From the ChiTrib:
Sen. Barack Obama raised at least $25 million dollars during the first quarter for his presidential campaign, a total surprisingly close to the $26 million collected by his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton….
Obama raised $6.9 million-more than a quarter of his total-over the Internet from more than 50,000 online donors, the Illinois Democrat’s campaign said from Chicago this morning.
Overall, Obama received contributions from more than 100,000 individuals, his campaign said. Clinton received donations from about 50,000 people, while Edwards took in money from about 37,000 donors.
As spectacular as the near-tie with Hillary Clinton is the sheer number of Obama’s contributors — twice that of his nearest rival.
Why? Contribution limits. Clinton likely tapped out far more of her donor base than Obama — meaning that Obama can go after the same set of donors he’s already found for another $20, $100, $500. Clinton can’t.
<
p>
Furthermore, if you give money to a campaign, you’re more “invested” in it… that means that Obama has picked up twice as many investors as Clinton, meaning he’s got potential for a great ground game.
….for HRC to aggressively embrace role of underdog?
<
p>
you can’t argue with this number or with the crowds Obama draws.
<
p>
her advisors are trying to get her to hold on to “inevitability.” that’s so stupid. it’s not just gone, but loonnnggg gone.
<
p>
Simple:
<
p>
“Mr. Obama raised more than I did for the primary. He has more donors. He has earned the right to be considered the favorite to win the primary. Like all underdogs, I will need to work tirelessly to communicate why I’m best prepared to lead America in these challenging times.”
<
p>
One day news cycle: “Hillary says Obama is Man To Beat”
<
p>
Then:
<
p>
A) If she really embraces it, she’ll loosen up, would help her image.
<
p>
B) His coverage gets tougher.
Clinton, of course. But I see “HRC” and think Human Rights Campaign, among other orgs that are involved in electoral politics.
For one thing, he was still taking checks on April 1st for money raised on the 31st. But more importantly, everybody else’s money race was clumped together and now his $25million story goes into a different news cycle. Between this and the announcement date, for major events this campaign has…….timing.
Since I am not a primary supporter of either Clinton or Obama (Gov. Richardson?), I do think this amount and the fact that it came so quickly from so many donors, will drive a stake through the heart of the inevitability argument.
<
p>
The nominee is not yet decided. I think we have a chance to have full debate over the next 9 month and come up with the best candidate and not have to succumb to “conventional wisdom”.
But the 100,000 donors is impressive.
it is impressive to have 100,000 donors, even if they’re tiny ones. but that leaves a dangling question: did clinton and edwards go after the max number of donors, or the max value donors? are we comparing apples to oranges here? if you counted the number of kids dropping dimes and quarters into the offering plate each sunday, you’d think jesus was the Man To Beat next november…
n/m
Those are good questions to ask in terms of where the money came from, but the truth is that money is still money. It might be true that Clinton could go more an increased amount of donors for Q2, but it seems unlikely that they wouldn’t be making those asks in Q1, since you’re more likely to get a donation from somebody who has already given. Also, it seems to me, that Clinton did go after small contributions — she had that $1million dollar weeklong e-mail fundraising campaign, for instance. She’s got the best in the biz, there’s no reason she wouldn’t go for both small and large donations at the same time. Money is money and in any race you want to scare of the lesser candidates while building as big of a nest for the next quarter.
<
p>
The real question is not, “did clinton…go after the max number of donors, or the max value donors?” The question is, “IF she didn’t go after the max number of donors [which she did, but let’s just pretend], why NOT?” Having Obama right at her heals in Q1 makes her (and especially her staff’s) lives miserable for the rest of the campaign. They should be way out in front in terms of money so they can afford to send the boots on the ground in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
A great Op-Ed in today’s Glob, especailly the call for public financing of campaigns and the few but brave in Congress calling for this legislation, ie our own Tierney in the House and Durbin/Spector in the Senate, read on for details…
<
p>
Help make these urgently needed reforms happen here in MA by signing on with Mass Voters for Fair Elections to join the call for PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING NOW! From their website
<
blockquote>Are you satisfied with politics as usual?
<
p>
If not — if you want to help make political campaigns more competitive and more about the issues that matter to you and your family — we think you will agree that Massachusetts needs public campaign financing now.
<
p>
We believe in investing in democracy. That is what public campaign financing is about. So we are proposing a new law that would create greater competition, give voters more freedom of choice, and let candidates focus more on the issues instead of on the money chase.
<
p>
When you’ve explored our website I hope you’ll join us. Just click the red button at the top of the page to join Mass Voters for Fair Elections today