April 4, 2007

Obama Right Behind Hillary

Barack Obama has raised $25 million for his presidential bid, coming in only a million behind Hillary Clinton's record-breaking performance. What makes it even more impressive is the number of donors who contributed to the total:

Sen. Barack Obama raised at least $25 million for his presidential campaign in the first quarter of the year, putting him just shy of Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, who made a splash with her announcement Sunday that she had drawn a record-breaking $26 million.

Obama (D-Ill.) appears to have surpassed Clinton in several ways: He raised $6.9 million through donations over the Internet, more than the $4.2 million than Clinton (N.Y.) raised online. He reported donations from 100,000 people, double the 50,000 people who gave to Clinton.

And of Obama's overall receipts, $23.5 million is eligible for use in the primary contests. Clinton officials have declined to disclose how much of her cash is available for the primaries -- rather than designated for the general election and therefore blocked off unless she wins the nomination -- raising suspicions that she raised less for the primaries than Obama did.

I believe that fundraising numbers do not directly relate to electoral success, but they do indicate support more reliably than polls, especially when looking at the number of individual donors. Obama and Romney both managed to reach out to a lot of people, and a lot of people responded. The average Obama donor gave $250 in Q1, which makes it look like Obama has done a good job of organizing the grassroots support that he will need to beat Hillary in the primaries. Her money seems to have come from more establishment sources.

In contrast, John McCain has a problem with his organization, a fact noted by the New York Times today. It's hardly fatal at this stage, and McCain has started making changes to address the problem. It shows that fundraising numbers function as a temperature gauge on campaigns; it can give an early indication of dysfunction that should get immediate attention.

People point to Howard Dean's meltdown in 2004 and Phil Gramm's stillborn candidacies to show that fundraising doesn't equate to success, and that's true. However, the problem in both cases rested with the candidate and not the organizations. A good organization can't overcome a poor candidate, but a poor organization will doom any candidate. The Obama totals show that he has at least built a requisite organization for a serious run.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama Right Behind Hillary:

» Black Magic giving Witchcraft a good run from Bill's Bites
See previous: Campaign Grind -- Hillary Smashes Fund-Raising Record (Caption Contest!) -- Romney Raises $23 Million in 2008 White House Bid ... -- McCain’s first quarter fundraising tanks Obama raises $25M in first quarter; Update: Poll — Hillary r... [Read More]

Comments (9)

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 12:38 PM

I know it's legal to do it, but why should campaign money be transferred between political offices? There may be people willing to support someone like Hillary to represent their State, that they aren't willing to have represent them as President.

Fundraising totals just 1 part of ’08 money picture
By Associated Press
Monday, April 2, 2007


Clinton’s campaign, which reported total receipts of $36 million, would not say how much of her $26 million in new contributions were general election donations that would be useless in her primary campaign. In addition to the donations, Clinton transferred $10 million from her Senate campaign account.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 12:45 PM

Let me guess. Hillary does not make it into the white house in 2008. So she has herself cloned.

And, becomes a threat to future generations.

Though who would "house her" while the zygote develops, I have no idea.

But as threat material? Hillary will never go away.

While her "star quality" is up there with Jennifer Anison's. Drudge used to mention, film, after film, after film, just how stupid it was to bank on someone who couldn't "open" well. But that didn't stop the insiders, lunching together, from exercising their rights.

So, they made movies that lost money.

While Bush has accomplished ONE thing!

Finally, the process that got people to get nominated, within the GOP, has had the locks broken off the doors.

Unless you think Iowa and New Hampshire; and "push-calls" down south, will make a difference in Feburary 2007.

As a matter of fact, the GOP has had way more experience with elecdtion disasters than the donks.

Starting with Warren Harding. Very good looking. Great hair. And, tall. Blessed with a baritone voice. So? He got picked and proved to be empty-headed.

Then? Herbert Hoover, using the disasterous Mississippi floods of 1927, found a way to make a "name for himself," that rang nationally. Okey dokey. He got elected.

And, then? The GOP got locked out! FDR won 16 years! And, it almost became a reality that the donks weren't going to make the "mistakes" that were routinely made by the GOP insiders.

Nixon, sick of the Rockefellers, went out to build himself an edifice that would keep him involved inside the GOP for generations. OOPS.

So you learn. The best laid plans of "mice and men often goes arwy."

"Men" is a generic term.

While Americans have been "dabbling" in idealism since the 1960's.

What hasn't occurred? Nobody's wanted to speak the truth at all. But affirmative action stinks. And, everywhere it has been tried, has led to weakness and failures.

Except? It seems Merkel is standing tall enough. And, perhaps will become europe's next Margaret Thatcher? Abbas, in gazoo, has gone nuts, accusing her of being a "tool to Israel." Why? Becuase UNLIKE condi, she told Abbas that Shalit has to be returned to Israel, FIRST!

While Tony Baloney Blair? Just fell on his face. While iran played with the de-balled navy gents; who had a career opportunist, female, leading them into abject surrender.

You think people didn't watch?

You think this is forgettable?

I think, not.

Posted by Winged Hussar 1683 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 1:39 PM

Obama's donors are wasting their money if Obama does not QUICKLY distance himself from the anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic MoveOn.org group. Next to MoveOn.org, gaffes like "macaca" become insignificant.

In 2005, MoveOn.org published an official cartoon of Pope Benedict waving a gavel in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. There are plenty of Catholic Democrats in Pennsylvania who will give their votes to someone else once they become aware that Obama's friends are spewing "the Catholics are taking over America" hate propaganda. MoveOn's Action Forum, with the full knowledge and approval of its moderators, welcomed hate speech that used "Jew" as an epithet, called Tom Lantos (a Democrat) a "whining, arrogant Jew," and called for the arrest and imprisonment of the "Catholic Pedophiles of America." An entire dossier of the MoveOn Action Forum hate speech and 9/11 conspiracy theories--which is available online--requires theee or so Web pages to display all of it.

If Obama does not distance himself from this group quickly, his personal character and his fitness to hold any office (including U.S. Senator) will be open to question. Perhaps his donors should hold off until they see what he is going to do about this problem, rather than wasting their money on someone whose candidacy will be derailed by connections to a hate organization.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 2:14 PM

wow that's a ton of money. i don't think it matters one bit though. Hillary and Obama can't win the election unless McCain gets the GOP nomination.

I think Gore is sitting out there and has enough power to allow the three front runners to beat up on each other and enter in later in the year. He only then has to defeat one of them which would not be tuff. The ticket that the GOP would have the hardest defeating based on the electorial map would be a a Gore/Richardson ticket ... I don't see any candidates on the GOP that could defeat that ticket.

Posted by dwightkschrute [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 4:13 PM

I'm confused Captain, do you have information that's not privy to the rest of us? You claim that "Obama and Romney both managed to reach out to a lot of people" but as of the writing of the post and this comment Romney had not reported how many donors he had. He has only released the dollar amount. Are you suggesting that Romney had close to the 100,000 donors that Obama had based on anything other than the fact he led the GOP candidates in money raised? Seems to be the kind of speculation you would attack the MSM for perpetuating.

Posted by DaveR [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 4:21 PM

"The ticket that the GOP would have the hardest defeating based on the electorial map would be a a Gore/Richardson ticket..."

That would be Gore from Tennessee, same as Fred Thompson, and Richarson from New Mexico, next door to Arizona, McCain's home state?

BTW, McCain could prove very tough for the Dems (not that I want him) because the media has positioned him as a "maverick" so well that many socially liberal folks would see him as good enough on those issues, plus solid on national defense. The Dem fantasy that McCain is damaged goods because of the war could be a fatal one for them to pursue.

Posted by gaffo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 7:21 PM

DaveR!! - WFT????????????????????????

where have you been between 2004 and 2007?

Is McCain of 2000 the same McCain of 2007?


HE LOST ALL OF OUT SUPPORT THESE LAST TWO YEARS!!!!!!!! Bennect Arnold is his name.

you nominate him PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can watch all the dems vote for ABB (anybody but Bennedict) again.

maverick my arse - phoney neocon more like it.

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2007 8:40 PM

gaffo is right, with the dems McCain is kryptonite, we can't stand him or Hillary for that matter. Richardson is the only guy I would like to vote for. If McCain had run as an independent in 2000, I believe he would have won.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 5, 2007 8:09 AM

So I guess Dave R ... the real question is who is more popular in the southwest region, and I think that Richardson is, only my opinion I am sure there is no data to produce to show either way ... but aside from big gaffs by Rudy, McCain is toast in his party.

In regards to Thompson vs Gore, you bet Thompson would win in TN, but why is that a surprise? Gore did not win in TN in 2000! My thoughts were that Gore would win every state he won last time around AND assuming McCain just leaves the campain trail as I think he will, Richardson would add NM, AZ, CO, NV and put FLA in play again. That is an electorial nightmare for the GOP to lose the southwest.