Spillover Effects from the Democratic Primary into the General?

[Lunar]

rambling

Now, I’ve historically believed that the long primary hurts Democrats more than helps them.  It does have some advantages, denying McCain fundraising and airtime, but most of the news that breaks is generally negative.  There’s not too many headlines that are along the lines of “Monday Obama saved a child from drowning!"  Anyway, I'm starting to rethink this and reclassify the benefits/harms of a long Democratic primary as unmeasurable.

Anyway, that said, today I was thinking about the extreme ad-buys Obama’s been making in PA.  Before I even launch into that, note that Clinton’s latest ad ATTACKS MCCAIN.  If many of her future ads do this, this is good news for Obama.  I’m sure it’s part a ploy to raise her poll numbers against McCain and increase her legitimacy as a possible frontrunner in light of recent calls for her to step down.  However, one can’t help but admire Clinton going hard-core negative on McCain and allowing Obama to keep his hands cleaner and his approvals up.

Err.. Anyway, back to the point at hand, think about this.  And I might be wrong here since I’m not an expert in campaign finance laws.  Supporters of Obama can give 2,300 dollars for the primary and then 2,300 for the general.  If Obama spends wisely, he can then spend 4,600 (or whatever) from a single donor in a critical state like Pennsylvania or even Oregon/North Carolina potentially, right?  So, why not dump his primary campaign coffers intensely into Pennsylvania?  Even if he doesn’t win the primary, he’ll have run millions of dollars worth of ads and built up an incredible organization for what many are seeing as the defining state of the 08 general and McCain’s clearest shot to victory.

Obama gets to kill two birds with one stone, McCain and Hillary, gets to excite his base in a swing state, take names, etc.  McCain **wishes** he had a hard fought primary battle in this state against Romney early on I bet!

All of McCain’s hardest fought primary battles were done with little investment in a cash-strapped campaign.  So far, McCain has had real competitions in these potential swing states:

Iowa [Ooops, nevermind, he didn’t compete here]
*New Hampshire [ok, got to give credit where it’s due]
*Michigan [ditto, lost but medium-level campaigning]
Nevada [Got creamed]
*Florida [His best case]

With still an underfunded campaign, his last notable obstacle was Super Tuesday before his primary campaign became negligible.  The notable states are:
*Missouri [almost lost to huck, but ok]
Colorado [lost pretty badly to Romney, was he trying hard here?]
Minnesota [lost 2-1 to Romney]

So all that leaves are those four state’s with *’s as general election swingers with a notable amount of primary attention spent by McCain in the primary.

In contrast, Obama has seriously contested every state except maybe Arkansas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma.

Anyone else think that this extended primary will not only give Obama a long list of donor’s to hit up again in the general for funds, but has attracted hundreds of thousands of supporters, built up organization in critical states, AND allowed him to put millions of dollars of ads on the air.  Also, does this 2,300/2,300 thing work as a bit of a loophole in his favor or is it just me?  I’m sure it would benefit Clinton more since she has fewer but wealthier donors, but both have plenty of $4600 donors.

[Trilobyte]

Also, does this 2,300/2,300 thing work as a bit of a loophole in his favor or is it just me?  I’m sure it would benefit Clinton more since she has fewer but wealthier donors, but both have plenty of $4600 donors.

Actually, Obama attracts more affluent supporters so this rule works in his favor if anything. Clinton obviously has a few of her own wealthy donors, but most of her support comes from downscale people who can't give very much.

[Verily]

Also, does this 2,300/2,300 thing work as a bit of a loophole in his favor or is it just me?  I’m sure it would benefit Clinton more since she has fewer but wealthier donors, but both have plenty of $4600 donors.

Actually, Obama attracts more affluent supporters so this rule works in his favor if anything. Clinton obviously has a few of her own wealthy donors, but most of her support comes from downscale people who can't give very much.

Either you're just blatantly lying, or you are so hopelessly misled that it amounts to the same thing. Look up information about the sizes of amounts donated to each candidate and get back to us.

[Lunar]

Verily's right.  A lot of Clinton's support, especially initially, came from donors who expected that she'd win the nomination and wanted to contribute $4600 as soon as possible.  Also, I believe the Clinton campaign asks donors who have given 2300 towards her primary to also donate towards her general so that her numbers become a little inflated.  This makes sense for the donors since Clinton is forced to give a refund on general donations if she loses the primary (she cannot spend it on debts!).

Also, I forgot to mention:  Obama generally runs positive ads, further increasing the trans-election applicability of them.

[ChrisFromNJ]

I agree with this. Obama/Hillary are visiting every state, building donor lists, grassroot organizations, etc. It's hard to see how this will hurt them in the general. As long as the nomination is decided shortly after all the primaries are done in June, the Democrats should benefit from this extended primary process. If it lasts until August and we have a brokered convention... not so much.

[Trilobyte]

Also, does this 2,300/2,300 thing work as a bit of a loophole in his favor or is it just me?  I’m sure it would benefit Clinton more since she has fewer but wealthier donors, but both have plenty of $4600 donors.

Actually, Obama attracts more affluent supporters so this rule works in his favor if anything. Clinton obviously has a few of her own wealthy donors, but most of her support comes from downscale people who can't give very much.

Either you're just blatantly lying, or you are so hopelessly misled that it amounts to the same thing. Look up information about the sizes of amounts donated to each candidate and get back to us.

You seriously need to calm down. Like I said, Obama's base is more affluent which is why he can go back to them time and again until each max out. Those with little disposable income obviously cannot donate, and since such people make up the bulk of Clinton support she is more reliant on the few corporate donors and wealthy individuals who give the max amount. Since Obama's base consist of more individuals who can actually donate, the 2300/2300 cap obviously works in his favor.

Edit: Look at the donation information and you will see that Clinton relies on only a few donors who give the max amount, which supports my claim. Obama has plenty of affluent supporters he can tap into repeatedly, so the rule clearly favors him. I honestly don't see how anyone can argue the rule doesn't favor him.

[Lunar]

Err, for the rule to favor him in Pennsylvania they'd have to hit that 2,300 mark in the next couple days and then hit 2,300 again in the general, right?

I'm no good at campaign finance laws..