Obama’s fundraising was Super, Man.
Something wild is happening.
Sen. Barack Obama raised at least $25 million for his presidential campaign in the first quarter of the year, putting him just shy of Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, who made a splash with her announcement Sunday that she had drawn a record-breaking $26 million.
Obama (D-Ill.) appears to have surpassed Clinton in several ways: He raised $6.9 million through donations over the Internet, more than the $4.2 million than Clinton (N.Y.) raised online. He reported donations from 100,000 people, double the 50,000 people who gave to Clinton.
It’s also notable that the top three Democratic candidates - Clinton, Obama, and Edwards - have raised a total of $65 million. The Republican top 3 raised about $50 million (and a little less than half of that was Mitt Romney, a candidate in the single digits).
I don’t care what anyone else says, I support Obama. While I haven’t donated anything, I am still impressed by him, regardless of his political inexperinece. In fact, at this point in the game, I really don’t consider that a negative.
As Jack Nicholson said:
“This town needs an enema!”
You’re buying into the money as some kind of barometer of success. Big mistake.
Jay:
100,000 donors
5,000 simultaneous house parties giving millions
consistent good showings in both primary and general election matchups
this is a mistaken impression of success how, exactly?
Mike, if the establishment wing of the Democratic Party chooses to back John Edwards, I don’t care how much Hillary or Obama raises.
The same goes on the Republican side.
In almost all cases, the establishment candidate always comes out on top because he/she has the insider support.
Look at what happened with Howard Dean. Polled extremely well. Raised tons of cash (he had $40 million at one point) and drew crowds of thousands at rallies in the summer and fall of 2003. His candidacy circled the drain after the Iowa caucuses and went right down after losing NH. Who was enthusiastic about John Kerry? Nobody but the establishment and that’s who got the nomination.
Jay does speak the truth. The real question will be whether or not the Democrats have learned anything from 2004.
Well, its an unfortunate situation, but people like us assume everybody else knows about the candidates like we do.
Fact is, most people don’t know squat. They vote Democrat because that’s how they vote. They vote Republican because of the same reason. Ask a good number of people why they support a particular candidate and most of the time they’ll simply tell you why they’re not voting for their opponent.
The problem is, they don’t know! So when local headquarters has gotten the marching orders from county and county has gotten them from state and state has gotten them from national, game over. Enthusiasm and lots of cash just cannot compete with that already built in infrastructure.
Unfortunately, I believe that technology has replaced good old fashioned footwork as a way of drumming up support for campaigns, but we forget that a good number of people, while online are there for a couple of reasons:
1. To pay bills
2. To send and receive email
They’re not actively involved in campaigns online. When was the last time, you had somebody knock on your door to push for one candidate or another?
Technology is great. Don’t get me wrong. It helps a lot, but still doesn’t reach as many people as good old fashioned footwork. Ask most people on the street if they’ve read Barack Obama’s blog and most people will ask, “What the hell is a blog?”
I just think that we need to infuse more old school techniques along with the new in order to move people to think outside the box and not just go with what the establishment thinks is the most ‘winnable’ candidate.
Jay, by establishment wing, do you mean rank and file, low to medium information primary voters?
I agree that the challenge is to impress and inspire them, in order to get enough to take a perceived risk with their vote.
I do worry that there may be a component of the Democratic primary electorate for whom ethnicity and gender matter in a negative way…
Jay, by establishment wing, do you mean rank and file, low to medium information primary voters?
Not just establishment voters, but also the the establishment of the party. At some point, the party (GOP or Dem) decides at some point to back a candidate. Now you may see guys on TV talking about how they don’t care which one comes out on top after the primaries and that’s true, but it means nothing in the nuts and bolts scheme of things. They may not care if candidate B wins, but its candidate A that the party infrastructure is putting their weight behind.
I guess after following Presidential campaigns closely for 15 years, I’ve become more cynical as to how they are run. Believe it or not, we’re not that far removed from the whole ’smoky room’ scenario where a candidate is hand picked and a few people decide, “This is the one” and that’s what happens.
I do worry that there may be a component of the Democratic primary electorate for whom ethnicity and gender matter in a negative way…
And part of me worries that the reason for that component is that such Democrats are afraid of the sexist and racist contingents out there who wouldn’t vote for the reincarnation of Christ if he came back as a black woman. That is, these Democrats will flee at the possibility of losing with Obama, say, because being hated by white-power types is a negative on him.
Spider, that’s pretty much my thought.
If someone won’t vote for a candidate because they think their ethnicity or gender will make them “unelectable”, I’d kindly invite them to get the F out of my party. Their participation is no longer desired.
Jay, I have my own conspiracy theory about Dean’s downfall in 2004. In early December, in a Hardball interview, Dean came out for a restoration of the Fairness Doctrine and an investigation/restraint of media consolidation. Shortly thereafter, his press coverage went way negative.
Gephardt went hard against Dean, who had to respond in kind. Also, apparently some of his supporters in IA annoyed the caucus-goers. It all added up, eventually.
I really think Obama’s presence in the campaign makes Edwards somewhat redundant–fresh face with new ideas and a call for unity, great speaker, etc.
these Democrats will flee at the possibility of losing with Obama, say, because being hated by white-power types is a negative on him.
Then fuck ‘em.
Damn it, Jay. You’re absolutely right and it pisses me off. I’m trying to get my 18 yo daughter interested in politics (and she already is, by and large), and she is really psyched to vote for the first time, but what the hell do I tell her? “You can vote for whomever you want, ‘cuz in the end, it really depends on who the money wants to win.”
Depressing. And cynical.
I don’t know that much about Edwards, except of what we say the last time, but I don’t really see him as a fresh face with new ideas. He’s a repeat.
I liked Lewis Black’s idea about picking a President; You throw a cat out of a plane at 50,000 feet. Whoever it lands on, that’s your new President.
…or something like that.
she is really psyched to vote for the first time, but what the hell do I tell her?
Simple: tell her to judge a candidate by his / her enemies. If you don’t like the people that don’t like John Doe, then vote for John Doe. That’s a perfect formula for voting at the national level.
Democracy doesn’t mean that everybody gets a shot at being President. There is a process in place that serves to judge a candidate’s mettle.
Raising money isn’t everything. Face time and reaching the people still matter.
Still cynical, Frank. It ain’t who you vote for, it’s who you vote against.
Duros: As usual, you have misinterpreted what I said. I didn’t say you vote against anyone. I said you can judge a candidate by what his enemies say about him.
I wasn’t referring to your antipathy towards the President, which is why you voted for Kerry. And why he lost.
I didn’t misinterpret, I paraphrased.
The second part, I don’t own. Kerry lost because I voted for him? I had no idea I had so much influence.