Obama leads Dems in presidential fundraising

[shinero]

Obama leads Dems in presidential fundraising

July 1, 20007, USA TODAY

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama raised at least $32.5 million between April and June for his White House bid, his campaign reported Sunday — shattering the record for presidential fundraising in the first six months of the year before an election.

The first-term Democrat has collected more than $58 million this year. That surpasses the $37.3 million collected during the first six months of 1999 by George W. Bush, then governor of Texas. Obama's haul for the past three months also exceeds the roughly $27 million that his top Democratic rival, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, reported raising last week for the second-quarter fundraising period, which ended Saturday.

The former first lady has raised at least $53 million through the first half of the year. She also transferred an extra $10 million from her Senate campaign fund.

The vast majority of Obama's second-quarter donations — $31 million — will be used for the primary, his campaign manager David Plouffe said. Clinton raised more than $21 million for the primary during the second quarter and about $6 million for the general election contest if she wins the Democratic nomination, spokesman Blake Zeff said.

Final second-quarter fundraising details won't be available until July 15, when candidates must file their reports with the Federal Election Commission. The early fundraising totals, however, are a measure of a candidate's popularity with donors and their ability to remain competitive in what is likely to be the nation's most expensive presidential contest. Clinton and Obama raised nearly equal amounts of money during the first quarter, and are in first and second place, respectively, in national polls for the nomination.

Obama's strong showing shows his campaign's threat to Clinton, said Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist who ran Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign. "While he's new to national politics, there's a huge desire for change," she said. "A lot of this is new money, and from people who are clearly energized about this election."

Obama raised money from 154,000 people during the second quarter, up from 100,000 in the first quarter. Clinton collected money from 60,000 donors during the first three months, and relied more heavily than any candidate on donors who contributed $4,600, the maximum an individual can give to a candidate for the primary and general elections.

Anthony Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, said Obama "is widening and deepening his fundraising base — a base that will be able to sustain his fundraising success in the months ahead." Given their fundraising totals so far, he said, both Clinton and Obama will have the resources they need to compete through the crush of early primaries. At least 20 states are expected to stage primaries on Feb. 5.

Former North Carolina senator John Edwards reported Sunday that he had raised $9 million during the second quarter — down from $14 million in the first quarter. That puts him in a distant third place in fundraising among Democrats.

"This isn't a money race," Edwards' adviser Joe Trippi said Sunday. "It's a race to win the nomination, and that's what we'll do."

Republican presidential candidates have not yet released fundraising totals but have sought to lower expectations. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who led GOP fundraising after the first three months of the year, will raise less than the $20.7 million he collected in the first quarter, campaign aides said in a memo.

 

[JayHawk]

I like the fact that Obama is raising from so many different people. CLearly shows Hillary owns a good measure of the base and Barrack is pulling down the people who don't simply chop a block in tow with the party. Maybe he is what we need, obviously Edwards aint the shizzle.

So Mitt, Rudy, Barrack and Hillary.

"It s gonna be a weird one folks"

I guess sometimes being new can mean your the cleanest opportunity for good. Hillary is devisive, Rudy is a womanizer mafia don and Mitt has a minority religion and flippety floppety views. I guess that leaves squeaky clean Barrack to rule the day.

 

[chance1]

The enormity of the $ signs makes me wanna puke

i wouldn't give a fucking dime to any of them

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

This augers well for a new era for America with a President Obama. The oligarchical aura of two families passing the presidency back and forth for 24 or possibly 28 consecutive years has to end. The nation and the peoples of other nations dwelling all around the globe are surely crying out for fresh national and world leadership unencumbered by the past.

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070100381.html?referrer=email

For the second succesive quarter of primary fundraising therefore Sen. Obama has raised considerably more money than Sen. Clinton or any other potential rival, some of whom arguably have been preparing their campaigns for the Presidency for at least the last eight years (or sixteen?). The Obama outreach and his amazing strong continuing phenomina is something we have never experienced before. He will not be easy to stop as the polls, regardless of political affiliation, show he is the only candidate who can beat all potential presidentail nominess and attract strong crossover votes.

Obama, an Illinois senator, is clearly the strongest general-election candidate. He is the only Democrat who beats all three major Republican contenders: Giuliani, McCain and Romney. Clinton runs behind all three Republican contenders in head-to-head match-ups.

Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aEC4FNe_zDps&refer=home

 

[Andreus]

the stakes are high on this one

the lives of our soldiers are on the line and i dont think that theres anyone in the country who isnt being motivated right now to make a difference on their behalf

we need to bring them home and this election is central

the commander in chief needs to be responsible

HUGE amounts of americans are understanding as they watch the republican debates on television that the war simply will not end until the presidency is given back to the democrats

the youth of america is being activated in ways that hasnt happened since vietnam

they are going to be slaughtered and we all know it

 

[lancelva]

Lest we forget, Howard Dean outraised eventual primary winner John Kerry by 30% in the second quarter of 2003. Dollars don't vote. While Obama may have done better financially the first half of this year (remember he also announced earlier than Hillary), Hillary ran a much better campaign. In other words, she won the first half politically--and that's how you win elections. As we saw with Howard Dean, all the money in the world doesn't do a bit of good if it isn't used correctly.

 

[Apollo]

actually in the book Freakonomics, they talked about how campaign dollars don't really matter. they argued if a person doesn't like you, they wont vote for you, no matter how much money you sink into your campaign. I like Obama though. he is a very good candidate and a lot of other people seem to like him to. It would be wondefully refreshing to see him in the White House.

 

[Andreus]

i think dollars matter, but they are not the end all beat all that this seasons campaign press coverage is trying to make it look like

Romney and Obama will not be the two people to face off in the election, i am almost sure of it

i think that all candidates know they need big money to at least answer swift boat style attacks

but....

the money enables the message to be carried, and if the candidate doesn't have a clear message no amount of money will help them

 

[lancelva]

actually in the book Freakonomics, they talked about how campaign dollars don't really matter. they argued if a person doesn't like you, they wont vote for you, no matter how much money you sink into your campaign.

Well...you can use that money to appeal to voters so that they "like" you. Or, as we saw with the Bush campaign in 2004, you can use it to make people not like your opponent.

Like Andreus said, if you have a good message combined with large amounts of money, that can have a major impact. Again, refer to the 2004 campaign.

 

[Apollo]

Well...you can use that money to appeal to voters so that they "like" you. Or, as we saw with the Bush campaign in 2004, you can use it to make people not like your opponent.

Like Andreus said, if you have a good message combined with large amounts of money, that can have a major impact. Again, refer to the 2004 campaign.

your probably right. i think the fact that president Bush got reelected kinda disproves the Freakonomics theory on campaign money.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

We used to hear the old saw from the political hacks that Obama wouldn’t last. He was just a passing blip. Just wait and the old political pros will show you.

Well now we see these same old style political adherents spinning that Obama announced before Sen. Clinton but in fact they are just larding out the same old political double speak (she was raising money well before she or he announced) and misrepresentations (along with the laughable spin that she didn’t really vote to authorise the Iraqi invasion). Sorry no one will fall for this Bush type misrepresentation nay more. People are clever and more intelligent than the suckers some of her supporters take them for. She has been running for years - and everyone knows that - and her spinners better stop trying to deceive because people are fed up with the old style political chicanery, half truths and misrepresentation. Although I guess some obviously still don’t get it and so her campaign is becoming an equal fraud, which is why she will never ever be President.

In spite of all that old style political spin the fact is Obama is pulling in far more money from a far wider base than any other candidate from a standing start, which says something to any experienced observer of the presidential scene. In other words she represents Democratic old politics while he crosses party lines and appeals to a much wider constituency.

Obama is out-polling her in a general election match-up where polls indicate that she cannot win a national election (see above Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll)

Obama, an Illinois senator, is clearly the strongest general-election candidate. He is the only Democrat who beats all three major Republican contenders: Giuliani, McCain and Romney. Clinton runs behind all three Republican contenders in head-to-head match-ups.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Dps&refer=home

The fact is Sen. Clinton has always been a polarising figure. She has many more people against her who cannot stand her than she has ever had supporting her. and any of her misguided Democrat supporters who still have their heads buried in the pork barrel of old style spin better wake up to that fact and start to take in the real world outside their sordid shuttered back rooms.

She is only now on the radar because of the fact that she is the wife of a former President who has been able to get her grasping ambitious hands on part of his old machine. In just the same manner as George W. Bush was able to do and is therefore only in the dangerous position he is now, rubbishing the country, because he as the son of a former President (who in turn was only President because he was a last minute Reagan pick as his Vice President). In short she is an unelectable dynastic candidate. Surely the Bush disaster should have spared us from any more of those experiments or the undemocratic spectre of the oligarchical aura of two families passing the presidency back and forth for 24 or possibly 28 consecutive years.

Quite apart from the electorate at large who will actually choose the next President – not the old party machine - Obama has been rising in the polls among Democratic voters, where she once had a commanding lead, while she has been dropping precipitously according to the very large Harris poll of 3,304 U.S. adults between June 1 and 12, 2007.

June 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- While 13 points separated Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama just one month ago in the race for the Democratic nomination for President, the gap between them has narrowed considerably to just four points. Just over one-third (36%) of adults who would vote in a Democratic primary or caucus would vote for Senator Clinton, while 32 percent would vote for Senator Obama. Last month, 40 percent would vote for Senator Clinton and 27 percent said they would vote for Senator Obama.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-15-2007/0004608896&EDATE

Obama just keeps marching along – thankfully for an American deliverance when it is sorely needed.

 

[naked gent]

The enormity of the $ signs makes me wanna puke

i wouldn't give a fucking dime to any of them

This is a sentiment I share.

Not my money.....No Sir.

I'd sooner burn it.

But what I want to know is how is it possible that no one likes the president, no one likes congress, no one trusts politicans yet people are giving them all this money?

Record sums for people no one likes or trusts.

Its a complete mystery to me.

 

[JayHawk]

The people giving money could really give two flying fucks about politics. They want their specific issue heard and heeded. It is the ultimate problem with our free society.people do not make decisions based upon what is correct, they do so based on who has paid. it is a party-less sentiment and is what will divide our nation to a point that is un-reconcilible. <sic>

 

[chance1]

the stakes are high on this one

the lives of our soldiers are on the line and i dont think that theres anyone in the country who isnt being motivated right now to make a difference on their behalf

we need to bring them home and this election is central

the commander in chief needs to be responsible

HUGE amounts of americans are understanding as they watch the republican debates on television that the war simply will not end until the presidency is given back to the democrats

the youth of america is being activated in ways that hasnt happened since vietnam

they are going to be slaughtered and we all know it

r u suggesting that the "youth of america" is what's fueling this orgy of dollars to obama?

 

[Andreus]

r u suggesting that the "youth of america" is what's fueling this orgy of dollars to obama?

yes

the only way that he could have gotten that much cash is with excessive new idividual contibutions and i cant imagine where else they are coming from

no matter how you cut it, there is a huge american uprising going on right now and it seems to me that the reason cant be good for the republicans

 

[chance1]

^ the repubs are toast

will be no one to blame then

not as easy as it looks

 

[Andreus]

^ the repubs are toast

will be no one to blame then

not as easy as it looks

its not about blame

its about a sollution

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

Breakdown of the amounts raised by the Democratic candidates
(extracted from The Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4747.html)

It is interesting and perhaps significant that Obama is alone in accepting no money from Washington lobbyists, traditionally a significant source of campaign funding, which makes his campaign even more of a new phenominum.

...Obama hailed his fundraising success as "the largest grassroots campaign in history for this stage of a Presidential race."

"That’s the kind of movement that can change the special interest-driven politics in Washington and transform our country. And it’s just the beginning," Obama said in a press release.

The campaign said Obama has raised more than $55 million this year to put towards winning his party's nomination.
…
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe trumpeted the fundraising success in a letter to supporters on Sunday—paying particular attention to the way Obama has apparently caught up with Clinton, the thinly-disguised "fellow candidate" below:

"Frankly, when we entered this race, we did not think that was possible. We estimated at this point of the campaign we’d be at least $20-25 million behind one of our fellow candidates. But due to the amazing outpouring of support from people all across the country, remarkably, we should be on at least even financial footing for the duration of the campaign."

The record-breaking sums raised by both Clinton and Obama suggest a growing Democratic financial advantage over Republicans, and also establish a growing gap between rich and poor candidates within the Democratic primary, with Obama and Clinton threatening to drown their rivals—and, perhaps, the state of Iowa—in paid advertisements.

Donors may only give up to $2,300 for the primary campaign, and $2,300 more for the general campaign. Money given over the $2,300 limit may be a sign of general election strength, or a sign that a candidate has rich friends, but it's not getting spent on TV in Iowa or early voting programs in California.

Former Sen. John Edwards' campaign said that "almost all" of his $9 million in the second quarter will be available for the primary, Bloomberg News reports, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's $7 million is said to be all primary money.

For those candidates, then, the totals available for primary spending (including the $10 million Clinton transferred from her 2006 Senate race) are:

Obama: $55.7 million (according to the campaign)

Clinton: $50 million (roughly, including $10 million transferred from her 2006 Senate race)

Edwards: $21 million-$22 million (that's based on his having said he raised about $13 million in primary money in the first quarter, plus "almost all" of the $9 million)

Richardson: $13 million (roughly, based on his having raised $6 million first quarter and $7 million second)

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has raised $7.3 million this year and transferred another $4.7 million for the primary from his Senate account, AP reports.

Figures for Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and former Sen. Mike Gravel were not made available Sunday.

The Republican contenders are expected to announce their totals in the coming days, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani likely to come out on top—but far short of Obama's and Clinton's numbers.

 

[lancelva]

Breakdown of the amounts raised by the Democratic candidates
(extracted from The Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4747.html)

It is interesting and perhaps significant that Obama is alone in accepting no money from Washington lobbyists, traditionally a significant source of campaign funding, which makes his campaign even more of a new phenominum.

It's interesting that you failed to mention Obama accepted contributions from companies in which he owns stock--and that he purchased the stock after the checks cleared.

 

[chance1]

its not about blame

its about a sollution

u should run for office

I think u'd be in the minority on that one

"Bush's war"

etc.

not getting many solutions from the dems

not about the war anyway