Does anyone else think that it is a big mistake for Obama to not release his numbers, given that everyone else has? He is more or less being cut out of the discussion right now, and unless he has actually beat Hillary he’s not going to get a huge boost when he does (and even then he would get the same boost now and drown out her positive press.)
If Iowa is any indication, the bumbling Obama campaign likely has no idea how much money they raised this quarter, and won’t know for sure until the deadline or even after. The checks are spread all over someone’s desk – on top of their list of important phone messages, no doubt.
I am also surprised that the media has accepted that $26 million figure from Clinton uncritically, when a healthy chunk could be useful only in the general election. Mitt Romney may end up being the highest fundraiser of all the candidates on either side. He should also see a more dramatic second quarter drop than anyone else.
Winners:
John Edwards – He stays in the first tier, when bad fundraising could have knocked him out of the competition.
Bill Richardson – Raises the most by far of the second tier candidates. This guy is doing everything right, and has a good chance if one of the top candidates stumbles.
Losers:
Chris Dodd and Joe Biden – Come on guys, you have some sort of national networks, and you’re getting killed by the governor of a tiny state? You might as well drop out now, because neither of you are going anywhere.
Obama – For not having his shit together. Not getting talked about is as good as not raising money.
Hillary (maybe) – We’ll know better on the 15th, but her inability to put serious distance between her opponents and herself in fundraising means that the whole “inevitability” thing is disappearing fast. As far as I’m concerned, general election money raised at this point is gimmickry. It’s not like people who max out to you in the primary aren’t going to go back and donate to you in the general anyway.
3 Comments
Obama Defies the Numbers Game
Good for Obama for not playing into the media-frenzied money numbers game by not releasing his exact numbers. “Given that everyone else has” is yet another reason that will help distinguish Obama from “everyone else.” Knowing that he’s competing against the money-churning DLC McCauliffe-money machine,Obama’s taken the right approach to undrrmining the $ horse race by not providing the media with something quantifiable to salivate over — and salivate they did.
Obama’s aids have noted that he’s raised over $20 million, which puts him on the heels of Hillary and has helped up the anxiety levels of the Clinton campaign. Obama announced his candidacy after Hillary and has quickly closed the money gap, especially since Hillary has been running for president since, say, middle school.
The more important number that Obama’s committed to focusing on and did release is the number of people who donated money. In this area he dwarfed Hillary by roughly 30,000 donors, and it’s this number that more realisitically translates to votes. When evaluating these numbers, voters may see that Obama has more supporters and the smaller monetary number indicates that Obama’s drawing less from big donors. Whether this is true or not is besides the point; it’s all about public perception and this works as a good medium spin. Not to mention, contributors who donated once are more likely to contribute again, which works in Obama’s favor.
I’m not convinced reporting these numbers merits positive press, but rather, helps feed the public’s disgust with how much money is being raised and spent on the presidential campaign. And regarding your notion about positive press for Obama, I think you should revisit the news today.
“The New York Times” has a positive aricle about Obama adorned on its front page: “Obama Built Donor Network From Roots Up.”
Ariana Huffington took the media to task, casting Obama in a favorable light: “Follow the Real Money”
In the political fallout of yesterday’s annoncement, it appears Obama may be the big winner.
Unfortunately, all of this undermines the problems regarding campaign finance and how it desparately needs to be reformed. In this light, the losers are the media (who continually perpetuate and exacerbate this problem), while the big losers remain the American people — in particular those of us who cannot afford to buy influence in D.C.
The only Democratic candidates I’ve heard that have vowed to address this problem if elected president are Obama and Edwards. Please comment if others ahve taken an active stance on this. Had Hillary not scheduled a town hall meeting in Iowa City today during the work day, when most working people cannot take off work and particpate in a “conversation,” I would’ve gone and asked Hillary point blank where she stands on this issue and what would she do about it if elected?
tmlindsey Tue 3 Apr 11:01 AM
Crazy.... LIke a fox!
Obama let the numbers frenzy subside then released his own, very impressive numbers today. He gets a news cycle all to himself. Very, very savvy.
Obama’s number make them newsworthy. $24M all (presumably) obliged for the primaries, 100,000 individual contributors and NO PAC money.
Hillary took in $26M from 50.000 individuals plus PAC’s. An undisclosed amount is obliged for the general election, e.g. individuals and organizations that “maxed out” early giving $5,000 half of which can be used for the primary, half for the general.
Obama is showing Dean-like netroots and grassroots fundraising prowess to go along with the celebrity thing. That and the fact that his campaign had the nous to sit on the story a couple of extra days speaks volumes. I’d have to say so far he is schooling everyone else.
I haven’t seen the cash-on-hand figures yet. Work is killing me. Anyone seen that? That’s the critical number.
cman Wed 4 Apr 5:18 PM
Knock, knock, knockin...
…on Hillary’s door.
tmlindsey Wed 4 Apr 11:24 PM