So much for Obama’s ‘underwhelming’ fundraising

July 17, 2008

The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that Barack Obama’s campaign had raised $30 million in June, only marginally better than John McCain’ $22 million haul for the month. The Journal described Obama’s totals as “underwhelming,” and the Washington Post added that Obama’s finance machine was showing “signs of wear.”

In response, Obama spokesperson Dan Pfeiffer responded, “The Wall Street Journal report of our fundraising numbers is way off the mark. It appears that after 18 months, some in the press still haven’t realized that anyone who is talking about numbers doesn’t know what our numbers are.”

Who was right? Well, this email from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe landed in in-boxes this morning:

We have some big news we want to share with you.

Because of your generosity and commitment, we’re reporting to the press today that this campaign is in a very strong financial position.

In the month of June, supporters like you helped raise $52 million.

But more impressive than the number is how you did it. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary people contributed to building our campaign for change. Many were first-time donors, giving only what they could afford — and the average donation was just $68.

So, instead of Obama edging McCain in June fundraising, Obama actually more than doubled McCain’s totals.

More importantly, Obama’s June sum was a big improvement on his numbers from May, when Obama raised $22 million. With a $52 million month, the campaign’s goal of $300 million seems, at a minimum, possible.

But as strong as June was for the Obama campaign, McCain and the Republican National Committee still enjoy a cash advantage.

The AP noted the combined totals on both sides of the aisle.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee ended June with a combined total of $92.3 million in the bank. The figure represents a notable fundraising jump, especially for the DNC.

Obama reported $72 million cash on hand and the DNC $20.3 million. But the Democrats still lag Republican John McCain’s presidential campaign and the Republican Party.

Last week, McCain reported raising more than $22 million in June, which was his best month of the year. Together, the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee began July with about $95 million in the bank.

(I should note for those of you who may have seen the Obama campaign’s email this morning, Plouffe initially noted that Obama and the DNC had a combined $72 million. Plouffe then corrected his error — the campaign has $72 million in the bank, which combines to $92.3 million when the DNC is added to the mix.)

Under the circumstances, Obama and the DNC are still trailing, but they’re approaching parity. Stay tuned.

Good news.

  • Would it be wrong to point out that if Hillary had accepted the obvious reality of her situation when it was clear she’d lost, rather than borrowing money to drag out the process for several more months, that we’d be way ahead right now?

  • The number is impressive in its own right, but even more so when you think that Obama’s still probably far away from his limits and that fund raising will pick up as more Clinton donors jump in and as the race hears up as we approach fall. In other words, if these are supposed to be his slow months, then what will his big months look like?

    The only cause for concern I envision is if substantial amounts of money were raised from big donors and that the online donors weren’t donating, for whatever reason. Obama should have tapped the big donors this early so he can have more free time in the fall to campaign.

    There’s one part of this I don’t understand. We keep hearing about a combined total for McCain and the RNC and the idea that they will be able to spend the money on the same goal–electing McCain–even if the two groups can’t coordinate. But doesn’t this assume that almost nothing will be spent on behalf of Republicans in congress? Or is it usually not the case that the RNC supports congressional Republicans? Is that even legal?

  • Would it be wrong to point out that if Hillary had accepted the obvious reality of her situation when it was clear she’d lost, rather than borrowing money to drag out the process for several more months, that we’d be way ahead right now?

    Yes, Racer X, that would be wrong. You are, however, permitted to ask whether an earlier change in her hairstyle would have resulted in a different outcome in the nomination race.

  • Brian wrote: “There’s one part of this I don’t understand. We keep hearing about a combined total for McCain and the RNC and the idea that they will be able to spend the money on the same goal–electing McCain–even if the two groups can’t coordinate. But doesn’t this assume that almost nothing will be spent on behalf of Republicans in congress? Or is it usually not the case that the RNC supports congressional Republicans? Is that even legal?”

    I think the RNC is basically trying for a Republican’t President and a Democratic Congress. There is a lot they need to blame on the “Democrat Party” (their phrase) over the next few years, including tax increases needed to recover our revenue base and reduction of war spending to reduce the deficit. Not being in control of Congress for the next two to six years is probably just what they want.

  • Brian – the RNC (and DNC) usually support the Presidential nominee in a Presidential year as well as party branding and party-wide organization, The congressional candidates have their own committee, in this case the RCCC (Republican Congressional Campaign Committee) and the Senate counterpart the RSCC.

  • Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn’t the DNC been sending lots of cash to the various state Democratic organizations explicitly as a part Dean’s strategy. That cash doesn’t show up on the bottom line of the DNC sheet, does it? To discuss parity using cash on hand may be misleading, a lot of the DNC money has been invested.

  • “But doesn’t this assume that almost nothing will be spent on behalf of Republicans in congress? Or is it usually not the case that the RNC supports congressional Republicans? Is that even legal?”

    Wondered the same thing. I thought the RNC could support congressional candidates, and usually did so. Now the Democratic Congressional and Senatorial committees are vastly outraising their Republican counterparts. So, if I’m right, the RNC is going to really have trouble deciding whether to spend on McCain or on Congress. (Anyone else have knowledge about this?)

  • But doesn’t this assume that almost nothing will be spent on behalf of Republicans in congress?

    It does assume that, and in fact the RNC has basically told all its Congressional candidates and incumbents that they’re on their own this year. That, combined with deep red seats already going blue in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi, plus the tendency of Democratic challengers to seriously outraise Republican incumbents, accounts for the widespread panic in the GOP right now.

    Personally, I think they’d be better off conceding the presidential race and using their cash to try to hang on to a few seats. But, hey, if they think John McCain’s all that, I encourage them to keep throwing good money after bad.

  • “Brian – the RNC (and DNC) usually support the Presidential nominee in a Presidential year as well as party branding and party-wide organization, The congressional candidates have their own committee, in this case the RCCC (Republican Congressional Campaign Committee) and the Senate counterpart the RSCC.”

    I know that there are separate group[s set up for each house of congress, but isn’t there any cross spending? Even if it’s just a little, it does hinder the ability of the RNC to spend on behalf of McCain. If they do in fact spend money for each house of congress, wouldn’t it be even more than usual, because the RCCC and RSCC are doing so badly?

  • I know we tend to think of millions of dollars as chump change nowadays. We are all apparently fabulously wealthy after all but 30 million is an awful lot more than 22 million in my estimation. It doesn’t really seem reasonable to describe that as “edging” the lower figure. Now obviously 52 million is quite a bit significantly more but my point is that I would hesitate to let the WSJ and Republicans to set expectation levels here. 30 million dollars would have been an awful lot of money to raise in a month and it would have been a lot more than McCain had raised on his best month. I think its more than a bit unfair to use the fact that he has been doing so much better than even that against him.

  • Any news on the FEC and McCain’s loans? Or is that, essentially, dead until after it would matter?

  • The congressional candidates have their own committee, in this case the RCCC (Republican Congressional Campaign Committee) and the Senate counterpart the RSCC.

    Small correction: That’s the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). (On the Democratic side, it’s the DCCC and DSCC.) I believe the fundraising numbers for both Republican Congressional committees are still quite abysmal, but I haven’t seen an update in a while.

    So, the RNC can give to Congressional candidates, and because the Congressional committees’ take has been so pitiful, there was some talk about the RNC helping out…but it’s made it clear it’s not going to this year. I’m having trouble finding links for stories detailing how, in a memo, they more or less told their candidates to fend for themselves–I think this was about two months ago–but I’ll keep looking.

  • I’m curious about the $68 average donation. Assuming this is the mean, I’d like to know both the median and standard deviation.

  • jhm said:
    I’m curious about the $68 average donation. Assuming this is the mean, I’d like to know both the median and standard deviation.

    I think you’re an optimist jhm. I would bet that 95 percent of the “journalists” covering the campaign don’t have any idea what the difference is between “mean” and “median”, let alone what a “standard deviation” is. In college they took Rocks for Jocks for their science requirement and Math for Everyday Living for their math requirement.

    Why do you think they spend so much time talking about Hillary’s hair or Obama’s supposed “flip-flops”.

  • last i checked, 30 mill was over a third more money than 22 million. imho, a 34+ pecent lead is more than just edging.

    Funny how, when it comes to NUMBERS OF VOTERS, Bush won the 04 elections with less than a 1 percent lead over Kerry…and he considered that to be a mandate from the people? How did he phrase it at the time? “I’ve got capital and I’m gonna spend it?” Something like that?

    Less than a 1 percent lead.

    And the media didn’t say jack crap to question our glorious leader’s logic. not then.
    Bt when it comes to FUNDRAISING DOLLARS, IN ONE MONTH, a 34 percent-plus increase is a squeaker? Really?

    “I don’t know why they even bother suiting up. Why, they barely even won!” Mr. Burns

  • For the “good government” crowd, this is why Obama dropped out of public finance. Democrats traditionally took public financing because they couldn’t match the Republican candidate otherwise (and then they got creamed with the RNC donations). It’s taken the one candidate who has created the most enthusiasm ever, to just achieve parity with the thugs. Until there is a complete reform of political finance that makes a completely-level playing field, this is the best we can hope for.

    I’m particularly gratified that, with 11,300 or so contacts, the fundraising group I’ve been working with raised $1,340,000 (approximately) of the $52 million raised in June.

    It’s not just the $68 donations. What has amazed me is the people donating $500+, many of whom maxed out their $2,300 for the primary campaign. We have to ask for employer and occupation, and these are not rich people. They are mostly middle-of-the-middle-class, people who have had to stretch to make the donations they have, and most of them are people who never donated anything to a campaign before. Basically, they’re people who understand you have to sacrifice in a war if you’re going to win it.

  • Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn’t the DNC been sending lots of cash to the various state Democratic organizations explicitly as a part Dean’s strategy. That cash doesn’t show up on the bottom line of the DNC sheet, does it? To discuss parity using cash on hand may be misleading, a lot of the DNC money has been invested.

    The cash donated to the DNC gets counted for donation totals, then it gets sent on as you point out, in line with the 50-state strategy. Then the money that hasn’t been sent yet gets counted as “cash on hand.” So, in broad brush, you’re right.

  • actually *unless I’m going crazy* 8million is 36,36% of 22mill. therefore, if you round things off, this would have meant that the difference between BO’s and JM’s *initially assumed* f-raising was almost 40% of what JM raised. now that when one considers that fact that BO *actually* raised 52million, which means that JM actually raised * if you round off to the next 10%* 40% of what BO raised, it sort of puts things into perspective, i.e. how off the mark the MSM is with their analysis of what happens in this election campaign

  • From msn.com’s “First Read”:

    *** On target: As the political world anticipates Obama’s upcoming overseas trip, his campaign this morning released a shiny object for us to discuss: his June fundraising numbers. In an email to supporters, campaign manager David Plouffe announced that Obama raised $52 million last month — which is his second-best haul (he raised more than $55 million in February) and it’s more than twice the amount of McCain’s $22 million haul for June (which was his best month). While Obama raised much more than the $30 million-plus that the Wall Street Journal reported last week, Obama’s $52 million is about what he should have raised for a candidate who is opting out of public funds for the general. Assuming that Obama rakes in at least $50 million each month from June until the end of October, that will be a minimum of $250 million. And when making the time calculation it takes to raise money, the ability to raise $250 million in five months was seen by many as the minimum a candidate would have to be able to raise to justify opting out and dismantling a finance team. By comparison, if you project that McCain will raise $20 million per month from June to August and combine that with the $84 million in public funds he’ll receive after the GOP convention, McCain will have $140 million-plus. Of course, the RNC has a significant advantage over the DNC — but that race is narrowing. A DNC officials tells First Read it raised $22.4 million in June (up from its $4 million in May), and it’s cash on hand is $20 million (again, up from $4 million in May). By comparison, the RNC raised $25.7 in June and has $68.7 million cash on hand.

    *** More numbers: A couple of more notes on Obama’s June haul: All but $2 million was in primary money. Also, contrary to the email that Plouffe issued, the Obama campaign tells us that they have $72 million cash on hand. When you combine that with the DNC’ $20 million, that’s $92 million cash on hand — which is almost equal to combined McCain-RNC cash on hand of nearly $95 million. Still, McCain really doesn’t have a money problem. In fact, as Rick Davis bragged last week, money isn’t going to be the issue many thought it would be just two months ago. Why is this? It appears many Republican donors are buying into the argument that the ONLY shot Republicans have of winning anything is the presidency. And this is hurting Republicans running for the House and Senate where Democrats are dominating on the financial front. Yesterday, the DSCC released a list of 11 races being held in GOP-held seats, and the Democrats were nearly on par or ahead in every race, according to the most recent fundraising report. Question: Are we seeing the reverse ’96 effect taking place inside the GOP? In 1996, the word went out that Dole was a lost cause, and all of the GOP’s resources went to saving House and Senate candidates in order to preserve their control of Congress. This cycle, the chance of the GOP winning control of either the House or the Senate appears beyond remote. Does that mean many of the professional GOP-givers are gravitating toward sending money to causes that help McCain? It sure looks like it.

  • This only inspires me to think more intensely about someday maybe sending some money to Hillary.

  • Now is the time to contribute to Hillary, only 6 weeks left to pay off that huge debt to herself.

  • Don’t think I won’t. Soon. And after she pays off her loan to herself, we can start thinking about those vendors who keep issuing their sexist complaints about not having been paid since January. Frankly, I think they should be ignored as payback for trying to embarrass Hillary. I don’t understand why they don’t write off those debts as a campaign contribution. They won’t contribute to her, but they didn’t mind taking her business when she could have chosen other vendors.

  • I’m one of the retirees who sent $25.00 for the first time in my life. I have tweaked my phone bill, dropped the daily newspaper, and given up one medication to make ends meet. I look forward to November’s election.

  • Got bad news for the GOP.

    Parity is unusually GOOD for Dems.

    More bad news…
    I’m one of the folks that’s well under the 68 dollar average. But i have NO qualms about breaking that figure. Obama has a LOT of dry powder out here.

  • Insane Fake Professor said: This only inspires me to think more intensely about someday maybe sending some money to Hillary.

    LOL

    • Comments are closed.