Hillary Raises $35 Million In February

By Big Tent Democrat

So says Hillary campaign on conference call.

$30 million of it in grassroots donations. 300K total donors in Feb., over 200K new donors.

< Sham "Reformers" | More Than One in 100 Americans Now in Jail >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Watch the Obama campaign... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:54:40 PM EST
    ...come up with a totally excessive, awesome-r number in response.

    "We raised $15 billion dollars in February!"


    I bet they raised 50 million (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:57:13 PM EST
    The fundraising for Dems is truly amazing.

    Looking at the big picture (none / 0) (#4)
    by Paladin on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:00:10 PM EST
    Whether you're in Obama's camp or Hillary's, that's good news for the Dems.

    Please, can I have some? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:03:17 PM EST
    I'm just saying ...

    as long as you share with us (none / 0) (#8)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:04:33 PM EST
    Why didn't she do this from the start? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kjblair on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:06:09 PM EST
    It appears that Clinton is able to tap into a relatively large group of small donors. (It may not be as large as Obama's, but it's pretty significant.) Why didn't she do this from the start? Is it because she didn't think she needed the money? Because she didn't think it was necessary to build a broad donor base? Because it was outside of her comfort zone of working with large donors? Some other reason or a combination of the above?

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:53:16 PM EST
    Her organization thought it'd be over by the day after Super Tuesday.  They didn't have a plan-B until it was too late.

    (Note to all: please note that this is not meant as a criticism.  As many writers have noted, all campaign strategies are either brilliant, or stupid, and that we don't know until after the fact when we see the candidate win or lose.  It certainly makes sense to decide various options, decide the probability of each event, and allocate resources appropriately.  I.e., it's silly to enact provisions for "plan B" if you think the probability is extremely rare.  All I'm doing is stating what is, and not making a judgement).


    What you said seems to be true to me (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:01:30 PM EST
    and, though I support Clinton, the Super Tuesday strategy looks "boneheaded" now.  From all that I read though I think 90% of people thought it would be over then, on both sides.  Axelrod didn't and that's to his credit.

    Right, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:19:29 PM EST
    to Clinton here.  (Note, those who read me carefully can see that I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to Clinton and to Obama.  I happen to think they are both outstanding).

    My point is that, yes, thinking it'd be over by ST does look boneheaded now, but I'm less certain if I would have thought so in, say, December.  I mean, Hillary was raising tons of money (still is), she looked "inevitable", etc etc.  To give her the benefit of the doubt again, her campaign was probably thinking that by mid-Feb, they'd be shutting down phase I, and start gearing up for the GE.

    I tend to think it wasn't smart to bet the whole ranch on that . . . but (trying to remember what the political landscape looked like in early Dec) it's certainly reasonable to think that "the election will be over Feb 5" was the most likely outcome.

    I think HRC made another big (in retrospect) mistake.  Counting on this "it'll be over Feb 5" scenario, she neglected a lot of grass roots stuff.  Again -- it may have seemed prudent at the time.  Why bother with the intensive resources if you don't need to -- just use top-down party apparatus, for "get out the vote", etc.

    Obama, otoh, having no other choice but grass roots (necessity is still the mother of invention) put a lot into it.

    But then, when he was still in the game on Feb 5, he could clean up all the caucuses, beacuse he had "forces on the ground"  By then, it was too late for HRC, and all she could count on would be big states where getting "forces all over on the ground" would be difficult even for Obama because of the shear size, and to skip the caucuses.

    I think this grassroots is partly why Obama surprised most with his margin in Wisconsin.  Obama's grass roots is exceding beyond anyone's predictions.  (Note the thread re: Tarrant COunty Texas last night). It's also why some observers think that no matter what the polls say on Mar 3, he will do 5 points better than those polls on Mar 4.  Are those observers right?  I have no bleepin' idea, but as a "political fan" (like a sports fan), I'm enjoying watching poli-sci and history play out right in front of me.  (Easier for me than for many others, because I love both candidates, so I feel like I'm in a win-win situation).

    Well, those are my thoughts, from an avid arm-chair watcher voracious reader of the political scene.  (They don't call me "Wonk" for nothin'!)

    (And the only thing that will f&^k up my gleeful feeling of win-win, and my feeling that we'll finally have some "morning in America" after 8 years of imperialistic King George, is if Obama and HRC supporters piss each other off so much, and damage each other so much, that McCain gets back in the game.  Which now explains the other direction I come from: trying to slow down, at least a little bit, the unwarranted harsh criticism thrown about on this blog and others).


    Beyond that (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:30:35 PM EST
    It seems the people running the Clinton campaign did not pick up on the grassroots and technology revelations exposed by Howard Deans run. The Obama campaign seemed to make much better use of these tools i.e. my.barackobama.com web community page, one-click donation buttons embedded in emails, etc. This story really sums that up well.

    And of course it has helped him tremendously that a large part of his initial base was younger, more technologically savvy, and had more disposable income than hers.


    Wednesday's snail mail included a letter (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:32:55 PM EST
    informing me my address would receive a form from the Census Bureau soon.  Letter sd. if I had access to the internet I could check on line for more information.  

    The early polling of Democratic voters (none / 0) (#61)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:13:47 PM EST
    showed very strong support for Hillary.  The advent of the crossover and GOP voters and first time independents swelled the ranks and made the Super Tuesday a footnote.  These numbers have made this a real horserace.

    Plan B? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by plf1953 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:11:55 PM EST
    Thanks for your qualifier.

    But no one really knows if Hillary (or Barack) have or don't have plan Bs, Cs, Ds or Zs ...

    All we really know is what we see ...

    And of that, it just appears that Barack has done better than Hillary to this point.

    Your other point is right on, though ... whoever wins will be seen as having a brilliant strategy while the loser will be seen as having, well, a loser of a campaign strategy.  

    There's no in between.


    Why? (none / 0) (#20)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:51:28 PM EST
    Honestly... I think that she underestimated Obama's ability to both raise money and run an effective campaign.

    She seriously thought that this campaign wouldn't last past Super Tuesday.

    Remember... (I believe) Hillary has raised record amounts also.  Obama has just raised even more.  


    I think everyone underestimated ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:22:54 PM EST
    his caucus organizations.  Without that he'd be back in Illinois licking his wounds.

    A friend of mine from Chicago political circles told me not to underestimate this, and I didn't believe him.  He was right and I was wrong.


    Obama is very good (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:25:19 PM EST
    at choosing the right people to support him.  I posted this elsewhere, but this link shows how he quickly moved up in the IL senate by co-opting other senators' bills.

    (I am sure some Obama supporter in Boise will tell us that the IL Times is a rag, so take what you read with that in mind...)


    Here's a follow-up pice (none / 0) (#68)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:33:41 PM EST
    to your original link from the Houston Press by the same author.

    Obama Screamed at Me


    I think small donors who liked Hillary... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:49:17 PM EST
    ... didn't thinks she needed the money. And until Super Tuesday was passed, she was unwilling to admit she did, for fear of creating an aura of a failing campaign.

    It is clear, though, that while there is considerable, and presumably majority, support for Obama, there are lots and lots of Democrats who like Hillary enough to put their money where their mouths are.


    How hosed is McCain? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Joike on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:24:50 PM EST
    In relative fundraising?

    He simply won't have the sheer numbers of donors to call on again in the general election than either Clinton or Obama.

    Plus, if he gets hung up by the FEC, he'll be doubly hosed.

    No spending between now and the convention plus federal spending limits in the GE.

    Our nominee can continue to spend plus spend as much as they like in the GE.

    How ironic that the Republican would have money problems while the Democratic nominee will be swimming in it.

    McCain will really be counting on the right wing 527s to spend a few hundred million on him.

    double irony (none / 0) (#53)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:32:22 PM EST
    is that it's the "McCain-Feingold" law.

    OTOH, as I asked once before here:

    What's to stop him from just ignoring it.  After all, the FEC doesn't have a quorum and can't do anything about it.


    BO and HRC funds come with Force Multipliers, too (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ellie on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:49:20 PM EST
    I  posted awhile back about Obama being smart about his audience. Woven among the uplifting rhetoric were specific instructions for his young audience, who might not know what to do in a primary.

    • He told them about the DNS -- Did Not Specify (party) -- aspect of filling out the ballot
    • He said, "But we can't do this alone!" ... Bring "a cousin, an uncle"; don't vote alone (Brilliant!)
    • Team Obama is aware of the text messaging, instant communication and networking habits of his audience so this alone nets him "Instant Activists"
    • These Uplifting Slash Instructive portions of his speeches were played on all networks -- making them equal to a national media buy -- as well as on downloadable video, youtube, facebook, blah blah blah

    Team Clinton's got seasoned machine-oriented power on her side, which takes some bucks but it's pretty reliable. Team Obama is a pollenataing network, real organic grassroots work going on.

    No wonder the Repugs are muttering about Obama's "cult-like" following. The Repugs have cynically (IMO) made themselves out to be the "religious" party mainly to have an excuse to swagger into churches and lather up the congregations into becoming flying monkeys ready to fly out and do their partisan bidding (for the foetii!)

    The Dems had hoped (wrongly) that blogs and/or Liberals would happily and mindlessly provide the same service whenever one of the senior braintrust pulled a lever. Not so.

    For my part, I'm not going to assist the party in electing more "moderate" Dems who won't call me a human being because it might incite the wrath of the pious media or the GOP.


    136 million??????? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:02:11 PM EST
    Please. I mean, that would be incredible. No way. Sorry, now way.

    more math (none / 0) (#12)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:09:46 PM EST
    I had thought that the average was $107, I'm curious as to where you got your $140 figure from.

    So, I was thinking, just do $107 * 950,000 and then substract off what he already reported in Jan.


    Central value (none / 0) (#19)
    by rilkefan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:51:03 PM EST
    totally assumes you're sampling the same distribution - no systematic effects.  Which is silly.

    Interesting. Did you read that (none / 0) (#7)
    by MarkL on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:04:14 PM EST
    the vast majority of Obama's donations are actually from big business? When he says most of his donations are from small donors, he means the NUMBER of donations; the amount of money they give is less than 1/2 though.

    donations (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by noholib on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:10:53 PM EST
    I think $35 million for Clinton is great!
    The rest of the math in the last few posts is beyond me.

    However, I do know that these are OBSCENE sums of money to be spent on electoral campaigns.  Just think of what this money could do in the areas of health, housing, education, human needs.  Instead this money goes primarily to the media for advertizing! Many other democracies have short electoral campaigns and they manage to elect democractic leaders without wasting incredible sums of money and tying up their public square and discourse for two years out of every four.  This is an absolutely stupid system!

    Also, though I am sure that Senator Obama has raised a lot of money from individual donors via small donations, I have wondered how he reached $100 million so quickly early on.  Please, let's get real.  Who are the big money interests funding his campaign, besides obviously the Illinois nuclear power industry?  His campaign is not just a mom and pop operation.


    'tis true (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by JJE on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:55:13 PM EST
    And a good argument for 100 percent public financing.

    I wish I could (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:58:40 PM EST
    rate this one a TEN out of 5.  

    The money raised for these things is truly obscene.  You hear of grandmas giving half their SSA check, etc.  And where does it ultimately go?  To some corporate media guy.



    I think it shows (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:35:19 PM EST
    just how badly we want to elect a Dem to stop the truly obscene flow of money to Iraq.

    before you start insinuating nefarious (none / 0) (#32)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:00:54 PM EST
    sources of money raised by Obama -- look at the links provided, and do a little simple arithmetic.

    The facts are

    • close to one million different donors
    • over 99% of the money from indivials

    The estimates of average donation seem to be around $100 to $150 per person.

    So -- it seems pretty obvious that around (or more than) $100 million has come in this year from individuals who can not give over $2300.

    So where in the world are statements like: "Who are the big money interests funding his campaign, besides obviously the Illinois nuclear power industry?" coming from?


    Here are the most (none / 0) (#47)
    by fladem on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:23:20 PM EST
    mind blowing numbers I have ever seen.

    Joe Trippi estimates that in Iowa Obama spent 35 million, and Clinton 27 million.

    I nearly fell out of my chair when I read those numbers.

    Public Financing will give each candidate about 90 million for the entire country.  Obama spent over a third of that IN IOWA ALONE.



    Amount of Money Not Obscene - $5-7 per voter (none / 0) (#96)
    by sar75 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:41:42 AM EST
    These numbers are not obscene in my opinion.

    Look, $400 million was spent on advertising on superbowl Sunday on one TV channel alone.  Anheiser-Bush spent $40 million - more than Clinton raised - on 15 30-second spots on superbowl Sunday. We're electing a president over 18 months, not buying a beer. We're a HUGE country - geographically and in terms of population. If all candidates together raise and spend $2 billion dollars over the 2007/2008 campaign season, that's about $7 per American voter.  I don't think that's a lot of money.

    The fact is that we're seeing more money than ever before because of new means of giving - above all the Internet.  Small donors are empowered by giving $25, $50, $100, etc. It's a wonderful way to participate, especially for busy folks who can't ring doorbells or attend events.

    I think all of this money coming from below is an enormously healthy thing and should not be labeled "obscene". This campaign is more exciting and more people are being exposed to it not least of all because candidates have the cash to make themselves heard above the din of popular culture.


    I'd like to see some Data on that (none / 0) (#9)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:05:10 PM EST
    I think you can see some of it (none / 0) (#11)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:09:04 PM EST
    thanks for that link.. couldn't remember (none / 0) (#15)
    by MarkL on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:11:01 PM EST
    where I read about this earlier.

    Well *that* certainly doesn't prove that point (none / 0) (#17)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:48:05 PM EST
    The link shows that 99% of the money comes from individuals, and that Clinton raised 87% from individuals.

    So, where's this idea coming from that most of Obama money is from big business?


    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#35)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:02:29 PM EST
    I guess you have to actually click around to see the information that the other poster was wanting.

    You are misreading the data (none / 0) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:07:37 PM EST
    That list is based on employer information provided on the donation form.

    So that says that a lot of Goldman Sachs employees gave money to Obama.


    That's true for both of them (none / 0) (#39)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:14:50 PM EST
    however, I note that several of those major contributors companies do lobbying.

    Sure (none / 0) (#46)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:19:43 PM EST
    But lobbyists can only contribute directly up to the Federal limit of $2300.  After that they need to siphon the money through a PAC.

    So far Barack Obama has accepted $3,250 in business PAC money.  

    Hillary has accepted $300,000

    John McCain has accepted $276,000


    $2300 per person limit (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:34:43 PM EST
    Assuming that no direct lobbyist working for Kirkland & Ellis or one of the others donated that's still lots of employees of a lobbying enterprise donating.

    That's still $163,126 from Kirkland & Ellis and $228,520 from Skadden, Arps employees for two.

    So if the 168K employees of IBM all gave the max donation that would be $386 million in individual contributions.  But no business donation.  Doesn't mean anything but it's a number.

    I'm not really interested in the purity of the donations.


    Neither do I (none / 0) (#94)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 12:22:28 AM EST
    Even you and I can agree on a few things.  Purity being one of them.

    Same thing for Hillary with the (none / 0) (#58)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:08:04 PM EST
    health care industry.  I know that the American Nurses Association (3M) endorsed her and I know that nurses and others in that field contribute heavily to her. Same thing with teachers. That is why the "health care" dollars were so high for her, but she was slammed for being in the "pocket of the health care industry".  I don't know about the docs tho'.

    Michael Moore (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:15:59 PM EST
    really hacked me off when he said she was #1, or whatever, in big pharma donations.  From looking she wasn't even in the top 25 of their pac donations, it was individual donors in the health care industry.

    I've never felt the same way about Moore since then. That was an obvious lie so I wonder how much of his films were BS now.  Fool me once ...  :-)


    Ralph (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:23:02 PM EST
    as someone who has been on the UK healthcare system, he got a LOT wrong.  This is the problem I have with Moore: his point would be so better made if he presented both sides.  His films always stop being about issues and start being about...Michael Moore.

    Speaking of insurance systems (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:03:01 PM EST
    Here's one I could get behind.  Similar to France in a public/private mix, with no private requirement unless you want to skip any waits for treatment.

    Medicare Australia

    If you could get Clinton Care passed, it shouldn't be too hard to morph it inro this over time.


    My Australian friends (none / 0) (#75)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:54:37 PM EST
    are not crazy about their system, but then when I tell them about the American one, they seem to appreciate it more.

    As an aside, you are mandated by law to vote in all elections if you are an Australian (or a Kiwi), which I find rather refreshing.

    Of course, when I was there after the second Bush win (which was technically really the first) and got heckled by folks for having such a nasty piece of work for president, I took great pleasure in pointing out to them that less than half of all Americans vote while Australians are by a great majority responsible (at the time) for that idiot Howard.


    I spent time in Australia (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:36:18 PM EST
    shortly the Iraq debacle started and the locals seemed mystified as to why we'd elected the dummy the first time.  Of course Howard went along for the ride  :-)

    I really loved Australia and New Zealand.  Really didn't want to come home, but all my family are here.


    actually it's not mandatory for kiwis, just (none / 0) (#87)
    by pukemoana on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:00:28 PM EST
    aussies.  we (kiwis) have a reasonable participation rate though: 73-89% over last 30 years.  maybe it's because with only 4 million of us the political system seems a lot more immediate.  btw, this year i have the option of voting for helen clark to have a 4th term as prime minister . . . and she's the second woman to have occupied this position

    pukemoana (none / 0) (#90)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:25:45 PM EST
    thanks for the correction.

    Wasn't NZ the first country in the world to give women the vote?  And the first to have a woman president?

    (and I love your beautiful country!)


    Medicare Australia (none / 0) (#95)
    by Rainsong on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 02:31:01 AM EST
    .. we all whine about it, so do Canadians about their Medicare, Brits the NHS etc.. nag, nag, whine, whine.. But then we look at the US? we usually shut the F up :)

    I've worked in health system economics and policy analyst for most of my adult life. Just recently at work, the annual inter-country comparison stats datasets arrived from the OECD Health Directorate in Geneva and as usual, down the hallway shouts "Don't forget to delete the USA"... majorly big statistical outlier.

    One year we forgot to do that - looked like half the planet was dying in droves!

    And you're wrong about the private/public health mix, it changed under Howard, nasty policy that one... but thats another story.


    way ot (none / 0) (#69)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:44:30 PM EST
    but this new insider advantage poll from TX has demographics that look more like what I would expect to see than the susa poll we discussed before.  only quibble from a quick look is women may be slightly under-represented and hispanics may be slightly over-represented, but I hope not for hispanics :-)

    Hillary leads here by 4 ...



    Our commenter on the ground in T.X. (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:48:15 PM EST

    A lesson for us all? (none / 0) (#76)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:05:28 PM EST
    his point would be so better made if he presented both sides.

    Yep.  Same for the rest of us, too.


    Wow (none / 0) (#38)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:13:06 PM EST
    Neither candidate is a slouch at fundraising!  There's less difference than I thought, up to 1/31 anyway.

    And both (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:15:15 PM EST
    have about 5 times more money than McCain does right now and have EACH drawn nearly 3 times more donations than McCain.

    Okay (none / 0) (#91)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:27:35 PM EST
    answer me this: when corporations give, they are still limited to the 2300 mark.  When everyone working in the corporation gives, each individual is limited to the 2300 mark.

    I think I'd rather have $200 from five hundred individuals than $2300 from one corporation, but that's just me.


    sure... (none / 0) (#16)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:48:03 PM EST
    Not sure what you mean by big business.

    But I would guess that the majority of Obama's money is from the max donation amount.

    I saw a link a week or two ago showing that Obama has a significantly larger percentage of small donations than Clinton.  

    While he still gets max money from donors, his small donor fund raising has been undeniably impressive.  


    actually, (none / 0) (#18)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:49:48 PM EST
    I read that the overwhelming majority of his donors have not maxed out, which is helping him in the long run, because he can keep going back to them.  Having 1 million distinct donors in two months is pretty impressive, breadth-wise, for just this reason.

    That has nothing... (none / 0) (#22)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:52:44 PM EST
    ... to do with what I said.

    I said the majority of his money has been raised by max donations, which doesn't conflict with that fact that the majority of his donors still haven't maxed out.


    I was responding to MarkL (none / 0) (#25)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:55:12 PM EST
    who wrote:
    the vast majority of Obama's donations are actually from big business

    Then somebody provided a link.

    I was pointing out that the link states quite the opposite of what MarkL was saying.


    Sorry... (none / 0) (#33)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:00:58 PM EST
    ... you replied directly to my comment, so I assumed you were responding to what I wrote.

    Obama's FL $$$ didn't help him... (none / 0) (#78)
    by john5750 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:20:04 PM EST
    Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida--more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.

    HILLARY WON FL and did not run ads like Obama.


    What is the rule on contributing (none / 0) (#21)
    by Joike on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:51:39 PM EST
    Can people donate the maximum in the primary and then again in the general election?

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    A donor can contribute $2,300 to the primary campaign, and $2,300 to the general election.

    And if you give more than $2300 right now (none / 0) (#27)
    by JJE on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:56:18 PM EST
    the excess goes to the general.

    Thanks so much (none / 0) (#28)
    by Joike on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:56:30 PM EST
    for the info.

    Second question.

    Does the max increase with inflation or some other rule?


    hmm... (none / 0) (#31)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:00:05 PM EST
    Does the max increase with inflation or some other rule?
    I didn't know, so I looked it up.  From Open Secrets:
    Under BCRA, some individual contribution limits were indexed for inflation and adjust accordingly every cycle.

    Contributions Limits (none / 0) (#30)
    by Saul on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:00:00 PM EST

    Here is guide to contribution limits.



    Thanks for the link (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Joike on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    Typical law.  Rather than have a bright line on giving; they've created one with a lot of curves.

    I didn't realize there was such a thing as a "biennial limit".  You can only give so much to candidates, so much political parties and so much to PACs.

    I guess that explains the popularity of 527s which don't suffer from the same restrictions.


    In other contribution news (none / 0) (#37)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:09:14 PM EST
    Barack Obama reached the 1 million donor mark today, well technically last night.

    Fascinating (none / 0) (#45)
    by fladem on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:19:30 PM EST
    and almost certainly wrong.

    BUT, When I was in Iowa, the Obama people let slip that they thought turnout would be 180,000 plus, which everyone, and I mean everyone thought was crazy.  I can still see the expression on some of the senior Edwards peoples faces when they heard that.

    Turnout was 225,000.

    I have long since given up trying to second guess the Obama campaign.  Which is, in my 25 years of Presidential Politcs, simply the best that I have ever seen.  

    turnout (none / 0) (#50)
    by Nasarius on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:28:36 PM EST
    Don't forget that Obama only won by a few points in Iowa. Huge portions of that record turnout went to Edwards and Clinton. Your broader point stands, though.

    A large number (none / 0) (#51)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:30:34 PM EST
    of $$$$ are being spent on media from ALL campaigns

    Several sources have Sen Obama leading on the media spending. Here is spending is Wis

    Almost three out of four dollars spent on all presidential primary television advertising in Wisconsin was by the Obama campaign, with the Illinois senator spending more than $1.5 million to air almost 6,000 spots. Clinton spent just more than $300,000. Spending by Republicans John McCain and Mike Huckabee was significantly less, with McCain spending $180,000 and Huckabee spending $150,000.

    Is it any wonder that Sen Obama is doing so well with the media. Millions of $$$ being spent.

    The money that both of these candidates are collecting and spending is obscene.

    Having said that... I have donated to Hillary's campaign. Keeping her in this race is one way to keep her pushing Sen Obama to voice his strategies.

    I saw it broken down for Wisconsin (none / 0) (#57)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:42:39 PM EST
    and Obama spent $2.23 per vote while Clinton spent about 60 cents.  That pattern is normal I imagine, since he's outspending her now in TX by 4-1 or 5-1 depending on the source.

    If you outspend your opponent like that and your numbers don't rise, you are a completely worthless candidate.


    Spending alone won't (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Joike on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:11:51 PM EST
    win a race.  Just ask Giuliani and Romney about having a money advantage and getting squat for it.

    won;t win it alone (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:17:26 PM EST
    but without it you're screwed.  in most "normal" cases, he who spends most wins most.

    In a close race between 2 pretty equal (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:18:16 PM EST
    challengers, it makes a ton of difference.

    Obama's ground game (none / 0) (#73)
    by 1jane on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:16:22 PM EST
    Even when the Obama campaign was locked out of the normal Democratic structure in some states his legions of grass-roots organizers worked around the lock out and won states where a year ago he didn't have name recognition. By building a political organization from scatch for small donors his unpaid community organizers moved Obama from being an unknown to the front runner. Predictions of even more donations from small donors for the Obama campaign isn't surprising. Predictions are he will again out fundraise Clinton.

    As others have noted, the Clinton Organization relied on the normal Democratic structure and party elders for support/donations and predicted an early win 2/5. Tomorrow is 3/1, with Clinton climbing a steeper and steeper mountain.

    It's fair to say the Republican Party structure is totally fragmented.

    Obama brought a new game to town. Refreshing, better organized, reaching across the divide looking out for what's good for the country not just good for the party.

    Willing to give credit (none / 0) (#74)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:36:03 PM EST
    where credit is due.  It's certainly due for the great ground game.

    Numbers don't seem to add up (none / 0) (#79)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:38:58 PM EST
    So post Super Tuesday 2/5 the word comes out that the Clinton campaign is low on money. They do a big drive and raised $4 mil right after. Then on 2/19 they announce they've raised $15 mil in 15 days. But from then on was the midst of the 11 losses in a row.

    So how did they raise $20 mil in 14 days with no wins and little positive news to bounce off of?

    dwight (none / 0) (#81)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:59:19 PM EST
    I know this will come as a shock to you, but she raised the money because she has many, many supporters who like her, believe in her and want her to win.

    Or are you saying that the campaign is lying about the numbers?  


    Can't prove the numbers are cooked (none / 0) (#83)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:13:12 PM EST
    But personally I just don't see how it could be possible, unless maybe they're counting money that is for the general.

    $20 million in 14 days is an unprecedented clip for her campaign. And it would have had to have been done in the face of 11 straight losses and very little other positive news to capitalize on. Add into that the large number of maxed out donors she has and it seems hard to explain how they pulled in that kind of money.


    Why Would She Lie (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:39:22 PM EST
    It will be public record. Besides, because she is down her supporters are cranking out the cash. Makes sense to me.

    Not only that but public record (none / 0) (#85)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:44:08 PM EST
    before the March 4 primaries.

    I could say I don't think Obama's number add up but I can't prove it.  Just because I can type it doesn't make it so  :-)


    dwight (none / 0) (#89)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:23:42 PM EST
    I imagine you'll be following the release of her campaign finance statement to the FEC and will report back to us on whether or not you were correct?

    I think it's a tad short-sighted of you not to realize that millions of people support her--and that they are willing to put their money behind that support.  Sounds like she's got a "movement" of her own going.


    TL Fundraiser In Progress (none / 0) (#86)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:47:08 PM EST
    Don't mind me, I'm just tucking in here with a fund-raising suggestion:

    Let's all donate something tonight before we log out, no matter how big or small - according to our individual means.

    Heads up: I'll be posting this elsewhere tonight at TL.