Clinton plans to raise and spend obscene $2.5 billion

John Podhertz

Hillary Clinton’s newly minted presidential campaign plans on raising — and spending — as much as $2.5 billion. That was the mind-blowing datum that accompanied Sunday’s announcement of Clinton’s candidacy. 

To give you a sense of just how mind-blowing, consider the fact that in 2012, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney together spent $2.14 billion. 

Right now that money is the political equivalent of what computer techies call vaporware: She doesn’t have the $2.5 billion yet, it’s more of an aspiration than a reality and it might not ever really happen. 

But the claim seems somewhat credible. 

If you think there’s too much money in politics, which Democrats claim to think, then what the Hillary team is doing should be alarming to her own side. 

Don’t worry, though; liberals really do only claim to despise the way money is raised in politics. 

It’s Republican fund-raising they consider illegitimate, not their own, especially if they can attach a named boogey-man to it — Adelson and Koch are the popular ones these days, but others might yet spring up just for novelty’s sake. 

Look, the fact is that Coca-Cola spent $3.3 billion selling its soda in the United States in 2013. 

Arguably the job of president of the United States is rather more important than a delicious caffeinated beverage, so it’s far from clear why spending less to elect a president is a moral stain upon the nation. 

That doesn’t mean it’s a smart use of money for Democrats and their hopes for governance after 2016. 

Think about the national results of the last four presidential elections. In 2000, Al Gore and George W. Bush effectively tied, with 48 percent each. In 2004, George W. Bush won re-election over John Kerry 51 percent to 48 percent. In 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain 53 to 46 percent. In 2012, Obama defeated Mitt Romney 51 to 47. 

These numbers suggest a universe in which Democrats have a modest historical advantage, but not too much of one, in that they seem to have a floor around 48 percent, while Republicans have a floor around 46 percent. 

In other words, it doesn’t really matter how much money the campaigns spend. From the get-go, Democrats right now have reason to believe they will automatically get around 48 percent, while Republicans at worst will get 46 percent. 

Take 2008 (please). Obama literally spent twice what McCain spent — but does anyone think the money won it for him? 

Given the financial meltdown, the national disappointment with the war in Iraq, Bush fatigue and Obama’s dominating performances in the debates, the fund-raising was more a mark of Obama’s natural electoral strength in 2008 than it was the cause of it. 

But even that commanding victory was not on the scale of the victories of recent elections past. Richard Nixon won by 23 points in 1972, Ronald Reagan won by margins of 10 and 18 points in 1980 and 1984, and Bill Clinton (who didn’t win an outright majority) prevailed by 9 over Bob Dole in 1996. 

What all this suggests is that both parties at present know a great deal about how to generate the tallies necessary to keep them from getting wiped out in an old-fashioned landslide. 

Indeed, much of this spending might well be defensive; it’s there to cancel the other team’s out. 

And money can generate money in response: The Republican challenging her (if the primaries are not too ruinous and don’t last forever) might use her big number as a scare tactic to get alarmed conservative donors to pony up big-time. 

What all this can do is drain the coffers for other candidates running down-ticket — in Senate and House races. And that’s more of a problem for Democrats than Republicans. 

After the 2014 GOP tsunami, the Republicans now hold an eight-seat majority in the Senate and a 61-seat majority in the House. 

Democrats have an uphill climb to regain control of the Senate. And if they are to improve their fortunes in the House of Representatives in the future, they need to regain some ground by at least chipping away at the GOP’s colossal advantage there. 

There are real potential costs to Hillary’s mammoth goal, and it might not do her all that much good.