What Obama's June Fundraising Means
I think I'm going to soon have a sweet, sweet, love hangover for Andrew Romano over at Newsweek. I may need to read some of his past posts when Hillary was still getting ample media coverage before I declare my love though. Today, the Obama campaigned announced that they'd raised $52 million in June and as soon as I read the headline I sucked my teeth and mumbled some expletives. Mr. Romano adds some perspective for anyone interested and I think it's worth sharing:
That said, it's worth noting that the basic contours of the cash contest haven't changed: Obama is breaking records and McCain is holding his own. Two numbers tell the entire story: $2 million and $68. The latter is the average size of a contribution to the Obama campaign in June. The amazing thing is that it's about $30 lower than the average contribution in May, April or March. This indicates that the senator attracted a massive number of new $5, $10, $20 donors once the primaries ended--presumably from the ranks of devoted Dems who had (until then) supported Hillary Clinton. Going forward, the sustained growth of this small-sum base is by far Obama's biggest advantage over McCain, who's relying mostly on big-money people to max out and move along.
On the other hand, the $2 million--i.e., the meager amount Obama banked last month for the general election--symbolizes the challenges he still faces, despite more than doubling McCain's monthly tally. Of course, he doesn't need the dinero now; one can't even start spending general-election funds until the end of August. But because McCain opted into the public financing system, he'll get a lump sum of $84.1 million (or $42 million per month) after the Republican convention, plus about $100 million of assistance from the RNC--meaning he can focus the final leg of his campaign on the voters instead of the fat cats. Obama, meanwhile, must keep posting $50 million dollar months from now until November AND begin to collect money for the general--because the less he saves during the dog days of the summer, the more time he'll have to waste gladhanding in the homestretch.
An additional dose of strategery, it seems, is in order.
Brilliant insight. Just, brilliant. Spread the word and do not allow yourself to be tossed into the media spin-zone. --SUGAR
Okay, I'm a bit skeptical about those new small donors.
A few days ago the WSJ announces that Ohbiteme raised 30 mil, then all of a sudden CampO announces 52 mil from thousands of new little people?
Huh?
Little itty-bitty donor contributions so small they don't have to be documented?
Oh, yeah, I believe that.
Posted by: josgirl | July 17, 2008 at 03:46 PM
One other thing - Obama's "burn rate" is WAY MORE than McCain's.
According to the article below(yeah - I know it's the Weekly Standard - but no one else is reporting this!!), Obama is spending $42 Million a MONTH! Whoa!
LINK: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/the_obama_campaigns_out_of_con_1.asp
Posted by: LM | July 17, 2008 at 04:00 PM
Yeah, something doesn't seem right to me either josgirl. Read that article in the link. He seems to think that it was all an Axelrod ruse. The alleged $30 million figure.
LM, I'm not worried about that number ($52 mil) at all because he's already proven that he is more than capable of spending shitloads of cash and still being handily beaten. Hillary showed us all how to get that job done.
Posted by: SUGAR | July 17, 2008 at 04:19 PM
Sugar - Absolutely true!
As far as I'm concerned he can keep pouring money into Montana - no matter how much he spends there - it is not going Blue...Sen. Obama is no Sen. Tester!
I live in PA and I saw out seriously outspent HRC was here (HRC's campaign didn't even have enough lawn signs to put them near the polling places - he must have had about 3 signs at each one) - and she STILL beat him!
Posted by: LM | July 17, 2008 at 04:30 PM
I wonder if all the two-cent contributions that he got were averaged in! There's bound to be a drop-off from all the Republicans who wanted the weaker candidate, and of course all the O-bot ding-dongs have probably maxed out their credit cards by now!
Posted by: briarhopper | July 17, 2008 at 04:56 PM
What is more telling is that now that the party is "unified" he still raised something comparable to when the party was split in two. Realistically he should be getting more than $50 million in a month with 18 million Hillary voters unified? I think it shows they are not as unified as one would think. I have not contributed a penny nor have any of my friends who were Hillary supporters.
Posted by: Bradford | July 17, 2008 at 05:22 PM
Yea- I'd hold off on the pronouncements until the FEC puts out the Info, on their campaign contribution pages-not the map.
Posted by: roofingbird | July 17, 2008 at 07:32 PM
Long time reader, Sugar. Love you!
Thought I'd share, because I just got this e-mail from the DNC. Thought I'd give it and my response:
"Dear [Novaya],
I wanted to make sure you saw this opportunity to be a part of our convention in Denver this August.
If selected, you and a friend will go Backstage with Barack and be a part of history.
As we continue to build our 50-state strategy, your support is crucial to preparing for victory in November. Please take a moment and make a contribution so you can be a part of this special opportunity.
It would be great to see you in Denver!
Thanks for all you do,
Tom McMahon"
-------------------
"Dear Mr. McMahon,
Fuck off. Barack Obama is not Kelly Clarkson. He's not an American Idol and I don't need to go "backstage" with him. Even less so with a "friend."
You stole my Michigan vote. Remember when the DNC said 4 Michigan delegates should go from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama because of the possibility of write-in ballots and because of polling data? Yeah, that. Each pledged delegate Hillary won corresponded to 20,000 votes. That's 80,000 Michiganian voices stolen.
So take your sweet talk of a "Fifty State Strategy" and shove it up your "green dinner!" derriere. Oooh! A French word! But how can I possibly know that but not support your selected -- yet not elected -- candidate? By my dismissive tone, I clearly must be an "uneducated," "older," "female," "Reagan Democrat," "RACIST"!!! Madlibs is fun! Wee!
That was a 48-State Strategy, and you know it. And where Michigan is concerned, you stole votes to do anything to win. Wonderful.
You can thank your lucky stars that because of this crappy economy I cannot afford to go to Denver. Because if I could, I'd be there protesting the postively un-democratic way that the "Democratic" party has conducted their own party elections this year.
Or, hell, feel free to give me those tickets to meet Sen. Obama backstage!!!! to meet Him!!! and be a part of this HISTORIC EVENT!!!
I'll wear ass-less chaps, and ask my friend to do the same. Then we can, in stereo, tell him to kiss our gay, middle-class asses.
Much love, and stop sending me these damn e-mails,
A PUMA Democrat."
Posted by: Novaya Havoc | July 17, 2008 at 11:45 PM