary closing fast.

Obama held up and Hillary lost in one of the closest nomination fights in modern political history. As a democrat and an Obama supporter, I still do not blame Hillary for going the distance, she fought hard and that is an admirable quality in any candidate, be they Republican, Democrat, or third party.

We all knew that the supers would back whichever candidate had the most electoral votes. Only the unrealistic and the blind, believed any other conclusion was possible.

Spending all these months and all that money on the slim chance that Obama would hurt himself so bad that he became unelectable, and the supers over rode the voters, was just stupid.
 
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: yllus
She didn't exactly screw up - she simply gambled and lost. Had she won the nomination, that much money and more would have poured in.

It's also not necessary to posture her as not acting "manly" in not accepting this monetary loss. If you're $20 million in the hole, you might as well rouse what supporters you've got and see if they can help you out.

Back in February/March, after Obama won like 13 in a row, it was pretty obvious the math would never add up to a win for her.

It was a gamble before it became obvious she would never win. After that, it was a screw up to stay in the race, loaning herself money in a race that had only one conclusion.

not much of a student of history are ya? :roll:
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Maybe Hillary should have taken the lack of donations as a clue that she wasn't going to win.

or that people without a college education have less money in their pockets to donate.
 
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: yllus
She didn't exactly screw up - she simply gambled and lost. Had she won the nomination, that much money and more would have poured in.

It's also not necessary to posture her as not acting "manly" in not accepting this monetary loss. If you're $20 million in the hole, you might as well rouse what supporters you've got and see if they can help you out.

Back in February/March, after Obama won like 13 in a row, it was pretty obvious the math would never add up to a win for her.

It was a gamble before it became obvious she would never win. After that, it was a screw up to stay in the race, loaning herself money in a race that had only one conclusion.

not much of a student of history are ya? :roll:

Yes I am. I see you didn't actually make a point, likely because you wouldnt be able to defend it.
 
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Back in February/March, after Obama won like 13 in a row, it was pretty obvious the math would never add up to a win for her.

It was a gamble before it became obvious she would never win. After that, it was a screw up to stay in the race, loaning herself money in a race that had only one conclusion.

not much of a student of history are ya? :roll:

Yes I am. I see you didn't actually make a point, likely because you wouldnt be able to defend it.

You stated that the conclusion to a race for an elected office was decided at some point in February/March, several months before the final contests would be held. I'm not going to bother posting articles/links to show you where the campaign of a clear frontrunner/annointed one came to a crashing and immediate halt because of a scandal. If your point is that such a thing never happened, I think you are the one who might have some trouble defending it.

And if the bolding and my comment weren't enough for you to figure out my point, you aren't much of a student of dialectic either.
 
Whether she should have stayed in the race or not is just a secondary point IMO.

No matter the lenght of time, she flat-out didn't budget properly or plan her campaign wisely. She then compounded that error by gambling with high debt.

She could've stayed in the race, just cut back on spending. She was getting tons of free MSM coverage anyway. She won in my area of NC without any TV ads. She has great name recognition; she blew money needlessly IMO.

The debt she incurred didn't make her financially competitive with Obama anyway.

Overall, the $20M is not that much in the context of what she raised/spent over the entire campaign. A little less extravagent spending in the early part would have served her well too (poor budgeting).

Fern

 
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Maybe Hillary should have taken the lack of donations as a clue that she wasn't going to win.

or that people without a college education have less money in their pockets to donate.

Obama got lots of small donations. It was Hillary who was counting on the wealthy buying influence... I mean... donating.
 
I find it sad that it's necessary to spend that kind of money to have a shot at winning. It would be great if the populace was sufficiently self-motivated to learn about the candidates in ways other than watching expensive 30 second commercials.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87

Is she sticking small business by not paying her bills?
That is crap and they should sue her campaign, make a huge stink about it.

They can think of it...as having made a campaign contribution <g>. I wonder though, who is there to sue (a bankrupt campaign?) and can they touch the Clintons' own personal money?

The post about the school district was interesting. A private business could probably get away with writing off the loss as a campaign contribution in the owner's mind, but a school district answers to the people in the district and not all of them are Hillary lovers and some might be angry that their tax money ended up getting used for political purposes. The thought of the ruckus this could cause is so juicy. Perhaps the local school board members should pay the costs out of their own pockets.
 
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I cant imagine how hard Hillary's life is going to be if she doesnt get that 10mil back. I should dip into my meager savings to help her out so she doesnt have to do the unthinkable, like fly 1st class commercial instead of a private jet. Man that must be hard.

She's going to have to make lots of speeches and appearances at, say, $50,000 a pop.
 
Originally posted by: jonks

not much of a student of history are ya? :roll:

Heh heh. Well, it was always (and still is) possible that a radical gender feminist might knock off Obama to clear the way for her ala RFK. Can't you just imagine a woman dying for the sisterhood and the cause of having a woman president in our lifetimes? I can.

Remember the Ellen Jamesians from The World According to Garp? Yes, I know that that's just fiction, but I can see one of those types shooting Obama.
 
ummm, so let me get this straight... Hillary says that she "needs" the help of her working-class supporters to help pay off her own "debts"? All the while she's still sitting on tens/hundreds of millions of dollars in her own personal accounts?!?

wow, that's simply twisted...

fuck her.
 
Back
Top