Obama Raises Less in March Than in February

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:31:00 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

You'll see a lot of articles touting Barack Obama's raising of $42 million in March. While a huge number, it's still $13 million less than he raised in February.

His expenditures in March: $30.5 million. He spent $9 million on media advertising and $5 million in telemarketing. And, notwithstanding the massive expenditures, he lost the popular vote in both the Ohio and Texas primaries.

Hillary Clinton is behind in fundraising but still in the game. She raised $20 million in March. All but $5 million came from online donors.

At the beginning of April, Hillary had $8 million to spend on the primaries to Obama's $41 million.

More...

Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson says,

"Hillary won three of the last four contests despite being greatly outspent in those states -- and is in position to do the same in Pennsylvania," Carson said.

Of the $42 million Obama raised in March, $7.8 million came from fundraisers in California and New York. (Hillary's Elton John fundraiser earned $2.5 million that isn't included in her total as it was in April.)

If Hillary Clinton wins in Pennsylvania despite Obama's financial and advertising advantage, I expect the online donations will keep up and increase through May 6 when Indiana votes. We'll know soon.

< Open Thread | Monday Morning Rewind and Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Raises Less in March Than in February | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hillary has done a terrific job colleting money (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Prabhata on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:08:24 AM EST

Considering that Hillary's base, because is older, don't use the "internets", and because most blogs are outright hostile to her, she's been able to receive enough money from internet donations to stay in the race.
Rise Hillary!

Guess again. (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by oldpro on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:23:51 AM EST

I'll send her some more online right now.

Those who aren't maxed out and can afford to help keep her in the game should invest now.


$100 a week (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by facta non verba on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:39:22 AM EST

that's what I am doing. It feels great.


: Wow. (none / 0) (#30)
by oldpro on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:55:42 AM EST

And you can do it again for 23 weeks if she is the nominee!

a lot of Hillary supporters can't afford to donate (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by tnjen on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:23:43 AM EST

...money so they give their time. She's at a disadvantage regarding small donors that goes beyond internet use/age since many of her supporters make much less and don't have an expendable income like college students and wealthier Obama voters. It's one of the sad ironies about this race breaking along class lines. Speaking in broad demographic generalizations, Obama supporters can afford to buy whatever they need when the need arises whereas Clinton supporters can't always dig as deep.

Beyond the real small donors, it's all that d*mn bundling Obama is getting from Hedge Funders! <grrr>


wait I heard... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by miguelito on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:30:11 AM EST

Obama raised all that cash from little donations on the internet (/s)


: from mugs and hat sales and 3$ donors [rollseyes] (none / 0) (#27)
by thereyougo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM EST

the rest is made up from the deep pocket Oprah and billionaire blocks in SF.

$5 million in telemarketing?! (5.00 / 0) (#2)
by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:23:08 AM EST

Is it just me, or does that sound a bit high for telemarketing?

: Sure does (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by stillife on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:17:11 AM EST

But it explains why my son and his girlfriend have been bombarded with Obama calls on their cellphones.

My guess is also that BO's donors begin to worry. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Iphie on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:58:07 AM EST

And I would imagine some of Obama's donors are going to be wondering if they should continue to send good money after bad. I still think that what he was doing in SF was trying to mollify worried donors (bundlers) by explaining away his troubles by blaming the voters -- it's not the message OR the messenger -- it's that those pesky voters just won't listen.

Has anyone seen any sort of comparison of the cost per vote for Clinton and Obama?

: I think you are right (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Prabhata on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:18:07 AM EST

Most big donors are already maxed out, so both will have to depend on very small donations.

Just think (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by pattonbt on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:21:54 AM EST

in 2 months hes almost raised $100 million dollars. For the primary. Staggers the mind.

And the two of them (Clinton and Obama) combined? Stunning. It almost seems impossible.

And then compare that to the measly amounts McCain is raising. Its almost laughable. No, it is laughable.

"Clinton can't win" myth hurting her (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by Davidson on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:26:42 AM EST

That widely-believed myth that Clinton has no realistic chance to win the nomination, instead of reflecting the truth a close head-to-head match, is likely killing her with donations. Why contribute hard-earned money, especially during these hard times, if you believe she has no chance?

I've given her the maximum amount I can and I'm just a few years out of grad school (Hello, debt!) so I hope others do what they can and tell everyone they know to give what they can. Please. She needs us and she's our only chance in the GE.

we need to figure out how to bundle (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by tnjen on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:35:01 AM EST

...on our own. lol.


we can start by (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by miguelito on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:34:08 AM EST

when you are talking with supporters that might not be comfy donating online that you can take care of that part for them.. hey it worked with my blue collar dad


hmm (none / 0) (#20)
by tnjen on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:44:46 AM EST

All we'd need to help them donate would be their name and address, right?


even easier (none / 0) (#21)
by miguelito on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:54:52 AM EST

if you aren't maxed out yet, I would think it's fine to take a gift of cash from them and donate it yourself... right?


: Yep (none / 0) (#23)
by Kathy on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:57:56 AM EST

that's certainly how my cat did it the other day when she sent $100.44 to Clinton.

Hmm, interesting... (4.00 / 1) (#11)
by dogooder on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:22:57 AM EST

You lead with "Obama Raises Less in March Than in February", and "it's still $13 million less than he raised in February".

Did you notice, though, that also Clinton raised less in March than in February? And that she actually raised $15 millon less?

So what justifies the headline? I would think the real story is that Obama raised twice as much as Clinton in March.

Just how much does that matter (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by BrandingIron on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:41:15 AM EST

when Obama is losing the places like Ohio and Texas even though he's outspending her? He'll lose Pennsylvania, too, even though he's outspending her.


: A great deal (none / 0) (#24)
by IndiDemGirl on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 08:20:25 AM EST

because it is a delegate race, at this point anyway. Jeralyn noted she won the popular vote in Texas, but he came out with more delegates. Clinton had a huge advantage in PA (Democratic machine, Bill, etc.) and the Obama money for advertising and GOTV may help him overcome the 20 point lead she seemed to have at one point. It may turn into an argument about who is more electable -- but right now it is delegates that count and a 10 point win for Clinton just doesn't get her the delegates she needs.

Wrong (3.00 / 1) (#6)
by aequitas on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:08:09 AM EST

Most of what Hillary raised was for the GE, and much of the rest just covers her debt. Win or lose in PA, she's going to run out of gas before long.

Not exactly (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Prabhata on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:16:24 AM EST

Hillary was out of money after the Feb 5 elections, and people responded. She's been running on fumes, but just enough to keep her going. I suspect BO will continue to outspend her, but it won't be the first time that a candidate with money loses. Money is an important part of a campaign, but not as important as the candidate.


Nope. She's raising from small donors (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:20:57 AM EST

online. In case you missed it:

This money was already discussed a couple weeks ago. Most if not all was primary money.


: after PA (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by miguelito on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:36:30 AM EST

the stronger she performs, the more the donors will step up. Look for a nice bounce when she takes PA by double digits

Longer month, but shorter $$$$ (none / 0) (#22)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:47:01 AM EST

Don't forget that March had two more days than February. So the fall-off is worse than appears.

if I saw any candidate with those huge (none / 0) (#28)
by thereyougo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:15:08 AM EST

numbers in donations, it would turn me off. Trying too much?


: so... (none / 0) (#29)
by mindfulmission on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:36:50 AM EST

... does that mean that Clinton's donation numbers turn you off also?
Clinton is breaking records too, Obama is just breaking them by more.

: What? (none / 0) (#33)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:52:20 PM EST

$40 million is less than 15 cents per person in the country. $40 million in a pile in front of me would be BIG. However, that much to communicate to the people in a country of 300 million is not much at all. Its not enough for postage to send each a letter, even assuming the letter and envelope are free.
Re General Motors:

The country's third-largest advertiser is getting ready to shift fully half of its $3 billion budget into digital and one-to-one marketing within the next three years.
Its hard to say that a presidential campaign that shells out 10% of what GM spends on car ads to communicate with the voters is "too much."

Great spin (none / 0) (#25)
by flyerhawk on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 08:32:02 AM EST

So the best you could come up with is that Obama raised less than he did in Feb, conveniently ignoring the fact that this is true of Hillary as well?

I have to applaud your ability to paint just about all news items as bad for Obama.

only here (none / 0) (#26)
by mindfulmission on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:17:49 AM EST

Seriously?

So you are trying to attack Obama for raising less money in March than in February? Only a Clinton supporter would somehow be able to spin the fact that Obama raised twice as much as Clinton in March.

Lets think about this...

Obama raised $42M in March compared to $55M in Feb. That is a 31% drop off.

Clinton raised $20M in March compared to $35M in Feb. That is a 37% drop off. Further, while Obama saw a $13M drop, Clinton saw a $15M drop.

So lets see - what would I rather see? A 31%$13M drop off? Or a 37%$15M drop off?

And, as it shows above, Obama still raised more than twice what Clinton did in March.

And, of course, people like to tout the amount of money that Obama spent in TX/OH while losing the popular votes, but they conveniently ignore that Obama was able to significantly close the gaps in each state, just as it appears that he has been able to do in Pennsylvania.

Jeralyn (none / 0) (#32)
by dem08 on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:50:32 AM EST

and everybody: these amounts of money raised and spent on a Primary are absurd.

I cannot be the only life-long Democratic Party member and voter who wants to see the money taken out of the Primaries.

2008 has been a watershed year for Democrats, and the party needs to look at how we choose candidates, how we present ourselves and how we argue and fight.

One terrible thing about Bill and Hillary each wanting to be President is that Bill Clinton is the only Democrat with enough stature to pull the party together and get an election reform process.

We need one; but if Hillary wins it will look like the Clinton's are freezing out Obama and the young people he brings; and if Obama wins, it will look like Bill Clinton is trying to set the table for Hillary's next run.

Money is not a good thing in Politics.