• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Obama Doubles Clinton's March Fundraising

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
140
116
These numbers are nothing short of staggering, especially considering 1) the Clintons' deep ties to Democratic donors and 2) Obama is doing this almost entirely on the backing of small donors who can keep giving more every month without hitting the donation limit.

The poll numbers for Hillary in PA were already dropping ahead of the full campaign ad blitz, and now Obama is projected to outspend her drastically in the state before the primary. Nobody (not even me) expects Obama to win PA, but picking up a handful of elected delegates isn't going to help Hillary's campaign at all. Everyone is aware of her "math problem" at this point, especially after she won then lost Texas.

Text

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer

Sen. Barack Obama, second to none in the race for campaign cash, raised more than $40 million in March and boosted his vast network of donors to nearly 1.3 million, the campaign announced Thursday.

The amount is less than the record $55 million he raised in February, but still a sizable amount that sustains his place as the fundraising leader among all presidential candidates. The money gives him a substantial financial advantage over Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton as they compete for votes heading into the April 22 Pennsylvania primary.

Clinton is expected to have raised about $20 million in March, but her campaign has not announced any totals. Details of their March fundraising will be made public in official reports filed with the Federal Election Commission April 20.

The Obama campaign said it attracted more than 218,000 first-time donors in March.

"Many of our contributors are volunteering for the campaign, making our campaign the largest grass-roots army in recent political history," campaign manager David Plouffe said.

Obama has been the candidate most successful at blending high dollar donors with small contributions by deft use of the Internet. He has had the highest number of donors contributing $200 or less.

"We knew that he was going to outraise us," Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said. "He has outraised us over the last several months."

Wolfson said the campaign will have the resources they need to compete and be successful in the upcoming primaries. He pointed to Clinton's base of support from online fundraising, saying she had raised about $1 million online on March 31.

Obama's announcement comes as both Democrats return to a popular financial wellhead, raising money in California to help finance a heavy stretch of spending in April. With their race for the Democratic nomination showing no signs of ending, tapping donors for more cash has new urgency.

Obama has scheduled fundraisers at the homes of four different financial backers Sunday afternoon and evening in northern California. Clinton attended one fundraiser Wednesday in Silicon Valley, and had three planned for Thursday ? in San Francisco, Pasadena and Los Angeles.

Most of the events are for donors giving the $2,300 maximum allowed by law.

Obama raised a record $55 million in February; Clinton raised $34.5 million.

Though the New York senator trails Obama in delegates needed for the nomination, Clinton advisers and fundraisers said her donors remain enthusiastic. But her fundraisers also say she relied too much on large donors early in the cycle.

"That pool is reduced," said Larry Stone, a Clinton fundraiser in Silicon Valley who also is the Santa Clara County assessor. "Hillary came really late to the game in effective fundraising on the Internet as compared to Barack Obama ... Many of the solid enthusiastic Clinton supporters were maxed out."

But Stone added: "A big boon to the fundraising has been these appeals for her to withdraw. It makes supporters angry, especially women."

Clinton aides said Wednesday that they anticipate Obama will outspend her by 2-to-1 in Pennsylvania. In the first round of campaign ads, Obama spent about $2 million to Clinton's $450,000, according to data compiled by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads. Obama is also already airing ads in Indiana and North Carolina, which won't hold primaries until next month.

"We don't expect to match Senator Obama ad for ad," Wolfson told reporters during a conference call Wednesday.

Clinton entered March with $11.5 million to spend in the primary compared to $30.5 million for Obama. Moreover, Clinton owed $8.7 million to several campaign vendors at the end of February. A spot check by The Associated Press of several vendors found many were paid last month, after the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas. The cost of those two contests, together with efforts to reduce campaign debt, have kept fundraising a priority for her campaign.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,357
5,359
126
so how much have obamarama and mrs. william jefferson clinton raised in total?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
140
116
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama and his unions/527s outspent Clinton in Ohio 3-1. We saw how that went.
He outspent her in Texas too, and look how that went.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,607
211
106
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama and his unions/527s outspent Clinton in Ohio 3-1. We saw how that went.
He outspent her in Texas too, and look how that went.
Clinton won the popular vote. Would have won the delegate count had the system reflected a true primary system. Again, many more people voted in a primary than caucused. Obama's strength is getting activists to caucus. The dirty little secret is that Obama is racking up the delegate lead by winning large in red state caucuses. This won't be the case in a general. Again, Texas and Washington state are two examples where Obama's strength and weakness are exposed. Obama won the Washington state caucus by more than 35% ( about 200k caucused). 10 days latter, he only won the Washington state non-binding primary by 5% ( where over 600k people voted).

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
140
116
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Clinton won the popular vote. Would have won the delegate count had the system reflected a true primary system. Again, many more people voted in a primary than caucused. Obama's strength is getting activists to caucus. The dirty little secret is that Obama is racking up the delegate lead by winning large in red state caucuses. This won't be the case in a general. Again, Texas and Washington state are two examples where Obama's strength and weakness are exposed. Obama won the Washington state caucus by more than 35% ( about 200k caucused). 10 days latter, he only won the Washington state non-binding primary by 5% ( where over 600k people voted).
You make it sound like it's the fault of the system that Hillary is losing, even though that system has been in place for a long, long time. Every candidate knows how the nomination process works, and the winning candidate is the person who understands this process in its entirety (primaries and caucuses).

If anything, it should be Hillary who has the best understanding of how the nomination process works, since she already went through it once before Bill's first term.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Clinton won the popular vote. Would have won the delegate count had the system reflected a true primary system. Again, many more people voted in a primary than caucused. Obama's strength is getting activists to caucus. The dirty little secret is that Obama is racking up the delegate lead by winning large in red state caucuses. This won't be the case in a general. Again, Texas and Washington state are two examples where Obama's strength and weakness are exposed. Obama won the Washington state caucus by more than 35% ( about 200k caucused). 10 days latter, he only won the Washington state non-binding primary by 5% ( where over 600k people voted).
You make it sound like it's the fault of the system that Hillary is losing, even though that system has been in place for a long, long time. Every candidate knows how the nomination process works, and the winning candidate is the person who understands this process in its entirety (primaries and caucuses).

If anything, it should be Hillary who has the best understanding of how the nomination process works, since she already went through it once before Bill's first term.
when all is said and done, I think the best candidate will have won the democratic primary... but how can you deny the fact that it takes a pretty fucked up system to have Hillary win a state (Texas) by a pretty decent chunk of votes and walk away with fewer delegates than the loser.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,635
1,874
126
Clinton won the popular vote. Would have won the delegate count had the system reflected a true primary system. Again, many more people voted in a primary than caucused. Obama's strength is getting activists to caucus. The dirty little secret is that Obama is racking up the delegate lead by winning large in red state caucuses. This won't be the case in a general. Again, Texas and Washington state are two examples where Obama's strength and weakness are exposed. Obama won the Washington state caucus by more than 35% ( about 200k caucused). 10 days latter, he only won the Washington state non-binding primary by 5% ( where over 600k people voted).
And given Hillary's "experience', she should be well aware of how the process works...that Obama legally followed a strategy that plays to his strengths speaks highly of his political skills.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama and his unions/527s outspent Clinton in Ohio 3-1. We saw how that went.
He outspent her in Texas too, and look how that went.
Clinton won the popular vote. Would have won the delegate count had the system reflected a true primary system. Again, many more people voted in a primary than caucused. Obama's strength is getting activists to caucus. The dirty little secret is that Obama is racking up the delegate lead by winning large in red state caucuses. This won't be the case in a general. Again, Texas and Washington state are two examples where Obama's strength and weakness are exposed. Obama won the Washington state caucus by more than 35% ( about 200k caucused). 10 days latter, he only won the Washington state non-binding primary by 5% ( where over 600k people voted).
Thank you, couldn't have said it better myself. It's been said by so many people, journalists and politicians alike, that caucases are not truly democratic.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
0
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama and his unions/527s outspent Clinton in Ohio 3-1. We saw how that went.
He outspent her in Texas too, and look how that went.
Clinton won the popular vote. Would have won the delegate count had the system reflected a true primary system. Again, many more people voted in a primary than caucused. Obama's strength is getting activists to caucus. The dirty little secret is that Obama is racking up the delegate lead by winning large in red state caucuses. This won't be the case in a general. Again, Texas and Washington state are two examples where Obama's strength and weakness are exposed. Obama won the Washington state caucus by more than 35% ( about 200k caucused). 10 days latter, he only won the Washington state non-binding primary by 5% ( where over 600k people voted).
Exactly.

Caucuses are not fair because they're more a measure of how much a candidate inspires voters.

Your logic ignores two things that may or may not be true:
(1) Campaigning affects the outcome
(2) The ideal way to campaign for a caucus is different from the ideal way to campaign for a primary

I would imagine that the Obama campaign would have done things differently in Texas if they knew that there were no caucus (or convention) portion to the delegate allocation. They would have also done things differently in Washington (and Michigan and Florida for that matter) if the primary mattered for any delegates.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,991
0
0
Oops... Replied to wrong post! :eek:

Edit: And now reposted instead of edited. :eek: :eek:
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,991
0
0
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama and his unions/527s outspent Clinton in Ohio 3-1. We saw how that went.
He outspent her in Texas too, and look how that went.
Clinton won the popular vote. Would have won the delegate count had the system reflected a true primary system. Again, many more people voted in a primary than caucused. Obama's strength is getting activists to caucus. The dirty little secret is that Obama is racking up the delegate lead by winning large in red state caucuses. This won't be the case in a general. Again, Texas and Washington state are two examples where Obama's strength and weakness are exposed. Obama won the Washington state caucus by more than 35% ( about 200k caucused). 10 days latter, he only won the Washington state non-binding primary by 5% ( where over 600k people voted).
Thank you, couldn't have said it better myself. It's been said by so many people, journalists and politicians alike, that caucases are not truly democratic.
Well then it's time to fix the system but you can't blame Obama for winning the way it currently stands. Would you be arguing so strongly against caucuses if Hillary was leading because of them? I'm guessing the answer is no.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama and his unions/527s outspent Clinton in Ohio 3-1. We saw how that went.
He outspent her in Texas too, and look how that went.
Clinton won the popular vote. Would have won the delegate count had the system reflected a true primary system. Again, many more people voted in a primary than caucused. Obama's strength is getting activists to caucus. The dirty little secret is that Obama is racking up the delegate lead by winning large in red state caucuses. This won't be the case in a general. Again, Texas and Washington state are two examples where Obama's strength and weakness are exposed. Obama won the Washington state caucus by more than 35% ( about 200k caucused). 10 days latter, he only won the Washington state non-binding primary by 5% ( where over 600k people voted).
Thank you, couldn't have said it better myself. It's been said by so many people, journalists and politicians alike, that caucases are not truly democratic.
Well then it's time to fix the system but you can't blame Obama for winning the way it currently stands. Would you be arguing so strongly against caucuses if Hillary was leading because of them? I'm guessing the answer is no.
personally, I blame caucuses for Kerry '04. ;) they'll be on my shitlist for awhile.
 

CellarDoor

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2004
1,574
0
0
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama and his unions/527s outspent Clinton in Ohio 3-1. We saw how that went.
Yep. That money advantage was able to help him reduce 20%+ leads in both Ohio and Texas.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
23,003
770
126
Originally posted by: CellarDoor
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama and his unions/527s outspent Clinton in Ohio 3-1. We saw how that went.
Yep. That money advantage was able to help him reduce 20%+ leads in both Ohio and Texas.
<HillaryBots> BUT HILLARY WON THOSE STATES, RAAAAAAAAAAAWR! :laugh:
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: CellarDoor
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama and his unions/527s outspent Clinton in Ohio 3-1. We saw how that went.
Yep. That money advantage was able to help him reduce 20%+ leads in both Ohio and Texas.
<HillaryBots> BUT HILLARY WON THOSE STATES, RAAAAAAAAAAAWR! :laugh:
sometimes I get the vague impression that you like Obama. ;)
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,471
1
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: CellarDoor
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Obama and his unions/527s outspent Clinton in Ohio 3-1. We saw how that went.
Yep. That money advantage was able to help him reduce 20%+ leads in both Ohio and Texas.
<HillaryBots> BUT HILLARY WON THOSE STATES, RAAAAAAAAAAAWR! :laugh:
Well, she did...
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,256
3,291
136
Hillariacs:

"We lost Iowa, we lost South Carolina, we lost Missorrah, we lost Virginia, we lost Wisconsin, we lost Texas, we're going to lose Indiana and North Carolina, and we're going to lose all the way to the White Hooooouuuuuse!!.....Byaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!"
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,387
140
116
This thread quickly devolved into a debate about the validity of caucuses, but few are discussing the fact that Obama DOUBLED Hillary's fundraising in March.

I thought the momentum of Hillary's huge wins on March 4th would have paved the way for a record fundraising month. Instead, it seems her donors see the writing on the walls, even if she can't.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,607
211
106
Originally posted by: Hafen
Hillariacs:

"We lost Iowa, we lost South Carolina, we lost Missorrah, we lost Virginia, we lost Wisconsin, we lost Texas, we're going to lose Indiana and North Carolina, and we're going to lose all the way to the White Hooooouuuuuse!!.....Byaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!"
as opposed to Obama's we won

IDAHO caucus, North Dakota caucus, Nebraska! caucus, Kansas caucus , Wyoming caucus, Utah! caucus, Alaska caucus, etc.

Obama and his millions of dollars also lost in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, etc and TIED in Missouri and will lose in PA, PR, KY, WV, and I believe in IN.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,921
3
0
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: Hafen
Hillariacs:

"We lost Iowa, we lost South Carolina, we lost Missorrah, we lost Virginia, we lost Wisconsin, we lost Texas, we're going to lose Indiana and North Carolina, and we're going to lose all the way to the White Hooooouuuuuse!!.....Byaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!"
as opposed to Obama's we won

IDAHO caucus, North Dakota caucus, Nebraska! caucus, Kansas caucus , Wyoming caucus, Utah! caucus, Alaska caucus, etc.

Obama and his millions of dollars also lost in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, etc and TIED in Missouri and will lose in PA, PR, KY, WV, and I believe in IN.
Tied in Missouri, but lost New Mexico. Applying different standards are we?
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,607
211
106
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: Hafen
Hillariacs:

"We lost Iowa, we lost South Carolina, we lost Missorrah, we lost Virginia, we lost Wisconsin, we lost Texas, we're going to lose Indiana and North Carolina, and we're going to lose all the way to the White Hooooouuuuuse!!.....Byaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!"
as opposed to Obama's we won

IDAHO caucus, North Dakota caucus, Nebraska! caucus, Kansas caucus , Wyoming caucus, Utah! caucus, Alaska caucus, etc.

Obama and his millions of dollars also lost in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, etc and TIED in Missouri and will lose in PA, PR, KY, WV, and I believe in IN.
Tied in Missouri, but lost New Mexico. Applying different standards are we?
Clinton won New Mexico in both popular vote and delegates.
Clinton tied the delegate count in Missouri. I am going by Hafen's standard where he said that Obama won Texas based on delegates.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,136
37
91
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: Hafen
Hillariacs:

"We lost Iowa, we lost South Carolina, we lost Missorrah, we lost Virginia, we lost Wisconsin, we lost Texas, we're going to lose Indiana and North Carolina, and we're going to lose all the way to the White Hooooouuuuuse!!.....Byaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!"
as opposed to Obama's we won

IDAHO caucus, North Dakota caucus, Nebraska! caucus, Kansas caucus , Wyoming caucus, Utah! caucus, Alaska caucus, etc.

Obama and his millions of dollars also lost in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, etc and TIED in Missouri and will lose in PA, PR, KY, WV, and I believe in IN.
Factor in the Clinton brand/name recognition and it's easy to see why she won. Isn't that obvious to you?
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,607
211
106
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: Hafen
Hillariacs:

"We lost Iowa, we lost South Carolina, we lost Missorrah, we lost Virginia, we lost Wisconsin, we lost Texas, we're going to lose Indiana and North Carolina, and we're going to lose all the way to the White Hooooouuuuuse!!.....Byaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!"
as opposed to Obama's we won

IDAHO caucus, North Dakota caucus, Nebraska! caucus, Kansas caucus , Wyoming caucus, Utah! caucus, Alaska caucus, etc.

Obama and his millions of dollars also lost in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arkansas, etc and TIED in Missouri and will lose in PA, PR, KY, WV, and I believe in IN.
Factor in the Clinton brand/name recognition and it's easy to see why she won. Isn't that obvious to you?
see, when Clinton wins, it's all about low-information voters who only knuckle drag themselves to the voting booths and pick the first name they recognize. Obama's wins are because people know what he stands for and not for the empty platitudes of hope and change. :roll:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS