home

Obama Raises 52 Million In June

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:53:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A good fundraising month for Obama:

Senator Barack Obama raised $52 million in June, his campaign announced on Thursday morning, more than twice the amount he raised one month earlier before claiming the Democratic presidential nomination.

. . . Last week, Senator John McCain announced that he had raised $22 million in June, which was the best fund-raising month of his campaign. So while Mr. Obama’s $52 million haul is significantly higher, he also faces a bigger fund-raising burden because of his decision to not accept public financing. . . . . [Obama] . . . has set a goal of raising $200 to $300 million for their general election effort.

More . . .

Right now Obama has 72 million dollars on hand. The DNC does not seem to have much money, though it did raise 22 million in June and now has 20 million in cash on hand, so Obama will need to at least keep up this fundraising pace (more likely exceed it) as the McCain camp and the RNC combined have around 100 million dollars on hand compared to 90 million for Obama/DNC. In terms of the general election spending, which does not formally commence until after the Conventions, McCain has opted into the public finance system which provides him 85 million dollars for the 2 months after the Convention (on top of the RNC spending). For opting out of public finance to make sense for Obama, he'll need to do better than 52 million as he is soaking up money that could have gone to the DNC.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Rolling Stone Ronnie Wood Enters Rehab | Accountability In The Big Tent >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Raises 52 Million In June | 190 comments (190 topical)
    I'm not donating to DNC (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Lahdee on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:11:20 AM EST
    this year. As an adjunct to the Obama campaign I would expect he'll see to it's needs. My money is going into local races and my Democratic, albeit bluedoggish, Congressman's coffers. This is JD Hayworth's old district so you can understand that I don't care to have a little JD clone in the House.

    Good for BO BTW. We needs us lots and lots of money to get us a Democratic President.

    my money will be going to CA to defeat (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:34:32 AM EST
    the constitutional ammendment banning marriage equality.

    But, I wouldn't worry about the DNC, because I heard during the primary season that Obama would be GREAT for all the down ballot races.  And, I have heard since that the Obama campaign is doing a real bang-up job of coordinating within the states to help them all out too.

    FISA and fundrasing. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Faust on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:12:48 AM EST
    I wonder how much money the FISA vote cost Obama? When prominent people like Kos essentially recommend witholding money then you know that a non-trivial percentage of people feel the same way.

    I know my parents decided to suspend donations for a while and I sent my political donation to Darcy Burner last month.

    So how many million dollars did his FISA vote cost him?

    No way to know of course, but I'm certain that it did.

    I contributed to Trauner (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by rustydude on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:35:17 AM EST
    I also contributed to Move-On because contrary to what the Obama camp wants, I really believe 3rd Party progressive advocates need to be heard from in this campaign.  I'm an Obama supporter.  Have been for several months now, but we all need to practice independent judgment.

    [ Parent ]
    that's a great question Faust. (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:18:37 AM EST
    The number would probably have been astronomical if not for the FISA flap. I know some of O's most radical supporters have said they would suspend donations and campaigning for him until further notice.

    [ Parent ]
    I hope a lot (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:22:24 AM EST
    I imagine a few million.

    [ Parent ]
    It cost him from me (none / 0) (#94)
    by Belswyn on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    I was planning to max, now I probably won't give.

    He'll get my vote, but that's all.

    What I'm interested in knowing, though, is what the projected differential in presidential funds is for this election compared to other elections. If McCain/RNC and Obama/DNC are about equal, isn't that significantly different from other elections, where the Republicans are usually way ahead in money?

    [ Parent ]

    And Me (none / 0) (#140)
    by daring grace on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:38:05 AM EST
    Although my measly $15.00-$20.00 here and there are probably only registering as one fewer 'small donor'.

    [ Parent ]
    Not the best it could be, but (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Jim J on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:29:50 AM EST
    certainly a good bit better than a lot of naysayers here were predicting.

    I'm an Obama skeptic, but I want him to win in November and I take this as encouraging news. I have moved on from the whole HRC/BO kerfluffle and I wish others would, too.

    I, too, have "moved on" (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by zfran on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:35:27 AM EST
    from the the HRC/BO kerfluffle" and I still want the dems in power in congress (albeit hopefully better than they are now), but I still think the country deserves alot better than the current presumptive nominee. And so, for me, this has nothing to do with the "kerfluffle" as you call it. It has to do with the candidate himself!

    [ Parent ]
    Make him happy? (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:32:40 AM EST
    They should try to find a way to make him happy and get him involved.

    I think that ship has sailed. Bill has made it quite strikingly clear that he has no intention of helping out Obama. (To which I say, good for him.)

    It's not "access" (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:12:31 PM EST
    if you have children. Then it's mandated is what I think is meant.

    At the end of May, the DNC moved Obama (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:24:00 PM EST
    to the brink of securing the nomination.  The first week of June, he became the presumptive nominee.  June should have been a record month for fundraising, shouldn't it?  I mean, leaving aside the technicalities of being nominated at the convention, the party had its nominee, and the checkbooks from a combined supporter base should have opened wide and deep.

    Okay, so I guess the argument is that Hillary refused to concede or suspend the night of June 3rd, so it must be her fault that the floodgates did not open right away.  The nerve!

    But even that is cause for concern, isn't it?  If a considerable number of those who should be the most motivated to give - those who have already been interested and involved enough to donate money to a presidential candidate - refuse to do so, this is a problem.  

    June is not vacation month; a lot of kids are still in school, the water's still pretty chilly at the east coast beaches - people are still engaged.  July and August - especially August - are big vacation months, so it should have been extra important to have huge fundraising numbers in June.

    Not only is July a big vacation month, but July is the month Obama sold out on FISA - and a lot of people who were considering opening up their wallets and checkbooks had second thoughts, to the point where a lot of them declared that no money would be given to the campaign.  A lot of them gave up their membership in the party, so disgusted were they with both Obama and the DNC.  That is going to show up in the July numbers.

    It's still a lot of money, and it's more than twice what McCain pulled in, but it seems to show that the more people see of Obama, the less willing they are to contribute to his election.  

    Count me as another one who finds the whole "courting" and wooing" frame to be seriously tone-deaf.  It wrongly assumes that those who have not climbed on the bandwagon are bitter, angry women who feel "jilted" and "betrayed," as opposed to recognizing that those who are not supporting Obama are both men and women, that we are intelligent and informed and made our decisions based on reason and principle.  For too many of us, there was a realization that we were not interested in settling for mediocre, were not willing to lower the bar just for the sake of the (D) behind his name, could not just ignore that on issue after issue, he was selling us out for conservative positions and votes.

    I don't want a candidate to seduce me with sweet talk and roses to get what he wants - I want a candidate who works his butt off to help me get what I want.

    Nailed it (none / 0) (#158)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:36:29 PM EST
    I don't want a candidate to seduce me with sweet talk and roses to get what he wants - I want a candidate who works his butt off to help me get what I want.


    [ Parent ]
    On the Other Hand (none / 0) (#204)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:13:43 PM EST
    Check out this analysis by Jerome Armstrong.  He thinks Obama deliberately decided not to raise more than this.  Armstrong specifically points to the mere $2 million that was raised for the general election.

    [ Parent ]
    Kerry vs. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:25:32 PM EST
    What's interesting is that in Obama's first month as the presumptive nominee (one could argue it's actually his second or fourth, but whatever), he failed to surpass his record for the contested part of the primary.

    Obama raised $40 million or so in March.  John Kerry raised about $45 million in March 2004.

    Obama raised about $30 million in April.  John Kerry raised about $31 million that month in 2004.

    Obama raised about $22 million in June.  John Kerry raised about $26 million in June 2004.

    Obama raised about $52 million in July.  John Kerry raised about $35 million in July of that month.

    So for all Obama's fundraising prowess, he's only about $10 million or so ahead of John Kerry's 2004 pace for the March-June period.

    June/July --> May/June (none / 0) (#191)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:27:45 PM EST
    sigh.

    [ Parent ]
    They're playing perception games (4.55 / 9) (#5)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:42:46 AM EST
    The original goal for June was $100 million. Then, when it became clear they weren't going to pull in anywhere near that, word on a haul of only $30 million got leaked. That deflated expectations, so now, when the actual take of $52 million is released, people will have been led to think they're doing better than expected.

    The Bush Administration plays this sort of game with economic numbers all the time. Underestimate, and then beat the underestimation.

    $52 million is certainly nothing to sneeze at, but the Obama campaign only managed a little better than half their fundraising goals. If I overestimate the expected income from my business by that kind of margin, I'm going to have all sorts of problems, because expenditures and financial commitments are often based on these projections. And if you're operating in a small, fixed time window like the Obama campaign, the problems are going to be compounded, because they're setting up operations based on those projections, there's not the anticipated money for follow-through, and you're consequently going to spread yourself way too thin. There's little breathing room for reevaluation and retrenchment.

    All this highlights another advantage of taking public financing--you have a very strict budget, and you aren't going to make decisions based on fantasies of how much money you're going to have. Obama's people seem to think they can revive the Obamamania of January and February. I don't think they can, and this hubris could ultimately cause their downfall. If McCain weren't such a lame opponent, I'd say it'd definitely bring them down.

    The Obama campaign have never (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by JoeA on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:49:16 AM EST
    talked about a $100 million target in June,  a couple of loudmouthed fundraisers might have, never the campaign.

    Nice try though.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, yeah (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:03:10 AM EST
    It's all Wade Rantlett's fault.

    I think we all know the Obama campaign's schtick by now. The more outre stuff always get said by proxies, which the campaign is more than happy to let sit out there unless and until the blowback hits. Wade Rantlett, et al, are now no longer the fundraisers they knew.

    Chuck Todd made pretty clear this morning--and he wasn't saying this in the context of a fundrasing discussion--that the Obama campaign is very much like the Bush campaigns in 2000 and 2004. It's very tightly controlled, and loose cannons are not tolerated. Lizza's detailed article in the New Yorker this week bears that out. I have no doubt the $100 million figure, and then the $30 million figure, were released with Obama and Axelrod's complete knowledge and approval.


    [ Parent ]

    the "Obama never SAID that" or (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:17:17 AM EST
    an Obama campaign OFFICIAL never SAID that has been standard practice since the beginning of this election cycle.

    The Obama fans have that talking point down so well that they use it even when someone "officially" associated with the campaign says something.  Then they just claim they aren't "really" a part of the campaign.

    They did this with Wes Clark most recently who is an OFFICIAL advisor to the Obama campaign.  They did it as far back as Rev WRight who also held an OFFICIAL post on the campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Even when Obama says it (3.00 / 2) (#90)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    He didn't say it

    [ Parent ]
    They're So Clever (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Claw on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:54:35 PM EST
    Aren't they?  Inventing a strategy that involves surrogates saying things that the candidate might not be able to say, or might want to be distanced from in the future.  If Obama's campaign is similar to Bush's (in terms of winning), great.  I don't care if Obama personally promises a free kitten to everyone who votes for him.  I DO NOT WANT MCCAIN IN THE WHITEHOUSE.
    You seem to be implying--by linking Obama's camp to Bush's--that "loose cannons" are good and tight control over a campaign is bad.
    Say it with me: there's a difference between running a POTUS campaign (especially that of the first black, secret Muslim, elitist), and the way you run your Whitehouse administration.
    Prediction:  This whole getting "proxies" to say what the candidate can't or doesn't want to say is going to catch on.  And I mean in an even bigger way than it did 200 years ago.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:57:43 PM EST
    I'm not for a moment implying that low tolerance for loose cannons or maintaining tight control over one's operations is a bad thing. All I'm saying is that I seriously doubt Randlett and others were shooting their mouths off about that $100 million expectation without Obama and Axelrod's approval. I think JoeA's claim that this was just a bunch of "loudmouthed fundraisers" talking nonsense independently of the campaign is ridiculous.
     

    [ Parent ]
    So (none / 0) (#195)
    by Claw on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:47:08 PM EST
    The comparison to Bush was just a harmless throwaway?  Obama isn't like Bush except that he's good at message management?  That was your point?  If so, why insert the Bush jab at all?  
    The point remains that Obama's "shtick" is very, very old.  It's been used by every winning candidate since candidates figured out they could get away with it.


    [ Parent ]
    Chill out (none / 0) (#200)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 03:49:24 PM EST
    While I'll grant Bush comparisons are derogatory 99% of the time, sometimes they aren't. In this case it certainly wasn't. I've never heard anyone criticize Dubya's Presidential campaigns for being inefficient and chaotic.


    [ Parent ]
    True (none / 0) (#206)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:26:40 PM EST
    But I have heard both of those things said about McCain's campaign.  HRC is a much more gifted politician than McCain and ran a more disciplined and efficient campaign that John McCain could ever dream of running.  And Obama beat her.

    And yes, it is a compliment to compare Obama's campaign to Bush's.

    The real issue is whether it was actually an Obama campaign surrogate who was quoted saying the Obama campaign planned to raise $100 million in June.

    I've heard several idiot MSM anchors refer to Jesse Jackson as an Obama surrogate, which couldn't be further from the truth.  Unless you believe the Obama campaign to be so disciplined and efficient that it deliberately got Jackson to say he wanted to cut Obama's nuts off just because it was a way to give play to Obama's Sistah Soljahing of black men in general.

    Not beyond the realm of possibility, but hard to believe Jackson would deliberately agree to make a fool of himself in public just to help Obama on a trivial point.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you mean (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:12:57 AM EST
    Obama's own loudmouthed fundraisers.

    [ Parent ]
    just followeed your link and some of the data (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:25:10 AM EST
    in it confused me.  There is talk in there that one of Obama's sources of money for the campaign will be from those small donors who may have given only $500 so far in small chunks.

    I thought Obama spent the entire primary trying to convince us that his base of small donors only gave an average in the $87 range.  But, now it appears that he is defining samll donors as a person who gave $500.  Doesn't sound too small to me.  It's not the max of $2300.  But, it isn't the $87 they tried to convince us of either.  If I give $2300, but do it in small chunks of $50 each, does that make me a small doner even though I maxed out?

    Besides, what difference does it make what they gave for the primary.  They can all just give another $2300 now for the general, right?

    [ Parent ]

    The FEC rules are that (none / 0) (#87)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:01:21 AM EST
    any one donor who gives over $200 in the aggregate has to be reported.  Their name, that is.

    How good any campaign is at tracking or reporting that properly, who knows?  The Obama campaign was criticized for not updating their reporting by individuals for several months.

    I always had trouble with their average donation numbers because for the longest time the campaign put out that Obama raised 265 million from 1.5 donors.  That is not an avg of $87, obviously.  Without crunching the numbers myself (a task which our journalists should be doing, except we have no real journalism anymore, we just have 'media'), I'm guessing $87 and $68 could be the average of whomever they are calling 'small dollar' donors.

    The interesting numbers will be number of donors and esp. number of new donors.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm guessing that the $68 or $87 or whichever (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:10:49 AM EST
    is actually the average per donation and NOT the average per donor.  I would guess that there are very few, if any, donors who have given $68 or $87 in total.

    That's why they have always reported that figure as the average DONATION.  I had one commenter on a blog come right out and tell me that he considered himself a "small" donor because he regularly gave in "small" amounts.  But, his total donation during the primary was well over $500.

    [ Parent ]

    That commenter may well have been me. (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:19:58 AM EST
    And it's still true.  Being able to cut a one-time check for $2000+ and needing to give in small increments as one's budget allows are very different things.  Repeated small donations are still small donations, even though they eventually add up.

    [ Parent ]
    then what you are saying (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:34:46 AM EST
    is that anyone could make themself "appear" as a small donor by just spreading their $2300 out over time.

    And, you may consider yourself a small donor...

    But, the Obama campaign has been trying to make it appear as those the "small" donors have given less  than $100 in total, not in each of several donations

    [ Parent ]

    The campaign spin's not interesting (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    to me.  They'll take the numbers and put the best political face on them, as they should.  Fine.  I think you see the campaign as possibly lying, and I don't, but whatever.  As long as they don't do anything that will get them skewered in the media, I don't care.  I like spin when it benefits Democrats.

    My point is just that people like me (and there are lots out there), who have become de facto "big" donors due to the length of the campaign, are quite a bit different than people attending $2000-a-plate dinners, and it's strange to see people trying to blur that line.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe the campaign is deliberately (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:26:23 AM EST
    distorting the facts.  And, they have used this distortion as part of their defense in deciding to flip / flop on their earlier commitment to take federal funds.

    They have made the claim that since they get so much of their money from "small" donors, they are complying with the "spirit" of campaign finance reform.

    If you look at their data, they get just as much of their money from large donors and bundlers and corporate donors as any other campaign in the past has.

    [ Parent ]

    [shrug] (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:55:28 AM EST
    As long as they're not doing anything illegal or anything that McCain can get traction by attacking, I could honestly care less.  A big pile of money is good to have, especially if it's publicly perceived to have come from Main Street instead of Wall Street.

    [ Parent ]
    well that kind of (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:36:16 PM EST
    shoots the "change" and "new kind of politics" themes all to hell, doesn't it.  Well, maybe not though because you are still saying it may well still be "perceived" as change and a new kind of politics even though it isn't in reality and the perception is all that matters to you.

    [ Parent ]
    Not really, no. (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:44:51 PM EST
    In point of fact, they've still taken in an unprecedented number of small donations, from more donors than any campaign in history.  They've taken the Dean model and done some truly amazing things with it, and I think in 20 years this campaign will be seen as having fundamentally changed what's possible in political fundraising.

    Spinning by presenting the numbers in the best possible light doesn't change those facts.  Good try, though.

    [ Parent ]

    i guess we may be (none / 0) (#176)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:22:29 PM EST
    talking right passed each other.  I'm not accepting raising a lot of money as being indicative of a "new kind of politics".

    What I'm expressing is that flipping on federal funds and then coming up with some kind of spin of your fund raising to justify it is exactly old style politics.  You've as much as said so by saying it's still good if it is "perceived" as being main street vs wall street.

    Why not, if you are new and change, just come right out and say....  "Hey, i decided i don't want to be held to 85 million when it has become apparent that I can likely raise way more than that on my own.  So, yes, I change my mind."

    To me it's all part and parcel of his recent flip/flops heading toward the center or center/right even though he used the perception that he was far more left or progressive in order to win in the primary.  Again, it just politics as usual.  It's not change or a new kind of politics.

    [ Parent ]

    Good points. (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    My response is that I'm glad to see Obama shedding the "new politics" thing when it's to his advantage.  It really was naive in many respects, and wasn't the reason I got behind him in the first place (FYI, that reason was theory of change stuff, although I'd prefer not to rehash it all now).  If abandoning a primary slogan that was too nebulous to begin with is the price he has to pay for the possibility of a huge fundraising advantage, I think he should pay it.

    [ Parent ]
    except (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    Obama needed the "new kind of politics" message during the primaries to get the nomination.

    So, I'm not sure who is really is.  Is this the real Obama and the one during the primaries was the lie??  Or is this one the lie???  Or, maybe there is yet a third or fourth Obama waiting to emerge.....

    [ Parent ]

    That's probably fair, too. (none / 0) (#193)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:29:01 PM EST
    That feeling is IMO the biggest obstacle he has remaining.  I think he's a highly pragmatic guy with genuinely progressive goals, and in the heat of a general election all that pragmatism can get hard to see through.

    [ Parent ]
    well... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:33:50 PM EST
    if you win a nomination with lies of being a "new kind of pol".

    Then what have you got left?

    If you are lying when you tell voters you won't lie like all politicians, what's the point?

    [ Parent ]

    maybe what I'm really trying to say here (none / 0) (#178)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    Is that I don't think that Obama's message of "change we can believe in" was intended to define a change in fund raising totals.  It was intended to mean that Obama and his campaign wouldn't be acting like pols and playing politics as usual.  But, they have.

    [ Parent ]
    Spinning IS lying, sport. (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:50:21 PM EST
    Your p.o.v. doesn't surprise me terribly. The sexism displayed during the primaries was okay because it helped our team to win. Ageism is already becoming okay even on this site.  Whatever it takes, right?

    What I don't understand is how you see yourself as more principled than your opposition.

    [ Parent ]

    Um, spinning's not lying. (3.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:59:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My mom called it (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:25:00 PM EST
    distorting the truth.

    [ Parent ]
    Spin: 2 definitions from WordReference forums (none / 0) (#192)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:28:03 PM EST
    Half-truths and lies used to manipulate consumers.

    "Spin" means the bending of words or seeming facts to suit one's commercial or political objectives. Similar to "lying."

    (And I wasn't referring to your post.)


    [ Parent ]

    I like your theory better than mine (none / 0) (#147)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:05:27 PM EST
    it makes more sense and seems more likely.

    Plouffe said there were 'many new donors' but gave no numbers, so I'm guessing 'many' is really 'not so many'.


    [ Parent ]

    Then they did a good job (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:54:49 AM EST
    Good political work by the Obama campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Honest to God (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Melchizedek on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:00:37 AM EST
    If Hillary had raised 52 million in a month after winning the nomination, this site would have exploded in ecstasy.

    In other news, the I-phone has had "good" sales recently.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:08:19 AM EST
    52 million is a good, not great, month for Obama.

    You want me to pretend it was a great month? Absurd. I expect Obama will easily surpass that total for July.

    [ Parent ]

    I thought it was great (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:53:55 AM EST
    He had tapered off each month since (I think) January and then bumped back up to that previous level.  I didn't expect his best month ever (I predicted 50 at another site) but to bump back up to that level when it is summer and people aren't paying attention and even on the net people are less motivated right now... I think it is much better than good.

    As long as he keeps creeping up, it's good media.  If he goes down, while McCain goes up... the media has an opportunity to spin it in a negative fashion.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is concentrating on lots (none / 0) (#96)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:08:54 AM EST
    of fundraising right now (as opposed to campaigning) so $50 mil is not surprising in light of his previous FR.  He should of course be concentrating on that because come the fall, he won't have as much FR time and he'll need a lot more face time with voters.

    The DNC's $20 mil is pretty anemic, although better than I expected given how little coh they had at the end of the primaries (under $5 mil).  But their really big FR push for themselves didn't start until June.  And the DNC numbers are really important because a lot of SDs and other pols were expecting big help from Obama and the DNC both for downticket races.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't recall... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:10:17 AM EST
    ...Hillary Clinton ever having her proxies out there mouthing off about anticipated fundraising income.


    [ Parent ]
    no, worse.. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ovah on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:05:46 AM EST

    Terry McAuliffe and the rest of the campaign convinced everyone that they raised $10million in a 24hr period following Penn primary when in reality they only raised just over $4million in TWO days.

    So happy we haven't had to listen to his spin lately.

    [ Parent ]

    20M in the red! Woo Hoo (none / 0) (#154)
    by dead dancer on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:25:26 PM EST
    Probably because Senator Clinton had nothing to mouth off about.

    Much respect for her; but as i recall, not much in the fund raising dept.

    20Million in the Hole! Woo Hoo!

    Just doesn't ring very well does it.

    [ Parent ]

    not much in the fund raising dept? (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:40:40 PM EST
    I believe, with the exception of Obama, Clinton raised more money than any other candidate in history.  But, don't let that stop you from making one more derogatory statement in an attempt to achieve some "unity".

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#155)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:28:40 PM EST
    I'm sure you got a kick out of making that post, but you will surely acknowledge that every political campaign on earth reports fundraising numbers in terms of gross and not net.

    [ Parent ]
    Melchizedek, you're not getting over it (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:05:13 AM EST
    and the Obamans' obsessions are tiresome.  Move on.  Lower-case "o," of course.

    [ Parent ]
    Linky-poo? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:02:38 AM EST
    The original goal for June was $100 million.


    [ Parent ]
    Here (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:07:01 AM EST
    All the links you could want.


    [ Parent ]
    It's a fair cop. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:11:42 AM EST
    Not necessarily the campaign's fundraising goal, but they certainly seem to have been putting the idea of a $100 million June out there.

    [ Parent ]
    here you go (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:07:07 AM EST
    Link

    [ Parent ]
    Cash on hand is cash on hand (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by rustydude on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:15:18 AM EST
    I too have run a small business.  Cash in the bank is exactly what the name implies... cash not spent.

    If all of Obama's plans are based on projections, he would have much, much less cash on hand.

    To me, this implies sort of the opposite of your doom and gloom analysis, that the Obama campaign actually knows fiscal responsibility and are not living beyond the means of what they "actually" raise.

    [ Parent ]

    Not quite. (none / 0) (#170)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:08:14 PM EST
    COH (Cash on hand) does not mean "cash not spent!"

    Depends on how big the bills owed are and when they come due.

    Much of cash on hand could have been spent on credit and owed for services already rendered.  Think salaries & benefits, for one...and reimbursements for staff travel, meals, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    You must have run a very small business (none / 0) (#185)
    by Pol C on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 02:07:36 PM EST
    I wouldn't be surprised if it was a one-person operation from the way you're talking.

    The scope of one's operations and the size of one's staff is determined by income projections. If you don't meet them, you have to scale back and downsize. With a short-term operation like a political campaign, that could prove disastrous.


    [ Parent ]

    I'm not believing this numbers... (3.40 / 5) (#119)
    by stefystef on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:37:53 AM EST
    but then again, I never really believed them.  A lot of hype, little substance.

    I know that I will never, EVER give a dollar to Obama or the DNC.  After reading the New Yorker article, I realized that Obama is a well-dressed, well-spoken charlatan.  He pretends to be "natural" and "organic", but he's far from it.  This paragraph near the end of the article said it all for me.

    Like many politicians, Obama is paradoxical. He is by nature an incrementalist, yet he has laid out an ambitious first-term agenda (energy independence, universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq). He campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game. He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the right.  

    He pretends to be an "everyman", but he's only about himself.  

    Personally, I'm staying home in November.  The "new" coalition can take care of this one.

    there's that claim of UHC again (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:05:59 AM EST
    Obama has NEVER promoted a policy of Universal Healthcare.  

    At Best he has proposed Universal ACCESS to insurance if you feel like buying it and don't have children.

    [ Parent ]

    Good month (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:28:35 AM EST
    but for Senate and Presidential races, the money raised for Federal accounts really doesn't tell you the full story. Typically, and I'm sure McCain is doing this, the candidate will raise lots of money for key state parties too. For example, I do not believe there is a contribution cap in Pennsylvania, and so that state party alone should be able to raise many millions in soft money. We just don't often see it reported.

    The Boston Globe is reporting (none / 0) (#145)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:59:21 AM EST
    that the DNC is taking advantage of this as well (I think this is what you are referring to?):

    And the DNC announced today that it has inked a joint fund-raising agreement with the Obama campaign and 18 state Democratic parties: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico,Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.


    [ Parent ]
    Apparently the initial release was incorrect (none / 0) (#4)
    by JoeA on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:42:42 AM EST
    and Obama's cash on hand is actually $72 million, so with another $20 million plus coh at the DNC, their total is not too far off the combined $100 million that McCain and the RNC have.

    link

    Smith says (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:48:53 AM EST
    The campaign has recently begun to tap maxed-out large donors for large general-election contributions,
    Recently??? I would be very concerned if they hadn't already made a pitch to their $2,300 donors about this. One of this things that the Clinton campaign got right was to ask for GE money upfront. For many people who can afford to give thousands, the difference between $2,300 and $4,600 is insignificant, but the time a fundraiser has to take to go after the second half is not insubstantial.

    [ Parent ]
    I was always perplexed by that (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:56:58 AM EST
    And yet, I assume Obama will have no trouble getting that money from the max donors.

    I still think the issue for Obama is bringing on the much hated Hill-raisers.

    [ Parent ]

    Nancy Pelosi and Obama campaign... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by ajain on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:12:14 AM EST
    ...must be feeling great right now for having demonized the Hillraisers. Those awful monied people who have sustained the party over the years.

    I hope there is some sort of retribution for their ridiculous behavior during the primaries. But I suspect that  that will happen once Obama is in office for a year or so.

    [ Parent ]

    82+ Million USD (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:57:04 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ummm (4.75 / 4) (#67)
    by CST on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:34:58 AM EST
    I think you are confused about the value of Euros.  If he actually made that money in Euros (which I am sure he didn't).  It would be worth more than 52 mil in dollars by a good margin.


    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:03:24 AM EST
    They can't win this election without the help of Hillary's big donors, who have to be good for at least $50M just by themselves.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh he will win no matter what (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:09:48 AM EST
    imo.

    But to hit the fundraising numbers that were part of the no public funding calculus, that needs to get straightened out.

    [ Parent ]

    You made your intrade bet yet? ;-) (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:12:49 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:17:04 AM EST
    Not yet but honestly, can you come up with the scenario where McCain wins? I can't.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure, (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:20:14 AM EST
    Either the economy looks up a bit and McCain stirs up racial resentment in SW PA and SE OH, or just more of the latter.

    His TV ads are pretty good. In fact, they seem to be the only part of his campaign that's working correctly.

    [ Parent ]

    A Bit? (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 10:59:29 AM EST
    Yea maybe if the euro went to .92 and gas prices went to below a dollar.  

    [ Parent ]
    Sure, a manufactured foreign policy crisis (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:24:56 AM EST
    that remind voters of their evaluations of McCain v. Obama as Commander in Chief. Fear is a powerful thing.

    [ Parent ]
    The scenario where McCain wins (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    is called the Republican slime machine.

    They haven't even begun the big push yet.

    I'd say 'the scenario' is history...2000, 2004, etc.

    You think the voters are smarter now?  Hells bells, the DEMOCRATS aren't even smarter now!

    My head hurts.

    [ Parent ]

    I think another scenario that may play out (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:42:45 PM EST
    is showing up in recent poll numbers reporting that the "youth" vote age 18 - 29 has dropped 20 points in a couple of months.  Prior reports showed that 66% of this group planned to show up in Nov to vote.  It is now down to 46%.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe, but the slime machine (none / 0) (#167)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    had better get in-gear soon.   The swiftboat ads came out in August 2004....

    And, I believe that the indepedent groups cannot reference a candidate by name within 60 days of the election (or something like that.)  So, the clock is ticking....

    [ Parent ]

    You actually think (none / 0) (#205)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:14:09 PM EST
    that television ads of Rev. Wright g.ding America and showing Michelle Obama being 'proud of her country for the first time yada, yada' need to mention the candidate's name to be effective?

    [ Parent ]
    I think a lot of progressives (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    believe that....But that is a very risky bet--that there is a margin of error....and enough time to focus on McCain...


    [ Parent ]
    if he will win no matter what (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:20:54 AM EST
    I hope those big donors take that into account.

    [ Parent ]
    perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:32:38 AM EST
    they will feel free to give their money to people fighting for issues.

    [ Parent ]
    No offense (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:55:52 AM EST
    But no where in my post do I discuss the total being 72 million for Obama and the DNC.

    Please discuss my post, not errors committed by others.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow. 52 million smackeroos? I gotta (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:52:11 AM EST
    admit, this fella's fund raising organization is a well-oiled machine. Progressives/America must really be desperate to get these right-wing hacks out of office this time.

    Do you really think all this $$ is coming from (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:00:15 AM EST
    "Progressives"?

     

    [ Parent ]

    Average contribution is $68... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:01:29 AM EST
    ...but maybe all those fatcats are being chintzy.

    [ Parent ]
    Misleading statistic really (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:04:30 AM EST
    What do you think it means that the average donation is 68$?

    [ Parent ]
    Does it not mean (2.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Pegasus on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:10:59 AM EST
    that they got what, 700,000-800,000 individual contributions, totaling $52 million?  I haven't looked at the numbers, but that seems believable.

    [ Parent ]
    but it doesn't mean (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:08:00 AM EST
    that those individual contributions came from 700,000 to 800,000 different people.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. The term ought to be donations (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    not donors.  It's like counting hits on a website.  

    If I pick up my newspaper three times in a day, I am not three subscribers or even three readers.  

    [ Parent ]

    but, that is exactly (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 11:49:24 AM EST
    what the Obama campaign wants people to believe.

    Obama used that misconception to provide cover for himself on his campaign finance flip/flop.  He claims that his huge number of "small" donors means that he is complying with the intent of campaign finance reform even while he rejects taking part in the federal funds.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, yes, exactly what I was saying. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:57:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, I know what you're driving at... (none / 0) (#29)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:10:48 AM EST
    ...they tally up the number of donations, and the total amount of money given, then divide the amount of money by the number of donations.  So you could have a bunch of 5 dollar, 25 dollar and 50 dollar donations, and not quite as many 500, 1000 and 2300 dollar donations, and the average would make it look like he was getting most of his money from small donors.

    BUT, having said that, in comparison to McCain (and Clinton, for that matter), Obama has received a larger share of his funding from small donors.  Maxed out donors constitute less than half of the funds he's raised.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe that is correct (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:25:03 AM EST
    Yes, all we heard from Feb. on was his amazing number of small donors, but the phrasing was always so 'artful' that it wasn't until folks started to look at actual FEC fillings that reality was a bit different than how the campaign was painting it.

    I'll buy the numbers, esp. the average, when I see the actual filings.  The fact that there's no mention of the number of donors is interesting.  It's all about the data, not the spin.  Or should be.

    [ Parent ]

    That will change quickly (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:13:21 AM EST
    imo IF Obama  is successful in his fundraising goals.

    [ Parent ]
    A better statistic would be the median donation (none / 0) (#31)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:11:17 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Either the median or the mode. . . (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:13:29 AM EST
    and both are going to be closer to $20, I'd imagine.

    [ Parent ]
    Better statistic (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:15:59 AM EST
    percentage of total coming from max donors.

    [ Parent ]
    Percentage of (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:35:41 AM EST
    dollars, or percentage of contributions?

    [ Parent ]
    Shrug (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:44:17 AM EST
    Pick your statistic.  It's all spin of one variety or another.

    Now that we're in the GE, there's no longer a point to boasting about whether we're running a grassroots campaign or what have you.  I think we can all be confident we'll beat the GOP on that score.

    [ Parent ]

    No, they still need to push the grassroots (none / 0) (#150)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:14:42 PM EST
    riff, and will right up until the GE.

    True or not, it plays extremely well with people who haven't been paying much attention yet and/or political naives.  It's cover for a divided party as well as anti-Republican propaganda.  BO needs both.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh...yes. (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:13:35 AM EST
    Some (or maybe a lot) of the money is coming from smart Hillary supporters who want to see her on the ticket.  

    [ Parent ]
    Some, or maybe a LOT of the money (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by MsExPat on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    is coming from corporate donors who see the writing on the wall and want to make sure they've got a place at the table.

    That's the way politics works in America, business as usual.

    I find it annoying that Obama's surrogates and supporters keep pushing the talking point that the candidate's money is somehow "cleaner", that their big cash flow is surging in from "progressives" and small donors.

    BTD nails it. The key statistic is the % of funds raised from max donors. I'd also like to see the % of funds raised by bundlers. And another useful table is the donors-by-industry.

    [