I was reading an old thread and thought I'd start this one for T.J. since this is his favorite presidential candidatelink WASHINGTON, July 1 — Senator Barack Obama raised at least $32.5 million from April through June, he announced Sunday on his campaign Web site, attracting more than 258,000 contributors since entering the Democratic presidential race nearly six months ago. Skip to next paragraph Related Times Topics: Barack Obama Blog The Caucus The latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion. Candidate Topic PagesMore Politics NewsAs candidates tabulated how much money they raised in the year’s second quarter, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, appeared to be leading contenders from either party, raising at least $31 million for the primary campaign alone. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, raised about $21 million for the primary, a spokesman confirmed Sunday, and about $27 million over all. “Together, we have built the largest grass-roots campaign in history for this stage of a presidential race,” Mr. Obama said, adding that 154,000 new donors had signed on in the last three months. “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.” Mr. Obama waited barely 12 hours after the fund-raising period closed to trumpet his success, a quarterly record for a Democratic candidate, hoping to depict widespread support for his campaign and to rebut suggestions that his candidacy is falling behind Mrs. Clinton’s. If her estimate last week that she had raised “in the range of $27 million” proves true, Mr. Obama will have outpaced Mrs. Clinton for a second consecutive quarter in money that can be spent in primaries. John Edwards’s campaign said Sunday that it had raised more than $9 million, while Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico reported raising $7 million and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut reported raising $3.25 million. Republican candidates did not provide fund-raising figures on Sunday, but are expected to do so well in advance of the July 15 deadline for filing reports with the Federal Election Commission. While candidates are allowed to simultaneously raise money for the primary and the general election, Mr. Obama has focused almost exclusively on primary money. The Clinton campaign has solicited both, and a spokesman, Phil Singer, estimated Sunday evening that about $6 million of its second-quarter money was intended for the general election, meaning it could be spent only if Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination. So far this year, the Obama campaign has raised $55.7 million to be spent on winning the party’s nominating fight. In the last three months, an average of 1,500 donors a day contributed to the Obama campaign, many through the Web site or in response to more unusual appeals, including a contest to have dinner with the candidate. David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, said in an interview Sunday that more than 90 percent of the contributors to Mr. Obama could contribute again. In addition to courting major Democratic donors, the campaign has had fund-raisers across the country for donors making small contributions, focusing particularly on early voting states, and has built a database of supporters and volunteers from events that cost as little as $5 per person. “This gives us a deep financial base that will continue to allow us to perform strongly throughout the course of the campaign,” Mr. Plouffe said. “It also gives us a huge foundation of volunteers and organizational support.” After spending significant money on the opening contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, the campaign will rely on a grass-roots operation in the states where primaries or caucuses are scheduled Feb. 5, Mr. Plouffe said. While the campaign focused intently on raising money in those states, he said, almost no effort was directed toward raising money beyond the primary campaign. “The general election money,” Mr. Plouffe said, “is funny money.” For weeks, the Clinton campaign had been seeking to lower expectations for the second fund-raising period. A memorandum sent last week by Howard Wolfson, a top strategist for the senator, estimated that she would raise “in the range of $27 million.” The campaign on Sunday had no comment on Mr. Obama’s fund-raising numbers. While a spokesman for the Clinton campaign said a more precise figure was not available yet on Sunday, advisers to Mr. Edwards held a conference call to discuss their second-quarter contributions of $9 million. After raising $14 million in the first quarter, campaign officials said they were on track to reach their goal of $40 million this year and said they were not troubled by falling behind two leading rivals. Jonathan Prince, deputy manager of the Edwards campaign, said that slightly more than half of the $9 million — $4.7 million — came from small donations. In the first quarter, more than 80 percent of donations to the Edwards campaign were $100 and under; this quarter, more than 80 percent were $50 and under. This reflects the campaign’s effort to expand its grass-roots base and to rely more heavily on Internet donations. Mr. Prince said the number of contributors had increased by 70,000 in this quarter to reach a total of 100,000 donors
What this shows is Obama isn't going away any time soon and he will contest the nomination right up until bitter end, or at least until the early primary contests. It legitimizes him as a candidate and gives him every opportunity to compete. Right now, it's almost safe to write off Edwards because it's feels inevitable he cannot win, which is why he can't raise money. The fact it's early July and the primaries are so far away work strongly against the other, underfunded candidates. Still, Obama is going to have to become more confrontational, while at the same time maintaining his "positive" approach. It will be interesting to see how hard he swings at Hillary if he remains behind in the polls. That will tell us something about him. The money is great, but he still hasn't proven to everyone (me included) that he has staying power in the long run. It's 6 more months until 2008.
Obama's funding sources are what is allowing him to dominate the money list. Clinton, for example, primarily gets money from interest groups, large donors, and corporations who generally max out on the campaign contribution limits set by BCRA. Obama on the other hand is still relying primarily on small contributions which means he can keep going to back to those same people since they haven't maxed out yet. Thus, he's able to sustain high levels of funding while people like Hillary have to keep finding new donors that haven't maxed out. Also, don't judge the nomination process by the polls right now. It's almost useless as a tool of determining anything. If anything, spinning your candidacy as an underdog really helps. Clinton was an absolute master at it when he ran in 1992. Despite losing the opening primaries, he spun it perfectly to make it look like he had actually exceeded expectations. primaries are all about expectations. The lower, the better. I would not be envious of Hillary if I were a candidate running for the nomination.
nothing against obama, but IMO raising money and using that to determine the strength of a candidate is a crock. The media wants a horse race and numbers are easy to comprehend. Has Smarty Jones put his name on the ballot yet?
I disagree entirely. Polls are a much worse metric of determining the effectiveness of candidates. Money has been the primary component that has determined almost every nomination since the switch to primaries in the 70s. You'll always find a candidate that bucks the trend and sneaks through (Howard Dean, John McCain, etc..) but most of those candidates cant sustain those pushes because they're unable to spend time in money in all 50 states. This game is all about money. It's sad, but historically that's what wins the nomination. Also, another thing to note. Polls havent really indicated that Obama is rising but futures markets on the nominations have Obama rising fairly consistently. And I'm fairly convinced from my personal reading, that the markets are a better indicator of possible results than the polls which generally lag and have tons of sampling errors.
I don't know what the correlation between raising money and the eventual nominee is but I'm guessing it is very, very, very high. BTW the Republican figures also came out today, Giulani led (with about half of obama's number) and Thompson was a close second. McCain was on life support.
I'm not saying there isn't a correlation, but I do believe that the focus on money by the media convinces people that its an indication of who is the stongest candidate. The money is not indicative of popularity or how strong the candidate, but it creates the impression of popularity or strength because it is an easy measurement to look at. The money isn't an indication of strength, but is more of an indication of wealthy groups who are betting on who they think might win. I'm not a fan of that idea deciding who wins the election. I'm not saying polls are any better (never did), but choosing a candidate based on their money or popularity does not allow for very educated choices. However, it plays a huge part in deciding who will win. Money does not equal qualified, we made that mistake with George Bush. Hell, there's a strong correlation that if the Washington Redskins win or lose the game before the election, it will determine the next president. Well, there is a correlation between black men and people in prison, but it really is only the dim ones who confuse that to mean that most black people are criminals.
McCain is a dead candidate walking. He destroyed his integrity by changing from the "Straight Talk Express" to becoming the establishment guy who kissed up to the same people he dissed before. I didn't like him before but I like him even less now. It remains to be seen if he even makes it to the primaries. On the Dem side, it's all about survival now. Candidates need either strong poll numbers OR money to have a chance. Obama has both. All he needs to do is hang within 5-10 percentage points of Hillary during the Summer/Fall/Winter and he will be strongly positioned to make an impact when the voting starts. The only way Hillary can win it now is to crush him in both the polls and in money, which isn't happening. There are over 6 months to go before voting and a lot of land mines are sitting in front of both candidates just waiting to wound them. I betcha one of the two has a semi-major scandal to endure before Thanksgiving.
what it shows is there is a strong grass roots effort behind him. the people's champ, he shouldn't be taken lightly
And time and time again market-based predictions like that that harness collective wisdom prove to be more accurate than other forecasts.
