Fundraising

by hilzoy

I don't normally write about fundraising and stuff, but this is pretty amazing:

"Sen. Barack Obama raised at least $25 million for his presidential campaign in the first quarter of the year, putting him just shy of Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, who made a splash with her announcement Sunday that she had drawn a record-breaking $26 million.

Obama (D-Ill.) appears to have surpassed Clinton in several ways: He raised $6.9 million through donations over the Internet, more than the $4.2 million than Clinton (N.Y.) raised online. He reported donations from 100,000 people, double the 50,000 people who gave to Clinton.

And of Obama's overall receipts, $23.5 million is eligible for use in the primary contests. Clinton officials have declined to disclose how much of her cash is available for the primaries -- rather than designated for the general election and therefore blocked off unless she wins the nomination -- raising suspicions that she raised less for the primaries than Obama did."

A lot of the coverage I've read suggests that Clinton had hoped to raise enough money this quarter to make the rest of the field uncompetitive. That has obviously not happened. Moreover, it seems likely that Obama raised more money that can be used in the primaries than Clinton did. This means not just that he has more money to use now, but also that his donors are less likely to be tapped out. (When you donate money to a candidate, the only reason the campaign would have to designate it for use in the general election is if you donated more than the $2,300 that can be used in the primary. And donors who give that much are a lot closer to their legal limits.) And the 100,000 individual donors is huge.

I don't normally pay close attention to this sort of thing, but I await the more detailed numbers showing cash on hand, as well as primary/general money breakdowns, with interest.

The other story is McCain's disappointing performance. Chris Cilizza:

"McCain's $12.5 million raised is by far the most shocking -- and disappointing -- number over the first quarter. Any time the release announcing your fundraising numbers include an acknowledgment from your campaign manager that the totals are not where the campaign would like them to be, it's a problem. For McCain, his fundraising showing is likely to be used by his rivals as further evidence that his status as the race's frontrunner is no longer operable. McCain needs to answer back quickly to quiet these whispers. And, given his success in recruiting the fundraising whales that helped bundle millions of dollars for President Bush's campaigns in 2000 and 2004, McCain should be able to do so. But, make no mistake: His candidacy has taken a hit with these first-quarter fundraising numbers."

Comments

[Francis]

the other other story is that 21 people from the market McCain visited were murdered. He served a death warrant with his little stunt.

[bril]

Maybe McCain would have a better chance of getting elected if he was a better liar. It helped Harry Reid come to power.

Now he's the commander in chief, and we're not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds, even though there are some on the outside who suggest that,'' House leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said. "I think we want to make sure that the troops have everything that they need." -- Harry Reid, November 30, 2006

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday he will try to cut off funding for the Iraq war if President George W. Bush rejects Congress's proposal to set a deadline for ending combat." -- The Globe And Mail

[mo99]

Man, bril makes me pine for the solipsisms of John Doe and that other funny fellow who was an expert on Plameology--Maguire, wasn't it?

[Nell]

No matter what the first-quarter results mean for any particular candidate, they've got to encourage Democrats about the general prospects for 2008: Even allowing for some overlap in donors, there are at least 150,000 of them at this early stage, and the aggregate contributions crush those of the Republican presidential candidates combined.

Drawn against my will into a Democratic-nominee discussion at a dinner party last week, I was making an effort to find good things to say about each of the candidates. What I said about Obama was that there was a huge and not-yet-completely-visible network of enthusiasts for his campaign, that would probably create quite an impression once its size was revealed. Well, this fundraising report has drawn back the covers to some extent, and I'm impressed along with everyone else.

[Steve]

It helped Harry Reid come to power.

Do you suppose bril even thinks about the stuff he parrots? Harry Reid won the election for the Democrats by telling lies... after the election? Wha?

[rilkefan]

"A lot of the coverage I've read suggests that Clinton had hoped to raise enough money this quarter to make the rest of the field uncompetitive."

That wouldn't be coverage by Adam Nagourney, would it?

[rilkefan]

Interestingly, 100k donors >> 35k signatures on Clark's Stop_Iran_War petition.

[jrudkis]

Why doesn't Bill Richardson have more of a following? He seems to be eminently qualified, have a track record, etc. I would think he would be leading the pack.

[cleek]

i always get hungry when bril shows up.

[Dantheman]

jrudkis,

"Why doesn't Bill Richardson have more of a following?"

I suspect it's because he projects little charisma. Nice resume, but little to get the public excited about. I like what I've seen about him, but he's no higher than my third choice now (behind Edwards and Obama).

cleek,

"i always get hungry when bril shows up."

I typically think about cleaning (as in, who made that mess in aisle 4?)

[rilkefan]

I would guess at least some people are leery of Richardson's possible baggage. And there may be some "doesn't look presidential" tossed in. And then the main niches are already filled.

[cleek]

"Why doesn't Bill Richardson have more of a following?"

my only opinion of him comes from his recent Daily Show interview. he seemed kind of, i dunno, odd and arrogant.

on the other hand, it's funny how Stewart doesn't even bother pretending that the longshots have any shot. he's downright cruel to people like Richardson and Dodd and the rest of the JV-POTUS squad who come on the show.

[KCinDC]

Yes, RF, 35,000 signers is pretty disappointing. Of course, Internet petitions are hard to get excited about since they're really just a way to gather e-mail addresses. Regardless, I'm included in both the Obama donors and the StopIranWar.com signers.

[jrudkis]

I guess it just amazes me that people with Richardson's background would be JV, and people with one term in the Senate are considered varsity. As someone to handle immigration, energy, and foreign policy, it is hard to match his resume without already being president.

[rilkefan]

As best I can recall, at my national lab we didn't think much of Richardson during his time at the Dept. of Energy.

[moe99]

i always get hungry when bril shows up.

Posted by: cleek| April 04, 2007 at 05:09 PM

Cleek, are you fond of cheetos?

[liberal japonicus]

http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2004/03/friday-pie-blogging-saturday-giblets.html, moe99, glorious pie.

[moe99]

aoh, do I miss fafblog. a wound to the giblets as it were.

[KCinDC]

Someone on the Diane Rehm show (I think it was Ron Elving) just said that the reason John McCain didn't raise as much money as other candidates is that he's so principled on the subject of campaign finances that it's difficult for him to really go all out for money. Amazing that there are still people out there buying the idea that McCain has principles.

[Dantheman]

Good, if conventional, analysis (and lousy comments) on this from the former head policial writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

[rilkefan]

"The early ’07 goal was to blow Obama (and John Edwards) out of the water by demonstrating implacable money mastery."

Still wondering if there's evidence for this.

[Dantheman]

rilkefan,

"Still wondering if there's evidence for this."

Somehow I suspect that other than the Giuliani campaign's blunder of a few months ago, strategy outlines for presidential campaigns are not going to be present on the net. In light of that, what sort of evidence beyond what insiders are saying are you looking for?

[rilkefan]

In other words, it's spin, and I can evaluate it as such.

[Hartmut]

I thought outfundraising your opponents to make them throw the towel is standard fare in US primaries?

[Newport 9]

Whenever the subject of the Republican presidential field comes up, I have this thought:

Imagine if the Democratic frontrunners were Joe Lieberman, George Wallace, and Frank Rizzo. Imagine further if all three were desperately pandering to Cindy Sheehan to prove how liberal they all were.

That's what the GOP field is like.