« DCCC Lands A Major Recruit In Illinois Race | Home | Rudy Strategy Memo Says He's Best GOPer Against Hillary »
Hillary Raises Almost $8 Million Online
Taylor Marsh has the number first: Hillary pulled in $8 million in online donations this quarter. The campaign just confirmed the number to me.
That means almost a third of the $27 million she reported for the quarter were in online donations -- a reminder of all the work that Camp Hillary's been doing to build online support. No online number from Obama yet.
Advertisement
Proof again of a.) Hillary's imminent campaign implosion and b.) TPM's pro-Hillary bias.
I'm just having a little fun with ya, Greg.
October 2, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any numbers from previous quarters to compare how her on-line numbers are trending? Is this an increase in % of overall donations?
October 2, 2007 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
L4H, Hillary had 100,000 new donors last quarter. I can't remember the place I read it, but it was reported that this was twice the number of donors from Q1.
Her campaign is really just ramping up so I'm not surprised by this number.
October 2, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was the promise of having lunch with Bill and her that did it.
October 2, 2007 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to contribute to Obama again.
October 2, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you compare Hillary's celebrity with over 17 years of National News talking about her, compared to Obama's possible 4 years of celebrity - Hillary is actually WAY behind Obama in fame.
October 2, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like that. A rare candid assessment of the candidates. We can, therefore, conclude that Hillary is ahead in every poll, not because of name recognition or fame, but because she simply has more supporters and appeal than Obama...right?
October 2, 2007 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except the recent Newsweek poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers? I guess that's too inconvenient to your silly dominant-Hillary narrative.
Hillary certainly does NOT have more DONORS than Obama, which would certainly seem to me to be one way of assessing the number of supporters you have and how appealing you are.
October 2, 2007 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, silly me, how could I have! Especially since the margin of error of +/-7 in the Newsweek poll clearly showed that Obama was in the lead in IA, and the next day SUSA poll showed HRC up by 6 points in IA, with a MOE of 4 points...
Sorry for ignoring that "inconvenient" truth! LOL.
October 2, 2007 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here we go again, dcs. The Newsweek poll had a lower percentage of error with Dems and leaning Dems...but it changed when these folks were classified as "likely caucus goers"...and that's when the numbers changed.
SUSA is back with the Dems and leaning Dems...as usual and not the "likely caucus goers".
Do try to keep up.
October 2, 2007 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't find Hillary's fundraising success surprising. I just wonder why it took her this long to top Obama. As Maureen Dowd noted "From the beginning, her campaign has relied on her husband’s donors, network, strategies and strong-arming." Of course the corporate special interests and Washington establishment are going to fill the coffers of Hillary Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. She's their great hope to maintain the status quo and era of windfall profits from government outsourced programs. Bill and Poppy Bush have been planning this for years. And Jeb is next. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush.
With every dollar Hillary raises there's a debt of influence to be paid. She's the best-financed candidate of the status quo. We need change.
October 2, 2007 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well...How about this poll. Are you ready? Ready or not, here we go:
Today's WaPo/ABC News poll will deflate even the most ardent and optimitistic of Obama and Edwards supporters. I suggest you stay away for a few days until this blows over...if it will. The tsunami has picked up steam since HRC's Sunday Talk show blitz (as I had predicted it would) and now she is leading Obama by a stagering 33% (53-20) nationally. For her to get over 50% support in a field of some 8 candidates is astounding, especially since, due to her purported 'high negatives', her support was supposed to be stuck in the 40's, making her virtually unelectable. This poll debunks all of the arguments that have been advanced against the Clinton candidacy:
(1) her vote on the war would hurt her: 52% trust her more on Iraq v. 22% for Obama;
(2) she has 'high negatives': she has 53% support in a field of 8 candidates v. 20% for Obama, who has the next highest level of support;
(3) she is 'unelectable': 57% think that she is the most electable Dem v. 20 % and 17% for Edwards and Obama, respectively. This one of Obama's main "problems": He is black and unelectable in 2008 America, as I had argued before, despite claims to the contrary. This poll shows that, deep down where no one can see, most people think that he is the least electable Dem, just as I had suggested;
(4) "HillaryCare" as a negative: 66% trust her on healthcare compared to 15 and 14 % for Obama and Edwards. I guess they figure that she has been there, even if it did not turn out great, she showed 'leadership' and gained 'experience' from it. That her new plan was generally well received helped convey this view;
(5) she represents the past: 45% say she is the 'agent of change' v. 31 for Obama. I think that Obama misinterpreted the meaning of "change": for most voters, it seems to me that this means "change" from the Bush years, and not "change" in Dem policies and ideals, which all the candidates pretty much share. Therefore leadership and experience to implement these Dem policies and ideals become key, and this poll shows that. A novice won't be trusted with sucn an ominous task, especially considering the shape in which Bush is to sure tp leave the country after he, finally, exits the scene;
(6) strength and experience: no contest: 62% v. 14% and 9% for Edwards and Obama. This. along with leadership, will be the determining factors. I think that now that the "hype" is over, it is beginning to crystallize in people's minds that it would be risky to trust someone who was a little known state senator only 4 years ago, to become the leader of free world;
(7) leadership: no contest: 60% v. 20% and 13% for Obama and Edwards;
(8) her support is soft: she gets more support from all the demographic groups and is more strongly supported by those who now back her by 61% v. 52% for Obama...
There was not a single 'negative' facet in the level of support that HRC is enjoying at the moment.
Unless her opponents can do something to shake things up (she won't make any mistakes), these opinions will solidify and it will be over before it even starts...the usual caveat about Iowa and New Hampshire being unpredictable notwithstanding; we are dealing with a campaign so thoroughly savvy that the usual caveats probably won't apply: It has thus for defied every prediction, as listed above.
October 3, 2007 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
dcs, this is so tiring to repeat. This is a primary election where the turnout, even in an "exciting" race, is 15-20% of eligible voters. I don't make a judgment on that, BTW, since I think it's fine for folks not that interested to stay away from the primary and rely on the high-information and highly committted voters and partisan folks to make the decision.
These national polls simply assume that everyone they talk to is "eligible" and therefore their opinion has equal weight. It does not. What matters is the opinion of the high information voter who actually turns out to vote in the wintry weather around the primary.
You will see these polls start tightening down in the months ahead when they are state-specific and screended for the "likely" voters or caucus-goers. Then we'll see the actual results next year. If this is your first presidential primary, you are in for a very rude awakening if you don't begin now to acknowledge what is needed to win the primaries.
The primary campaign is mainly to discourage the supporters of your opponents. You're going to find that Obama supporters are not going to be steam-rolled and easily discouraged--unlike Hillary in October 2002 when Bush and the GOP steamrolled her to vote "aye" for the Iraq War Resolution.
October 3, 2007 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink