In the Money
trudogg
totals is just about the ultimate in political inside pool. The
typical American doesn't know or care how much money a campaign raises
-- but the numbers are carefully scrutinized by reporters, candidates,
staffers, and major donors.
It's not necessarily fair, and fundraising conditions can change, but
candidates who fall behind in fundraising are perceived, usually
accurately, as struggling overall. Candidates who fill their coffers
well are perceived as credible and strong.
And candidates who raise over $30 million in the second quarter the
year before the presidential election are a force to be reckoned with.
Sen. Barack Obama raised $31 million for his presidential primary
campaign over the past three months, surging past Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clinton's fundraising machine by nearly $10 million for the quarter to
take the lead in contributions in the crowded Democratic field.
Obama became the first Democrat to surpass $30 million in a
quarter during a non-election year, a feat his campaign said was
accomplished not just with help from wealthy, traditional donors but
also with a strong showing among small contributors.... In addition to
Obama's haul for the primary, he collected $1.5 million for the
general election, for a total of $32.5 million raised over the past
three months.
Hillary Clinton got a fairly significant head start on 2007
fundraising by transferring $10 million from her Senate campaign
account -- and Obama still surpassed her. Over the first six months of
the year, Obama raised nearly $56 million for primary spending,
followed by Clinton's $50 million. Edwards is third with about $22
million, followed by Richardson with roughly $13 million, and Dodd
with about $12 million.
Obama's haul, however, is clearly the big story. Marc Ambinder's
analysis sounds about right to me: "There is no other way to put it:
not only did Sen. Barack Obama set a record for single quarter
donations by a Democratic candidate, but his fundraising total -- $31M
from 154,000 new donors -- imposes an obligation on all of us who
cover the race: we need to figure out why the 'national' frontrunner,
Hillary Clinton, isn't generating as much excitement as her chief
competitor."
And what of the fundraising for the Republican presidential
candidates? No one in the GOP field has released their numbers yet,
but none of the Republicans is expected to be anywhere close to Obama
(or Clinton, for that matter).
In the first quarter, all the Dems outraised all the Republicans, $78
million to $53.6 million. This quarter, the disparity should grow even
larger.
We're going to be hearing quite a bit about an "enthusiasm gap"
between Clinton and Obama, but let's also not lose sight of the same
gap between Dems and the GOP.
Steve Benen
http://washingtonmonthly.com/
Wade Ward
"trudogg" <tru...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:q72i835v3qr78g8bm...@4ax.com...
quarter.
Senator Clinton spent ten million dollars in an all but uncontested race
last time around, just because she could. I wonder if she'd rather have
that money now?
--
Wade Ward
trudogg
wrote:
>> Obama's haul, however, is clearly the big story. Marc Ambinder's
>> analysis sounds about right to me: "There is no other way to put it:
>> not only did Sen. Barack Obama set a record for single quarter
>> donations by a Democratic candidate, but his fundraising total -- $31M
>> from 154,000 new donors -- imposes an obligation on all of us who
>> cover the race: we need to figure out why the 'national' frontrunner,
>> Hillary Clinton, isn't generating as much excitement as her chief
>> competitor."
>It was well-known that Obama was going to crush everyone in fundraising last
>quarter.
>
>Senator Clinton spent ten million dollars in an all but uncontested race
>last time around, just because she could. I wonder if she'd rather have
>that money now?
....she decided to trot out Bubba for campaign stops. I think she's
very aware of how much of a threat to her that Obama can be.