Early money is like yeast, it helps raise the dough. So says EMILY's List. If this is true, then Barack Obama will be able to make a lot of political bread. The second quarter of fundraising ended June 30th and while the official numbers are not out here are the estimated Democratic findings:
(Second Quarter)Barack Obama: $32.5 million; Hillary Clinton: $27 million; John Edwards: $9 million; Bill Richardson: $7 million
(Total Fundraising) Hillary Clinton: $62 million; Barack Obama 58.2 million; John Edwards: $23 million; Bill Richardson: $14 million
At this stage in the game there are only two meters to judge a candidates strength on: 1) Polls (state by state, not national) and 2) Fundraising.
The polling is still up in the air with Edwards leading in Iowa, Clinton in New Hampshire and Clinton/Obama going back and forth in South Carolina. However, the fundraising is becoming more and more Obama's point of strength. But, wait Wyatt, why is Obama losing to Clinton in total fundraising if it is his "point of strength", you must be dumb. While it is true that I am dumb, the total numbers are deceiving.
Hillary Clinton raised $35 million in the first quarter. However, she transferred $10 million from her Senate campaign, which means she only raised $25 million. Also, Clinton is tapping people for the full $4,600 at a time (legally, each voter is only allowed to donate $2,300 for each primary, and $2,300 for each general election, a total of $4,600). Not all of the money that Clinton raised in the first quarter can be used in the primary election. And if she does not garner the nomination then those general election dollars become worthless. It is said that Clinton raised $19 million for the primary in the first quarter. Out of Obama's 25 million raised in the first quarter, 23 million of it was for the primaries.
In the second quarter, Clinton is expected to raise $27 million with $21 million of it to be used for the primary. Out of Obama's $32.5 million, a remarkable $31 million is primary money. So, just counting primary money raised here are the results as of the second quarter:
Primary Money Raised: Obama: $54 million; Clinton: $40 million
If you ask me, which no one did, I believe that Clinton should have reason to worry. The Clinton Machine is widely known as the greatest fundraising mechanism in the Democratic Party, but it slowly being shown up by the rookie of the year Barack Obama. While Clinton appears to still have the edge on the perpetual power brokers of the Democratic Party, Obama now owns the ground. The most remarkable number to me is the number of donors to each of their campaigns. Clinton has raised $62 million from less then 100,000 different contributors (she hasn't released the exact number) while Obama has raised $58.2 million from over 258,000 contributors. In short, Obama has more widespread support in terms of active participation in the campaign. The Clinton campaign has tried to combat this by saying that money does not really matter, but this is still a blow to the Clinton Machine.
The struggle for Obama is translating these enormous amount of contributors into votes. The person who had the most money and largest number of contributors in 2004 was Howard Dean, while John Kerry had the establishment in his backpocket. The Obama campaign must focus on GOTV (get-out-the vote) and then Clinton's money will diminish in significance very quickly. The millionaire and the beggar each only get one vote.
(these numbers were added up by me, so they are guaranteed to be off once the official numbers come out. The numbers at this point were meant to give quantity the commentary. Do not yell at me, please).
-Wyatt Earp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment