Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Friday, April 06, 2007


Barack Obama's annoucment that he raised $25m in the first quarter of 2007, just shy of Hillary Clinton's $26m was a political stunner, as he started with almost no base or organization to speak of. He had nearly twice the number of donors as Clinton. Polls are also worth noting. Hillary has positive ratings around 50%, but negatives around 40-45%. Barack Obama has positives in the mid-30s, but negatives only at about 20% or so. Barely 10% of the voters are unsure about Clinton; about 1/3 unsure (or have not heard of) Obama. He has the chance to define himself; she is already in a box.

This race is looking like Clinton's to lose and Obama's to win. Others who made good money - Edwards ($13m), Richardson ($6m) - show they have the organizational prowess to be competitive until the public really becomes engaged in the process about 9 months from now.

Of course, I shudder, as do many, at the thought that raising money (from those that have money) is a sign of being a good candidate. Plutocracy is bad government. But the facts are what they are. In 2000, Bush got all the money really fast, and McCain was an underdog from Day One. In 2008, HRC is not in that favored position yet. It should be an exciting race.


Raised By Republicans said...

Another note about Obama's funds. A huge share of his donors contributed $100 or less. So his funding level is a better indication of the number of voters he's attracting.

Also, as NPR pointed out the other day, his donors are further from the federal contribution limits than are Clinton's.

I think Clinton's unfavorables are devasting to her chances in the general election. She would be the Democratic Party's answer to GW Bush: a polarizing leader who wins by razor thin margins, owes only her own base and reaches out to no one.

Obama's low unfavorables (and high share of people who are convincable) mean he has the opportunity to reach out to a broader spectrum of society.

USWest said...

Thank you LTG for at least mentioning the poll numbers, acknowledging that votes still matter, even if just a little. I think it is a sad day when media like NPR start talking money money money without mentioning, even once, that money really shouldn't be what is determining the election, despite the fact that it is. They story should be how money has become an indicator of future electoral success. As LTG said, Plutocracy is bad government. Welcome to Rome.