In the money — Q2

July 2, 2007

In some ways, measuring presidential candidates by their fundraising totals is just about the ultimate in political inside pool. The typical American doesn’t know or care how much money a campaign raises — but the numbers are carefully scrutinized by reporters, candidates, staffers, and major donors.

It’s not necessarily fair, and fundraising conditions can change, but candidates who fall behind in fundraising are perceived, usually accurately, as struggling overall. Candidates who fill their coffers well are perceived as credible and strong.

And candidates who raise over $30 million from over 154,000 new donors in the second quarter the year before the presidential election are a force to be reckoned with.

Sen. Barack Obama raised $31 million for his presidential primary campaign over the past three months, surging past Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s fundraising machine by nearly $10 million for the quarter to take the lead in contributions in the crowded Democratic field.

Obama became the first Democrat to surpass $30 million in a quarter during a non-election year, a feat his campaign said was accomplished not just with help from wealthy, traditional donors but also with a strong showing among small contributors…. In addition to Obama’s haul for the primary, he collected $1.5 million for the general election, for a total of $32.5 million raised over the past three months.

Hillary Clinton got a fairly significant head start on 2007 fundraising by transferring $10 million from her Senate campaign account — and Obama still surpassed her. For the second quarter, the New York senator reportedly raised about $27 million, about $21 million of which is primary money. As such, Ben Smith tallied the totals available for primary spending for the top four Democratic candidates after six months:

Obama: $55.7 million (according to the campaign)

Clinton: $50 million (roughly, including $10 million transferred from her 2006 Senate race)

Edwards: $21 million-$22 million (that’s based on his having said he raised about $13 million in primary money in the first quarter, plus the “almost all” of the $9 million [target for Q2])

Richardson: $13 million (roughly, based on his having raised $6 million first quarter and $7 million second)

According to one report this morning, Dodd raised $3.25 million for the second quarter, giving him $12.25 million this year, which is pretty close to Richardson.

Obama’s haul, however, is clearly the big story.

The money raised is important, but so is the total number of donors. Obama drew support from over 154,000 new contributors, bringing his total for 2007 to 258,000 people over the first six months. That’s simply astounding — and it was impossible to predict up until very recently. Clinton was supposed to be an unstoppable fundraising machine; Obama was going to be lucky to stay within shouting distance of her. Now, the entire dynamic has been turned on its ear.

Marc Ambinder’s analysis sounds right to me.

There is no other way to put it: not only did Sen. Barack Obama set a record for single quarter donations by a Democratic candidate, but his fundraising total — $31M from 154,000 new donors — imposes an obligation on all of us who cover the race: we need to figure out why the “national” frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, isn’t generating as much excitement as her chief competitor.

A whole tranche of the political press has been verging on pronouncing the active phase of Obama’s campaign dead — and re-asserting Sen. Clinton’s “inevitable” claim on the nomination. But the evidence belies those assertions.

A quarter of a million Democratic donors are hungry for something different, and they’ve invested directly in Barack Obama. Yes — Obama’s supporters tend to be a bit more upscale than Clinton’s base — but the breadth of his support can’t really be explained away by an appeal to political demography.

And what of the fundraising for the Republican presidential candidates? No one in the GOP field has released their numbers yet, but none of the Republicans is expected to be anywhere close to Obama (or Clinton, for that matter).

In the first quarter, all the Dems outraised all the Republicans, $78 million to $53.6 million. This quarter, the gap should grow even larger.

We’re going to be hearing quite a bit about an “enthusiasm gap” between Clinton and Obama, but let’s also not lose sight of the same gap between Dems and the GOP.

We’re going to be hearing quite a bit about an “enthusiasm gap”…

I fall into that demographic. I am uninspired by this group of plutocrats. None of them seem to be interested in putting an end to American Corporate Imperialism and the destruction of the Constitution or even mentioning it for that matter.

I guess that’s Ralph Nader’s fault too.

  • Does anyone else think its scary that it takes $31 million per quarter to run for president? No wonder they’re all plutocrats uninterested in “putting an end to American Corporate Imperialism and the destruction of the Constitution or even mentioning it for that matter.”

    Who else can set up the kind of machinery this kind of fundraising requires?

  • Before I head to work, I’d like to pose a question so I can read the responses when I get back:

    Besides liking him personally, what other reasons can we attribute Obama’s success to besides the fact that he’s seen as the most obvious way to gain influence with someone other than Clinton? In other words, is there really any other reason that people gave him so much other than the fact that they feel it’s next to impossible to gain influence with Clinton, because she already has people she’s used to working with?

  • There are many of us who want a Democrat to run for the Presidency. The more I observe Hillary, the more she looks like a Republican, allbeit a moderate one. Bill Clinton’s idea for the Democratic party was to move it to the center, the center-right. She is a part of that, as was Lieberman. In order to make the changes necessary to the health care system, to protecting the environment, to restoring the Constitution, I don’t think that Hillary has the right mindset.

    So yes, much of the support for Barrack is just a panic to avoid Hillary as President.

  • Brian, I hardly think that people giving Obama $50.00 or $100.00 or less here or there are trying to ‘gain influence’ with him. The middle class Americans driving his campaign don’t feel the need to influence him because they feel he already represents their best interests.

    I guess what I’m saying is that people like him because they feel like they don’t have to buy him.

  • I think doubtful has it right. Justified or not, Obama gives progressive activists a sense of difference and possibility that many believe is worth supporting.

    I haven’t sent him money, because I don’t ever give money in primary races. But he’s by far my first choice, and pretty clearly the best vehicle by which to defeat Sen. Clinton and forestall the horrifying 2008 loss (or very narrow win followed by four years of political misery, followed by a complete Republican takeover in 2012) that would result from her nomination.

  • Do Americans know or care about anything other than how big some quantity is? The value of a painting, the worth of an athlete, the boxoffice of a movie, the endowment of a university, the fund-raising of a candidate?

    Size is about the simplest and shallowest concept imaginable, but it seems to be all that Americans can handle.

  • I think the notion that none of them are interested in ending corporate plutocracy is a bit unfair.

    I am not an Edwards supporter, but I do think some credit is due in that at least he, unlike any other D or R candidate, has spoken very frankly about poverty in America. Granted his 2004 campaign focused much more on the “Two Americas” than his 2008 campaign has, but that is in part because while a few upstarts on blogs may reward such positions the sad reality for anyone who chooses to live in the Reality Based World is that talking forcefully about poverty didn’t get Edwards anywhere.

    Given a choice between winning the most supporters on Carpetbagger Report and winning the most supporters among the entire voting public, I don’t expect candidates the choose the former. Until we win the hearts and minds of the general public, unburden the baggage from the word “liberal,” and reach a tipping point for progressive ideals, it is nearly a Bush-like level of fantasy to expect to find a presidential candidate playing our song. But I hardly think it is fair to blame Edwards, the only one who has really tried to fight for the economically disenfranchised from a campaign pulpit (one could argue that Obama and Clinton – and others – in pre-politician lives, did so through legal work for progressive organizations).

  • Most of the people I converse with are waiting for Al Gore to step into the ring. They would like to see Obama do well (as VP), and they are very leery of Clinton. They will crawl over cut glass to vote for any Dem who takes the primary, because they hate what the Republicans have done to our beloved country.

    I just hope we can use the upcoming wave to get a good bunch of progressives, not just a pile of DLC bastiges.

  • I just hope that Obama ’08 doesn’t turn into Dean ’04. That would necessarily leave Hillary ’08 as Kerry ’04. There seem to be a number of parallels at this stage.

  • Dudley @ #10–this has occurred to me too, but I’m not especially worried that Obama will self-destruct as Dean did (and I’m not talking about The Scream).

    Dean’s problems were as follows:

    1) He burned through his money with amazing rapidly for little obvious benefit

    2) He didn’t have advisors who understood the blocking and tackling of retail politics

    3) Fairly or not, his campaign was seen by both supporters and opponents more as being against something than being for anything.

    I guess we’ll see whether or not Obama gets better value for his bankroll than did Dean, but he seems like the sort of guy who would learn from a predecessor’s mistake. His campaign team is sprinkled with old pros like David Axelrod, who grasps how to win political fights, rather than somewhat flaky visionaries like Joe Trippi. And Obama has gone out of his way not to tear down either the Republicans or his primary opponents.

    He might not win, but I doubt he’ll blow it through bad strategy and lack of campaign discipline as was the case with Dean. If he loses, it will be because Clinton–whose team is much better at this stuff than Kerry’s was–simply beat him.

  • Given that 52% of America would rather see Hillary in any other job – and how many of them are Democrats who would vote for Fred Thompson is anybody’s guess – we should be thankful that the Clintonistas are not the unstoppable force they think they are. I for one am going to be glad to see the entire Democratic Establishment trip over their shoelaces once again in their rush to support Madame Loser.

    If Hillary becomes the Democratic candidate, it’s going to become crucial to work on the Senate and House races, to insure we have 62 Senators and a veto-proof majority in the House, so we can opposed the Republican who will be in the White House.

  • Tom, if Hillary becomes the Democratic candidate, the Democrats will lose both houses of Congress. You can’t keep, much less expand, a majority when all your first-term incumbents are running away from the top of the ticket. In Kentucky, Indiana, Kansas, Ohio, and every other purple-to-red state in which the Dems picked up seats last year, those freshmen will get tagged with the “party of Hillary Clinton” attack… and more than not, they’ll go down to defeat.

    This is all-or-nothing. If Hillary becomes the Democratic candidate, and you really want a “Democratic” role in government, you’re probably better off working hard for her, because her odds will be better than most Dems playing on the other team’s field.

    For me, I’ll just try to have fun with and/or invest wisely whatever money I otherwise would have spent on Democratic campaigns in 2008…

  • To add a #4 to Djafi @ 14…

    4) Dean as a Lt. Governor who took office without having to run as anything other than an incumbent suffered inexperience CAMPAIGNING though he had tons of experience governing.
    He spread himself thin and waflled between principled heart-on-sleeve and cleaving closely to his new political advisors that somehow found interest in him when he raised 100 mil.

    I support Gravel, but Obama is a fine second choice. (You need one as a longshot backer). His background in world religions that so frightens the right wingers would be a fantastic asset in Middle East peace brokerage. His debate answers were annoyingly polished, but not a pandering slew of sound bites that dodged the questions. (Though there was a little of that.) Edwards and Clinton seem to say whatever they think I want to hear. Therefore, I don’t know where they will stand on issues. (Edwards has very little on record and Hilary’s record is severely battered.)

    I’m waiting for the shoe to drop on Obama. I can hope there isn’t one.

  • Obama drew support from over 154,000 new contributors, bringing his total for 2007 to 258,000 people over the first six months. That’s simply astounding — and it was impossible to predict up until very recently. Clinton was supposed to be an unstoppable fundraising machine; Obama was going to be lucky to stay within shouting distance of her. Now, the entire dynamic has been turned on its ear.

    Argh! What was “impossible to predict” I have been predicting for months as Obama’s chief asset. He’s actively going after the small money! The really small money, asking the people who are normally too poor to contribute to support him, because for the first time in a very long while they have a candidate who wants to support them.

    And because of that, I have to disagree with a major point of Marc Ambinder’s analysis. Obama’s supporters are not more affluent than Clinton’s.

    My money (which is also small 😛 ), at this point, is on Obama, because the small money can build up a lot as this report has already demonstrated, and, AFAIK, Obama is the only candidate courting it.

    Jeez! TCR is practically my only source for this stuff and yet I feel like I’m the only one who’s been paying attention. Is it just “stopped-clock” syndrome? Maybe I had more faith in Obama to do well, less cynicism. I certainly hope that continues to be the case.

  • I think the key to understanding the discrepancy between polls and fundraising is the rising number of cell phone-only households. It has doubled since 2004, and expected to reach 25% of households by the end of 2008 (ie. Election Day.) The cell phone-only demographic tends to be younger, single, frequently lower income… in short, exactly the people who would donate $10, $20, $35 to Obama’s campaign.

    Also – please note that the articles claiming that there is no significant effect of this phenomenon are by-and-large written by pollsters (who would of course have an interest in dispelling rumors that the polls for which they are paid are no longer valid.)

    As a cell phone-only, 100%-Barack supporter, with a majority of my friends and acquaintances similarly situated, I hope that the MSM starts paying attention, and taking the polling numbers with the increasingly appropriate grain of salt.

  • BTW Rian, that article is amazing – I agree completely. I think a lot of the power of a campaign is that people genuinely like to be asked, and genuinely like that politicians HAVE to ask. It’s become far too common for national candidates to skip over the “small potatoes” for the “big fish”. . . and the effect of Obama not only asking for money from average-Joe, small donors; but receiving it; and then actually changing the headlines because of it, is something we “small potatoes” haven’t felt in a long time. I expect the folks who contributed to feel empowered by the reports of record numbers, “invested” in the campaign, and ready to open their wallets and encourage friends to do the same as the next quarter rolls around.

  • Clinton’s poll numbers are higher b/c she has more support among less affluent, less educated voters who are not contributing $ nor paying much attention to the campaign. I think Barack can win over many of these voters when they start paying more attention, if he can strike the right balance between speaking simply from the gut and talking nuts&bolts. More of Clinton’s money is coming from big ticket donors like those with a vested interest in the healthcare status quo.

    Obama is the first political candidate I have ever given $ to in my life. I’ve reviewed his positions on his website and listened to many of his speeches (videos on his website or YouTube). The guy is amazing. I have yet to read or hear anything from him that I disagreed with. And he is not just pumping out sound bites, he has real substance. If he keeps the good speeches coming I expect to ramp up my contributions to his campaign in the 3rd qtr.

    I only watched a piece of one of the debates.

    I hope to see Al Gore become head of the Environmental Protection Agency in Obama’s administration, and see that positon become as high profile as Defense Secretary has been in Bush’s.

    There are times when I listen to this man talk that he sets off flutters of delight in my gut. I feel like history is happening and I want to be able to look back proudly some day and say I was a small part of it-

  • I distrust both charisma and lack of experience. On the other hand, I largely agree with what I’ve heard Obama say. I trust the direction in which he apparently wants to take the country, and I have confidence that he’d pick better Supreme Court nominees than any of the Republicans. Mostly, I’ve found his speeches to be wonderfully uplifting, and I could use a little of that.

    • Comments are closed.