Report: Hillary And Obama Roughly Tied For Third-Quarter Fundraising
CNN reports that Barack Obama's campaign will take in $18-19 million for the quarter, and Hillary Clinton's campaign will have raised $17-20 million. If true, this means that they are about tied, or Hillary might even have out-raised Obama after two quarters in which he beat her in the money race.
There is of course the chance that the campaigns are both working the expectations game, and could have actually raised more than this. Or, the sources might actually be telling the truth.
Comments (41)
JR wrote on September 28, 2007 8:14 PM:Interesting, but I think the real race is going to be between Richardson and Edwards--if Richardson outraises Edwards, I don't think that so much elevates him as hurts impressions of JRE. Edwards's public financing decision is coming under lots of scrutiny, but if Edwards finishes fourth in the money race this quarter, it'll likely establish a firm narrative that it was a decision made out of weakness. Richardson might get a positive cycle or two, but it'll probably get JRE twice that many negative cycles.
Jeremy wrote on September 28, 2007 9:14 PM:There are two candidates in the top tier.
DonnaG wrote on September 28, 2007 9:35 PM:Even with the ten million dollars Hillary transferred from her Senate campaign funds first quarter, even if Hillary takes in her top 3rd quarter figure of 20 million and Obama takes in his bottom 3rd quarter figure of 18 million, Hillary still lags behind Obama in total primary funds raised to date.
Hillary: 1st quarter primary donations = 19 m
1st quarter transfer = 10 m
2nd quarter primary donations= 21 m
3rd quarter top figure =20 m
total: 70 million
Obama: 1st quarter primary donations =23.5 m
2nd quarter primary donations =31 m
3rd quarter bottom figure =18 m
total: 72.5 million
Yes, we still do not have the actual figures, nor what percentages may be only for the general.
But this fundraising picture is raising some questions in my mind. The first is the obvious disconnect between the polls and what these money totals are indicating. [are Hillary supporters stingy, or what?] The second is a question of viability. I understand that Hillary spent some 37 million to get re-elected in NY, without even having to face a strong challenger. How will she manage with, so far, less than double that amount, having to compete with strong challenges in multiple states?
ppallez wrote on September 28, 2007 9:51 PM:Why bother having an election? Let's just see who raises the most money. The winner would become the president and all participants would have to turn over their funds to help pay down the deficit.
dcshungu wrote on September 29, 2007 1:02 AM:But this fundraising picture is raising some questions in my mind. The first is the obvious disconnect between the polls and what these money totals are indicating. [are Hillary supporters stingy, or what?] The second is a question of viability. I understand that Hillary spent some 37 million to get re-elected in NY, without even having to face a strong challenger. How will she manage with, so far, less than double that amount, having to compete with strong challenges in multiple states?
You usually strike me as being thoughtful and "together", despite supporting the "dark side"... However, this is not one your better posts. If Hillary's "problem" was money, then should would not have any problems at all, especially if she is the Dem nominee.
To start with, "MeatHead" just endorsed her, remember? Should she be the nominee, more cash would flow in... That is the least of her "problems."
Cheers and best,
D.-
What about candidate's policy?
Please tell me it still matters. A look at Wednesday's debate and I have the only answer.
John Edwards '08
john mccutchen wrote on September 29, 2007 4:45 AM:If true, this means that they are about tied, or Hillary might even have out-raised Obama after two quarters in which he beat her in the money race.
No it means that Hillary might even have outraised Obama or that Obama has outraised Hillary for the third straight quarter, this despite Hillary's much ballyhoo'ed lead in the polls
That's how to report it Eric not proselytize it
This is becoming a Clinton spin site
john mccutchen wrote on September 29, 2007 4:57 AM:"Barack Obama is the most gangster politician to ever come to Washington," CAS freshman Lou Guberti said. Asked if Obama would get his vote, Guberti answered, "Hell yeah!"
Obama speaks to 24k in park - Washington Sq News
Many people for whom the Iraq and potential Iran wars are paramount simply won't donate to Senator Clinton. That cuts out quite a bit of the Democratic base. Her vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (aka Bush's Iran War Fig Leaf)
underscores why many of us find it hard to respect her judgment. Voting for someone when you have a bad or worse choice in November doesn't mean you have to have to open your checkbook. Meanwhile it's time to hold the Clintons to the Romney/Bush/etc. standard. If they are so enamoured of miliary force, it's time for Chelsea to resign from her cushy hedge fund job and enlist.
word, anns. after HRC voted for the bomb iran measure, i started thinking "are there any republicans i could live with?"
benjoya wrote on September 29, 2007 9:30 AM:also what john mc cutchon said.
how about giving us the number of contributors. (500 small contributors = 1 meathead)
dcshungu wrote on September 29, 2007 11:35 AM:word, anns. after HRC voted for the bomb iran measure, i started thinking "are there any republicans i could live with?"
Well, are there? You've had 8 years of them; haven't had enough yet?
If you think GWB was bad, I guarantee that Rudy would be 10 times worse. Look up megalomania in your dictionary and you'll see Rudy's picture. We've had the opportunity to study both Rudy and HRC up close and personal and we, New Yorkers, prefer her, why is that? The guy is a bully, an opportunist, and a cross-dressing weirdo. That is the sort of republican you're even considering to be stuck with for another 4, maybe 8, more years?
The grass just appears greener on the other side. In HRC you have the most qualified candidate for POTUS in this election. Too bad you do not seem to realize it, although to any open-minded observer, her superior leadership qualities should be obvious from the way she has run her campaign so far.
benjoya wrote on September 29, 2007 11:56 AM:sure, hillary was for going to war with iraq, she's for going to war with iran. she just feels real bad about it.
but agreed that rudy would be worse than bush, if that's possible. i never suggested differently.
benjoya wrote on September 29, 2007 12:03 PM:also, HRC wouldn't rule out using nukes gainst al qaeda, but would ask musharraf first or something. that's the kind of leadership that will have me knocking on doors next fall.
Too bad you do not seem to realize it,
ah, master, i am but a grasshopper in the shadow of your worldly wisdom. tell me again why the senate should give bush authority to go into iran?
benjoya wrote on September 29, 2007 12:12 PM:btw, i knew what a blowhard rudy is when he was still a USA. i'm not saying hillary wouldn't win NY (certainly she would win NYC, i'd vote for her over rudy)
but at least edwards can sorta defend his iraq vote by saying his constituents were in favor of the war. HRC has no such excuse. she opposed her constituents and supported the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation. she apparently didn't learn her lesson. let's make her president.
dcshungu wrote on September 29, 2007 1:04 PM:but at least edwards can sorta defend his iraq vote by saying his constituents were in favor of the war. HRC has no such excuse. she opposed her constituents and supported the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation. she apparently didn't learn her lesson. let's make her president.
Give it a rest. As several recent polls have shown, that vote does not seem to bother the majority of average voters; only the leftwingnuts and the netroots, who bullied Edwards into becoming a serial apologizer, are myopic enough to be unable to see beyond that vote. Moreover, remember that 50%+ of Dem Senators, including Edwards (his bowing to his constituents and subsequent ad nauseam mea culpas notwithstanding), voted for the Iraq AUMF resolution. Obama "opposed" the war before he got to DC and voted repeatedly for funding to perpetuate it. Durbin and Levin voted against the Iraq AUMF resolution before they voted this week for the symbolic and "saber-rattling" Authorization to Attack Iran. Confused yet? If not, I'll go on...
That vote does not in any way define a politician's leadership quality. To turn it into a binary operation that determines who qualifies to be the next POTUS seems extremely narrow-minded, a la netroots and wingnuts...
anns wrote on September 29, 2007 1:14 PM:Voting for war is the most awesome responsibility a senator has. To downplay its importance is stunning. To say that one should vote for Senator Clinton because Giuliani is worse is prehaps the saddest, sorriest justification of her candidacy I have ever heard. As for experience, if that is your criteria, Biden or Dodd should be your men. Also, is calling someone
a left wingnut" the new equivalent of red baiting among some centrist to conservative democrats? What's next? Attacking someone for speaking French?
New SUSA poll from Washington state!
kjoe wrote on September 29, 2007 1:35 PM:TPM's grudging attitude towards posting anything positive about Obama, and anything negatvie about Hillary was apparent in their choice of this article---where there is no place for feedback:
Barack Obama Draws Thousands to a Rally in NYC's Washington Square Park
MARCUS FRANKLIN
AP News
Sep 27, 2007 22:37 EDT
Postscriptum: HRC's Principled Stand on her AUMF Vote
You have to be a total cynic to believe that any Senator would take lightly a vote that would send young American men and women into harm's way. I have read the transcripts of the Senate debate on the AUMF resolution, and it struck me that most senators were genuinely anguished. However, as Senators and makers of the laws of the land, their duty is to debate issues and to vote democratically. In the course of a senator's tenure in office, he or she would cast thousands of votes, and it is the sum total of those votes that will constitute each Senator's record. That is the only votes that count are the ones that are actually cast. How Obama would have voted on the AUMF or the Iran resolution is immaterial. He did not vote. Period. Some votes would be popular, some won't be. However, that is something that each senator must live with. While the netroots' and wingnuts' obsession with how HRC voted for the AUMF will not derail her campaign for the Dem nomination, it could potentially hand the other side a powerful issue for the GE. Fortunately, HRC has not caved in to the pressure to issue serial mea culpas for that vote, and IMHO, her stand on this is not only principled, but also smart GE politics.
Here's why: In 2004, Kerry was the Dem nominee for president despite supporting the AUMF. But in the GE, the Repub smear machine successfully used his position on the war not because the voters thought it was a bad position, but simply because this decorated Vietnam war vet waffled! In his own words, "he was for supporting to fund the war before he was against it"... a damning clip that was played over and over again by the GOP. We know the outcome: a decorated Vietnam bet was successfully painted as cowardly and unpatriotic, and a draft-dodger was re-elected president.
How would the current crop of top-tier Dem candidates fare with respect to their respective positions on the war? Edwards's serial mea culpas about the AUMF vote will not immunize him against the flip-flopper charge, because the GOP will still say about him that "he was for it before he was against it." Although as a State Senator Obama had “opposed” the war, he was never in position to vote for or against the AUMF resolution. However, when he got to Washington, he voted repeatedly to perpetuate the war! He is inconsistent (read: a flip-flopper)! That is why HRC's refusal to apologize for a vote that she actually cast is both principled and an immunization against the GOP's eventual charge of flip-flopping: Despite cries from the far left that she apologize for her vote, and the pundits' prediction that her refusal to apologize would hurt her chances for the nomination, she did not apologize; instead she vociferously condemned the conduct of the war once it became clear that GWB had screwed up royally... Make no mistake about it: This is GWB's war
and NOT HRC's or the Dems'...
Feel free to pontificate, but I do not think that to use the AUMF vote as a binary operation for determining the next leader of the free world is very smart...
Corporations conspire for Clinton to out-raise contributions over Constitutional scholar . . .B.F.D.
Dollars are not votes. Votes are votes. Votes are our voice iin politics. Money is our voice in the arena of ecomonics. The biggest whore may not be the best candidate or elected official . . . This conversation is a commercial for PUBLIC FINANCING OF CAMPAIGNS!
demsallthe way wrote on September 29, 2007 2:43 PM:Hillary is the 12th most progressive senator, Obama is 16th. John Kerry is currently in the 20's even though he comes from Mass, Edwards when he was in the senate was in the mid 30's.
you guys and gals need to be most concerned with getting a progressive candidate who can actually WIN. that candidate is Hillary Clinton. dont think so? she is routing republicans in Arkansas and Ohio head to head. there is no way republicans can win without winning BOTH those states. and she is leading in other border states like Virginia and Missouri and even Florida.
of course wrote on September 29, 2007 2:45 PM:all this talk about money not being important.. look at 2000.. if Gore didn't take public financing he would of won that election.. instead bush outspends him 4 to 1 and still doesn't even win the popular vote.
and on top of that bush attacked him for taking 'taxpayer money'
are we gonna keep being stupid or are we gonna start being smart and WIN ELECTIONS?
the #1 thing a statesmen should do is WIN the election.. once you are in office you can start changing things.
dcshungu wrote on September 29, 2007 2:45 PM:How to pick your candidate for POTUS, the logical way.
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int i;
long top_tier = 3, candidate_vote[3];
long AUMF;
AUMF = 1;
for (i = 0; i
{
if ((candidate_vote[i] & AUMF) == 1)
{
printf("Qualified to be POTUS!\n");
} else {
printf("Not qualified to be POTUS!\");
}
}
Richard L. Adlof, I so agree with you about the conversation being a commercial for public financing of campaigns. It is pretty disheartening to realize that votes are swayed by dueling sound bites offered in expensive 30-60 second ads which have to be paid for with obscene piles of cash from campaign coffers.
But, this is the reality for today's candidates, and will continue along this way to eternity unless we can organize to elect a whole lot of new folks more loyal to true democracy than to their own re-elections. That, IMHO, means new congresscritters as well as a new president.
As Obama said and I paraphrase, "Look, I am swimming in muddy waters, too. But I at least know the water is muddy and want to do something about it." He alone of the candidates has done some successful work [with Feingold, and with the OK senator] to begin to clean up the murkyness in Washington. And Edwards, Obama and Kucinich have said no to lobbyist backing. So, I believe we need to support those three however we can, and we will have a much better chance to bring about the public financing of future elections.
Meanwhile, we are left to use the structure that presently exists for running campaigns. If you know of some viable way for a candidate to actually compete without raising these funds in this cycle, please offer it.
I think it is noteworthy that Clinton is touted as the one who could 'hit the ground running' on a first day as president.
But, if we want to look at what we can already see in that vein, we can observe their relative mastery of 'hitting the ground running' in this present-day test [how the candidates are able to marshall and make use of resources to reach a goal]. Hillary, of the so-called superior machine, accepting money even from lobbyists and PACs, owning the biggest donor rolodex in history, is nevertheless outperformed by a guy who started from scratch.
benjoya wrote on September 29, 2007 3:26 PM:
it's not one vote; it's two votes, and it suggests a pattern.
greylox wrote on September 29, 2007 3:39 PM:**It strikes me that Corporatists need not
fear losing the White House because they
have no viable Republican candidate.
They can back-door Hilary and get everything
they want. Another corporate lackey. She
will keep that old war machine spitting out
the bucks.
Kyl-Lieberman was stripped of any force authorization language. Continuing to say that it is a repeat of AUMF from '02 is absurd. It's either ignorant or deliberately disingenuous. You can fault Clinton for naming a certain group a "terrorist organization", but you are stretching reality if you claim it was a war authorizing vote.
dcshungu wrote on September 29, 2007 4:02 PM:it's not one vote; it's two votes, and it suggests a pattern
Then vote for someone else and good luck rationalizing your support for that someone else on the basis of his position on the war...
...you must remember that 50%+ of Dem Senators, including Edwards (his bowing to his constituents and subsequent ad nauseam mea culpas notwithstanding), voted for the Iraq AUMF resolution. Obama "opposed" the war before he got to DC and voted repeatedly for funding to perpetuate it. Durbin and Levin voted against the Iraq AUMF resolution before they voted this week for the symbolic and "saber-rattling" Authorization to Attack Iran...
But, clearly, you'll be oblivious to all of this since, deep down, this has little to do with the AUMF vote, but with how you feel personally about Clinton. It is a one person, one vote system (not really because of the electoral college business), so I am sure that we'll put the most qualified Dem back into the White House, sans narrow-minded bitwise operations on his or her AUMF vote.
dcshungu wrote on September 29, 2007 4:09 PM:Kyl-Lieberman was stripped of any force authorization language. Continuing to say that it is a repeat of AUMF from '02 is absurd. It's either ignorant or deliberately disingenuous.
Why attribute to malice what can easily and demonstrably be attributed to ignorance...?
anns wrote on September 29, 2007 5:24 PM:Hmmm. If Kyl-Liebermann were so ingenuous why did a military expert like Senator Webb vote against it? Fool me once.........
Anonymous wrote on September 29, 2007 6:06 PM:Hmmm. If Kyl-Liebermann were so ingenuous why did a military expert like Senator Webb vote against it? Fool me once.........
He said why he voted "no"...Do you know why?
anns wrote on September 29, 2007 6:12 PM:Webb called it something like Cheney's pipe dream and a back door method for military action. Go to google news and use "webb" and "kyl-lieberman" as terms. A number of articles will pop up.
Anonymous wrote on September 29, 2007 6:18 PM:Here's the money quote from Webb
"We haven’t had one hearing on this. I’m on the Foreign Relations Committee, I’m on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war."
And Senator Clinton voted for this?
Webb's kid is there. Now is that so hard to understand??
I do not need to Google it. I knew exactly why Webb had voted "no." He had objected to calling the Republican Guards a bunch of terrorists for fear that Bush would use that as an excuse to attack them based upon some prior resolution that had given him the power to go after terrorist organizations. But Bush would not need this to attack them anyway. He's already called them terrorists and could launch an attack regardless, except that he has emasculated himself and the US military and won't get support to attack anyone...
anns wrote on September 29, 2007 7:38 PM:I was answering anonymous who asked a question. Are you egocentric or something? This wasn't about you. It was extending the courtesy of an answer to another participant. Civility should be extended to all, no matter whom they support. Read more carefully. You (inadvertently I assume) sometimes verge on rudeness.
anns wrote on September 29, 2007 7:39 PM:I was answering anonymous who asked a question. Are you egocentric or something? This wasn't about you. It was extending the courtesy of an answer to another participant. Civility should be extended to all, no matter whom they support. Read more carefully. You (inadvertently I assume) sometimes verge on rudeness.
dcshngu wrote on September 29, 2007 8:34 PM:I was answering anonymous who asked a question. Are you egocentric or something? This wasn't about you. It was extending the courtesy of an answer to another participant. Civility should be extended to all, no matter whom they support. Read more carefully. You (inadvertently I assume) sometimes verge on rudeness.
Or something... For you edification, you were answering me because I was "Anonymous", as usually happens when I do not remember to type in my "handle."
And what was so rude about my saying that I did not need to Google anything because I already knew why Webb had voted "no", after you have triumphantly posted the following:
Hmmm. If Kyl-Liebermann were so ingenuous why did a military expert like Senator Webb vote against it? Fool me once.........
Gotta chill out!
Anonymous wrote on September 29, 2007 10:14 PM:Because I took the following question at face value? If you already knew why were you asking? I am not trying to be difficult. I truly do not understand why you asked if you knew. What point were you making? I find Webb a really smart fellow and follow his votes on the war closely.
"He said why he voted "no"...Do you know why?"
dcshungu wrote on September 30, 2007 2:39 AM:I am not trying to be difficult. I truly do not understand why you asked if you knew
Let me take this slowly and step by step. You'd said:
Hmmm. If Kyl-Liebermann were so ingenuous why did a military expert like Senator Webb vote against it? Fool me once.........
then I said:
He said why he voted "no." (translation: that is the response to your why did a military expert like Senator Webb vote against it?. We knew why because he'd told us why).
Because I was not sure whether or not you knew the true reason why Webb had voted "no", I posed the question to you:
Do you know why?
So you Googled it up and came up with the "money quote".
Can we move on now?
anns wrote on September 30, 2007 10:45 AM:It was the anonymous that caused the problem. I would never make the mistake of assuming that you were not absolutely correct and on top of everyting.
