Money Primary, Part 2
Tweet
Obama is reporting at least $32.5 million and it seems like he will beat Sen. Clinton’s totals again. I believe Edwards is at $9 million and Richardson at $7 million. What is interesting is that even though his fundraising is slightly better, Sen. Obama is still behind Sen. Clinton in the polls…
21 Responses to “Money Primary, Part 2”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
How much as Obama spent?
Also, if he does come up short in the primaries, can he give that money to other Democrats?
Barack Obama still has low name id. With TV ads and time, his poll numbers will reflect his grassroots support. Things will shake up later this summer and fall.
Obama is a winner. I suspect the Dems, who nominate losers will go with Hillary.
“Obama is a winner. I suspect the Dems, who nominate losers will go with Hillary.”
Hillary wins head to head against each of the Republican frontrunners.
The money was pretty close between Obama and Clinton, considering.
I have to say I am very happy with the strong showing and evidence of strong support for all the Democratic Primary candidates.
They are reaching into grassroots passion, they are reaching into new bases, they are reaching Americans who are soooo tired of the GOP.
I look across the aisle, and I have to like my chances in 2008.
It’s all about New Hampshire, Iowa, and South Carolina this time.
That’s why Hillary isn’t as unbeatable, and Edwards is still in this thing because of his early state numbers.
Obama is going to be the alternative here in the end. Let’s see if teh youths end up showing up to vote and not just making friends with him on Facebook.
I’m with Vic. Being a Democrat is like being a Red Sox fan used to be. 2004 for the Democrats was like 1986 for the Sox.
Money tawlks, and bullshit wawlks.
Damn I hope Obama wins the nomination. Hillary might win the general, but Obama could end up being the Democratic Reagan. As in, “Obama Republicans”.
“Damn I hope Obama wins the nomination.”
If it’s Obama vs. RANDOM REPUBLICAN, I like Obama’s chances.
On the other hand, if it is Obama vs. Guliani vs. Bloomberg, he’s in serious trouble.
It’s still shaking out, but my money’s on Hillary-Obama vs. Thompson-Romney.
As I said, I like my chances.
“On the other hand, if it is Obama vs. Guliani vs. Bloomberg, he’s in serious trouble.”
Maybe not. Can you imagine the Republican base (especially down south) trying to decide whether to vote for a black person, a Catholic, or a Jew? Their heads will explode, hence they will stay at home and their vote will not affect the outcome.
2004 for the Democrats was like 1986 for the Sox.
You won’t win the big one for another 18 years?!?
She’s not slightly behind in fund raising. She’s way behind, and it’s going to be impossible for her to beat him in future quarters. She raised about 21 for the primary. Obama raised about 30 for the primary. She raised about another 6.5 for the general, and he raised about another 1 for the general. Why “for the general”? Because she needed the big number to compare to Obama’s totals, so she went back to people who had already maxed out for her. Obama also had a little “repeat business” from the big donors, but not nearly as much. Hillary is relying to a much larger degree on large donors. Obama has a broader donor base and much larger growth potential.
As for polls, Lieberman led at this point in 2003.
She’s not slightly behind in fund raising. She’s way behind, and it’s going to be impossible for her to beat him in future quarters. She raised about 21 for the primary. Obama raised about 30 for the primary. She raised about another 6.5 for the general, and he raised about another 1 for the general. Why “for the general”? Because she needed the big number to compare to Obama’s totals, so she went back to people who had already maxed out for her. Obama also had a little “repeat business” from the big donors, but not nearly as much. Hillary is relying to a much larger degree on large donors. Obama has a broader donor base and much larger growth potential.
As for polls, Lieberman led at this point in 2003.
Actually I think John Kerry was leading at this point in ’03. Either way, HRC isn’t Lieberman and money does not get you the nomination – ask Howard Dean.
Me: “On the other hand, if it is Obama vs. Guliani vs. Bloomberg, he’s in serious trouble.”
EL: “Maybe not. Can you imagine the Republican base (especially down south) trying to decide whether to vote for a black person, a Catholic, or a Jew? Their heads will explode, hence they will stay at home and their vote will not affect the outcome.”
Rudy’s an authoritarian and a political bully, just like Bush. He’ll be able to carry almost every state Bush did while the Anti-Rudy vote will be split by Bloomberg, especially in New York.
Fortunately, the RR have said they will veto Rudy’s run and he is dipping in the polls.
I still think that, when the chips are down, it’s hard to see the primary voters going for someone as polarizing as Clinton.
As other commenters have noted, Edwards is still in the ballgame because of Iowa and New Hampshire, and as still others have noted, 2004 showed us that things can be a lot different this far out than they will be by February.
Edwards could cut out a few haircuts and pass ‘em all.
“As other commenters have noted, Edwards is still in the ballgame because of Iowa and New Hampshire,”
ARG has Clinton now leading in all three early primaries…
* In Iowa, Clinton leads with 32%, followed by Edwards at 29% and Obama way behind at 13%.
* In New Hampshire, Clinton leads with 34%, followed by Obama at 25% and Edwards at 11%.
* In South Carolina, Clinton leads with 37%, followed by Edwards at 22% and Obama at 21%.
Unless something major happens, Edwards will fall to second tier by the end of Q3. He might get some VP talk, but that seems unlikely.
eslwchxp pmbgqkh jrlysq ojwygdziv lorawn iovmgba tnyzfkve