Obama sets new records in primary fundraising - and far exceeds Clinton

[SixPackInBoxers]

Sen Barack Obama has raised more money than Mrs. Clinton or any other candidate from any party in primary history has been able to achieve at this point in the primaries. Obama has not just raised more money than Mrs. Clinton over all for the 2008 primaries, his $75 million to her $63 million, and he cumulatively has 140,000 more new donors (those who had not given previously to his campaign.) but he has exceeded any other primary fund raising totals by anyone ever before. Quite an achievement, from whom, I suspect, will be the next President of the US.

And this is from an honest decent statesman, who is not accepting, as Clinton is so readily ('money. money, money'), funds from lobbyists.

There is also the question as to why have the scandalous funds from Clinton's top donor, Norman Hsu, who "raised" a probably illegal $850,000 for Mrs. Clinton and also turned out to be a fugitive from justice, not yet been repaid by her campaign as was promised from the second quarter? Is it just another case of the Marc Rich family funds, $70.000 of which Clinton pocketed for her Senate campaign, before he was pardoned in the last 24 hours of the Clinton Administration? Of course nothing unusual for her as he was, like Hsu, just another fugitive from justice.

The question is how much of her third quarter money she will have to give back from her very questionable fundraising (Hsu etc. continued to fundraise in the third quarter)?

I guess the Clinton credo is that it does not matter where the money comes from, 'just give it to me'?

It is nice to know that despite her being married to a former President, and she would not be anything but a laughing matter otherwise, that a really honourable candidate, Barack Obama, who has made it on his own, is clobbering her on the fundraising front. That is, even though she, with all trhe advantages as the wife of a former President, who is trying to help her, and with all her so called "experience" can't raise more money than Barack Obama is able to do as a fresh, honest, and decent candidate who offers a great opportunity for America and yet does not have all that Clinton baggage.

Perhaps that tells us something about the future.

 

[iman]

I'm looking at my copy of the NYT, 10/3, and one of the lead stories is "Clinton steals Obama's fund raising thunder". Clinton raised 22 million this quarter as opposed to Obama's 19 million.

I like Obama, but he appears to be slipping in the national polls and in fund raising. That is, perhaps, no surprise if all his supporters are like Sixpack and do nothing but attack other Democrats with the same slander used by the RNC.

Sixpack, are you sure your not a stealth Republican posting here to damage both leading Dems?

 

[SantaCBear]

Obama NEVER NEVER had a chance to gain the nomination. It was a pipe dream.

Here's why:

He's black. OMG, yes it is sad but true.

His name. Again sad.

Not qualified.

He's running against HRC.

 

[JackFTwist]

Obama NEVER NEVER had a chance to gain the nomination. It was a pipe dream.

Here's why:

He's black. OMG, yes it is sad but true.

His name. Again sad.

Not qualified.

He's running against HRC.

I just think it is so cutesy when people give their opinions stated as fact. The use of past tense here is particularly precious.

Obama has a chance to win the nomination. He is very well positioned right now. He is black (even the stopped clock...) He has a great name which was his when he got elected as a senator from one of the largest states in the country, with a smashing primary win over bigger and well established "names" especially that of Hynes in Illinois. He is well qualified. He is running against Senator Clinton (the stopped clock being right twice a day).

Obama is my first choice. Clinton and Edwards are my second and third choices. We are not selecting winning the lottery versus being impaled, the choices are not anyway near as stark as the fantasy players like them to be. We are selecting from a number of well qualified persons.

OMG.

indeed.

 

[NickCole]

Reported yesterday in the Washington Post :

When all funds raised in the period were included, Clinton raised a total of $27 million in the quarter and Obama took in $20 million. While Obama topped her performance in the first two fundraising periods this year, the two are virtually even in the amount they have raised for the primaries, with Obama bringing in about $75 million for the nominating contests and Clinton about $72.5 million.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202365.html

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

Reported yesterday in the Washington Post :

Nick, that is unfortunately a confusing report and is misleading. The first figures are totals claimed raised in third quarter (only part can be used in an election campaign and are barred by law from being used in the primaries).

In the overall totals it has included in Clinton's total $10 million surplus that she transferred to her Senate re-election campaign, which she can use, but was not money raised for the primaries. She has raised considerably less for the primaries than Obama.

The correct figures (not taking into account the over $900,000 that fugitive from justice Norman Hsu bundled for her under questionable circumstances, which she has promised to return. Hsu has been revealed as a con man who is now facing criminal charges over business practices and Democratic fund-raising tactics.) are the ones reported by the New York Times in their stories yesterday and today as the totals raised by each for the primaries. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/clinton-raises-27m-in-3rd-quarter/

This is made up of the totals raised for the primaries that the Clinton and Obama's campaign reported to the Federal Election Commission in the first two quarters plus the additional primary money their two campaigns have announced that they have raised for the primaries in the third quarter. I have correctly given the totals raised for the primaries by each of them in my post above. Obama has raised at least $12 million more primary money than Mrs. Clinton over all for the 2008 primaries, his primary fundraising figure is $74.9 million to her less than $63 million (although as stated above almost $1million of her Hsu money is being given back which will bring her actual figure down by about a $million).

In the primary fund-raising process Obama has set an all time fund-raising record this year and considerably out-raised Clinton for the primaries. The official figures will be published by the Commission mid-month and they will support my figures, as do the figures that both campaigns have released.

I hope this helps.

 

[lancelva]

Uh, if you conveniently overlook this thread that may have inspired sixpack's thread here: http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=182367

And do you conveniently overlook the point that that thread disproves the claim in this thread? And that thread is not an attack on any candidate.

 

[iman]

Uh, if you conveniently overlook this thread that may have inspired sixpack's thread here: http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=182367

???? I don't understand the relevance. You are becoming as obscure as your avatar.

 

[iman]

This is a response to the other thread. Notice how the thread titles are somewhat similar, as well as the subject matter? Duh...

That has nothing to do with what I posted. I was commenting on this thread.

I know you you are posting from south of the Mason-Dixon line, but "Uh" and "Duh" are not really part of the vocabulary in other areas of the country.

 

[NickCole]

I hope this helps.

A few paragraphs of numbers spin doesn't amount to much.

And it's yesterday's news. Obama's fundraising lead is now shrinking. Today's news is Hillary has been outraising Obama in recent months, and not only with big donors but she's outpaced him with new small donations as well -- and that's a severe blow to his fundraising boasts.

The only reason for a thread like this is to make some noise to distract from Hillary's fresh success.

She scares the opposition. Obama doesn't.

 

[star-warrior]

*groan*....

 

[Dobson73]

star-warrior says it all.

What's a dollar or two here or there? Isn't their policy and plan for your country (and the rest of the world, for that matter?) more important?

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

Uh, if you conveniently overlook this thread that may have inspired sixpack's thread here: http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=182367

IC you are correct. This thread was to set the record straight and give the actual figures.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

In reply to IC07, Lancelva seemsw hell bent on continuing to spin fabrication

And do you conveniently overlook the point that that thread disproves the claim in this thread? And that thread is not an attack on any candidate.

That, sir, is just more of fabrication. Are you claiming that the figures I have given for the totals raised for the primaries by Clinton and Obama are incorrect and that your misleading thread, which IC refers to, where you doctored a New York Times report disproves them?

Sad. You are just digging yourself in deeper. Why should anyone respect your posts - or more correctly spin - from hereon out?

The third quarter primary fudraising totals clearly show that Sen. Obama has now set a new total primary fundraising record well ahead of Sen. Clinton. The New York Times report you posted, once you had doctored it by cuting and omitting a paragragh with this key sentence, would otherwise clearly have shown that fact. This was what it said:

Mr. Obama has raised more money than Mrs. Clinton over all for the 2008 primaries, $75 million to $63 million, and he cumulatively has 140,000 more new donors (those who had not given previously to his campaign.)

For whole story see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/us...ss&oref=slogin

Fortunetly JUBers can decide for themselves when given the facts.

 

[star-warrior]

Fortunetly JUBers can decide for themselves when given the facts.

What facts? This is about campaign fundraising, so there is very little substance to base any decisions on about what they stand for.

Both parties will have to raise taxes to pay for the deeds of the current encumbent. But how long will it take to bring the national deficit under control, and how long will it take?

 

[NickCole]

star-warrior says it all.

What's a dollar or two here or there? Isn't their policy and plan for your country (and the rest of the world, for that matter?) more important?

Sure policy plan is important.

So is their record of achievement, because without being able to get something done it doesn't matter what your plans are.

It may seem an odd barometer but one of the ways to tell if a candidate can accomplish what they want is how their campaign goes, and that includes fundraising.

For instance we know Obama is able to assess a challenge and figure out the tools he'll need. Successful campaigns need money. Futher, his primary fundraising has been a huge success. He was able to figure out how to get what he needed despite the disadvantage of competing against more established names.

We also learn (or recall, because she's done it before) that Hillary responds well to a challenge, and that she's open to altering strategy when an element in her current plan isn't producing the best results. I doubt it's by chance that in the most recent quarter Hillary took in more small donations than Obama -- she saw where she was falling short and made changes that resulted in success. Wouldn't it be great if we had a Commander in Chief who did that?

 

[naked gent]

She scares the opposition. Obama doesn't.

She scares me too.

Sad. You are just digging yourself in deeper. Why should anyone respect your posts - or more correctly spin - from hereon out?

Good question. Paid opinions carry little value.

 

[iman]

What this thread is really about is not fund raising, but rather an opportunity for some Obama supporters to do what Obama himself has refused to do, i.e. trash his opponents.

What the Democratic primary field has done is to present themselves and their positions to the Democratic voters without the lies, slander and viciousness of the Republican Party during the Bush years. Obama supporters do their candidate an injustice with these tactics. Do they really admire Rove's political tactics? Do they think the Democrats should mimic Rove?

 

[RandomAccess]

I know you boys love to ridicule Hillary and anyone who remotely resembles a "Hillary fan." But, I'ts interesting what AP has to say:

Clinton Raises $27 Million, Bests Obama
By JIM KUHNHENN – 3 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton defied the usual slow flow of summer money, tapping 100,000 new donors and outpacing all other presidential candidates in the chase for campaign cash over the past three months.

The New York senator raised $27 million in the quarter — $22 million for the primaries and $5 million for the general election — while other candidates fell victim to the traditional third-quarter dip in fundraising.

For the first time, Clinton reported attracting more new donors in a quarter than her chief fundraising rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. And, for the first time, she raised more primary election money than he did.

Both candidates have now raised about $80 million each since the beginning of the year, Tuesday's updated figures showed.

Obama still has the most donors at 352,000 and leads Clinton in primary money. He has raised nearly $75 million toward the nominating contests to her $62.6 million — a figure that does not include the $10 million she transferred from her 2006 Senate campaign.

In the rarefied fundraising space that Clinton and Obama occupy, the differences are fairly insignificant. But their money sets them apart from the rest of the Democratic field and supplies them with resources to run lengthy and expensive campaigns.

"These two candidates have exceeded all expectations," said Stephanie Cutter, a Democratic strategist and the communications director for John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. "It would take a significant shift in the field or a catastrophic world event to change the dynamics in this race."

Republicans were equally impressed.

"Clinton and Obama are on track to raise in excess of $100 million this year alone — by any measure, a tremendous performance," said Michael Toner, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and a legal adviser to the campaign of Republican candidate Fred Thompson.

Clinton's fundraising has been remarkably steady from quarter to quarter, showing no dips or spikes and underscoring her methodical approach to the contest. Her third-quarter success came amid a scandal involving one of her top fundraisers, Norman Hsu, who turned out to be a fugitive from the law. As the case against Hsu mounted in early September, the Clinton campaign returned $850,000 to 260 donors whose contributions were associated with him, much of it money raised in the first and second quarters.

Obama reported raising about $20 million in the third quarter, with at least $19 million of that for the primary elections. In the previous quarter, Obama raised nearly $33 million. He reported 93,000 new donors in the summer quarter.

Former Sen. John Edwards, lumped in a cluster with Obama and Clinton in polls of voters in the first-caucus state of Iowa, raised a distant $7 million in the quarter. He has said he plans to accept public financing that could boost his overall fundraising by about $10 million. He reported having $12 million cash on hand.

The cash-on-hand figure will be a key measure of strength as the campaigns head into one of the most expensive stretches. Neither Clinton nor Obama reported how much money they had left in the bank.

"The amount of disposable money you have on hand to spend right now is critical," Toner said. "That number is more important now than in the earlier quarters."

Republicans' presidential fundraising was far behind the Democrats'.

A top adviser to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he would report contributions of nearly $10 million for the quarter, as well as a personal loan to his campaign of more than $6 million. That would bring Romney's overall public contributions for the year to about $45 million and his personal investment in his race to at least $16 million, for total receipts of more than $60 million.

In a sign of the Romney campaign's desire to post a big fundraising number, campaign manager Beth Myers last week asked all staffers to raise at least $1,000 before the end of the quarter. They were asked to make cold calls to potential donors.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has kept pace with Romney's fundraising in the past, has not disclosed his third-quarter totals. He has said his campaign income would be on a par with other Republicans.

Sen. John McCain, who appears to have stopped a political free-fall, will report raising more than $5 million during the quarter, according to Republicans familiar with his effort. McCain also reduced a debt he had at midyear but did not eliminate it, one Republican said.

One McCain adviser said the campaign had stabilized its finances, reducing its spending, which had averaged $4.5 million a month, to $1.5 million a month.

"We have made the budgetary measures that we need to take, and I'm satisfied with the fact that we'll have enough money to do television and radio and run our campaign," McCain said Tuesday while campaigning in Florida.

Fred Thompson, the newcomer to the GOP field, raised more than $8 million during the quarter, supplementing the $3.5 million he raised in June, according to Republicans briefed on his fundraising totals.

With their third-quarter numbers, Obama and Clinton have helped push the Democratic field into record fundraising territory for a presidential campaign.

"There's more excitement right now on the Democratic side," said Republican strategist Greg Mueller. "We have a two-term president who is in a war that has the country divided, and some of the Republican base has been depressed on immigration and spending."

Mueller and other Republicans said the financial discrepancy does not necessarily translate into a Democratic edge during the general election. Mueller and Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's Republican presidential campaign in 1996, predicted Republicans will get behind their nominee, especially if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination.

"It will mobilize the base of the party like it hasn't since 1994," Reed said.

In other words: Spin it all you like, boys. . . we can see the truth, whatever obfuscation you throw at it.

 

[RandomAccess]

Love? I'm disappointed that seemingly intelligent people are promoting such a candidate as Senator Clinton for no good reason. The other candidates weren't even given a shot; you Hillary supporters just jumped on her pussy like a drunk girl at a frat party.

Ouch. . . that hurt (not really. . . just needed to separate this paragraph for emphasis):

Oh, you must be talking about lance and the DoubleTalk Express campaign there. "She voted for giving the president the power to go to war, not FOR the president to go to war." Riiight...

I've read Lance's repeated attempts to clarify this misunderstanding on your part. It all makes perfect sense to me. I can't say it any better than he, so, I'll not even try. He's making clear, rational statements, and you're coming across like a spoiled child who refuses to eat his vegetables. You know I like you, ICO, and normally we get along great. But, your blatant refusal to listen to reason is beginning to chafe.