The AP is reporting that today, Clinton acknowledged that she lent her campaign $5m last month. She raised $13.5m in January; Obama raised $32m. The $5m was on to pof the $13.5m. This helps explain the caucus victories for Obama: he had more money to run a 24-state race; she was forced to focus on fewer states. A candidate lending money to his or her own campaign is always a bad portent for the future. If that news had been leaked before Super Tuesday, it would have been a bombshell and widely portrayed as an admission of weakness. How clever of them to keep it under wraps until today (or of the media not to report it).
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Well, in the last quarter the fund raising leader among the Republicans was Ron Paul.
I think this shows a serious passion gap between Obama supporters and Clinton (who is really the establishment candidate) and her supporters. Obama can make an appeal to the great mass of people who have voted for will vote for him and - hey presto - he gets 30 million. Hell, he raised $500,000 in one night the night he lost in New Hampshire.
Obama's fundraising bonanza in January might also have something to do with celebrity endorsements, stadium shows, and the support of the wealthy liberal elite. We haven't seen the source of Obama's support yet. I'm willing to bet it wasn't those $100 internet contributions he has been touting.
Actually, we know the facs, and they show a different picture. According to NPR this morning, most of HRC's money has recently come from supporters who are maxed out at the $2000 level, so there's scrambling. According to the AP, of money raised in 2007, Obama raised about 1/3 from donors who gave $200 or less and 1/3 from those who are "maxed out." HRC obtained more than half her money from those who are maxed out and only 14% from the $200 or less category. Obama, according to the Herald Tribune, tapped into 170,000 new donors in January. The Clinton campaign will not release its figures for that same period. In 2007, Obama had 600,000 donors, HRC about 200,000.
It also turns out Obama raised $7.2m since 4pm PST on Tuesday, according to the Washington Post and NY Times, largely over the internet.
So, no, you can't write off the money success in January as a few rich donors. Contrary to your cmment, we have seen the source of Obama's support and it is - far more than HRC - from the small contributions he is justly touting. As I mentioned in another post, this is a blue collar / white collar split. White collar voters are more obviously able to send in $50 or $100 in response to an email. For example, I sent Obama $50 yesterday (out of the $400 I won in my superbowl pool, in case anyone is watching).
As I have said before, quoting former NY Senator Pat Moynihan (a hero of Hillary Clinton's, btw): everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
RBR, btw, is right about the GOP, and it's scary: As of yesterday, Ron Paul had more cash on hand than any of the other Republicans, including McCain. McCain's problem going forward is that he doesn't just need conservative votes (which they can do holding their noses), he needs their cash (which requires enthusiasm). The disparity between them and the Dems is even greater than the Obama/Clinton disparity.
Today, the Obama campaign announced that 300,000 donors have contributed since 1/1/08.
It seems I would have lost my bet that it was not $100 donations that gave Obama his big fundraising push. My apologies.
I bow to your figures. That is a very impressive showing by Obama. I did not doubt the nature of his contributors last year, but I did not realize he had done as well in that regard in January.
By the way, Hillary raised $4 million in 24 hours yesterday from 35,000 donors, almost all online. She is on track to raise another $2 million by the end of today. So at least that loan to herself can be erased...
He routinely sees spikes in donations when he LOSES primaries.
That's a good indicator that his supporters are really intense.
But he's still losing primaries.
And Ron Paul can out raise McCain all he wants and it won't do him any good.
Obama's fund raising advantage may not matter either.
As has been noted, the race returns to one, two, or three-state races spread over a longer time. To a small extent, this format should help diminish the importance of lots of dollars. That's one of the purposes of putting Iowa and NH first, isn't it?
Woah. I didn't realise your political system cost so much! (and that so much of that money came from ordinary people) In fact, I'm only just starting to appreciate how much time it takes up too - it basically takes the presidential hopefuls away from their elected senatorial positions for a year doesn't it?
Seems wrong to me - granted, the systems I'm used to can choose their leaders without consulting the general public, which can be, um, interesting, but at least they're (supposedly) getting on with their jobs in the meantime.
Do you actually notice a difference between how much gets done during campaign years and non-campaign years? And do campaign years in which the president is running for re-election show any kind of difference? (I'm thinking that if the president is busy running a race, they won't have as much time for e.g. international visits etc. Or be as sane/capable due to having to cram in both the race and normal presidential duties)
Oh yes, Pombat. It is well understood that little happens in a Presidential election year (every fourth year) and the last half of every off-year election year (every other year). It's getting worse, obviously, but it's been the case for a long time. It is frequently said that a President has no more than 3 years to get anything done in a 4 year term, and he will spend much of the 2nd year dealing with the midterm elections for Congress. Parliamentary systems don't have the equivalent of a midterm election.
In many states this is institutionalized. In many states, the legislature only meets every other year: they are elected, they meet for 90 or 100 days, then they disband and wait for 18 months or more for another election. Some have suggested that our federal government would work better if Congress did the same - that the convening of a legislature brings with it the uncontrollable impulse to produce legislation. Legislation is the excreta of an ever-consuming Congress.
Post a Comment