Hillary Campaign Has Now Raised Over $8 Million Since Super Tuesday
Howard Wolfson, on a conference call with reporters just now:
"We have now raised over $8 million on line since the polls closed in California."
In another indication that the Hillary campaign is still trying to wrest the fundraising story away from Obama, who caught Camp Hillary off guard with his massive cash pull right after Super Tuesday, Wolfson added: "We have considerably closed the gap; this is a very important development going forward."
The Obama campaign has stopped releasing daily updates on fundraising numbers. But given that yesterday he stood at roughly $7.5 million in online money since Tuesday, it seems safe to assume he still is outpacing her in post-Super Tuesday funds.
Late Update: Obama spokesperson Bill Burton sends over this statement in response to the news:
With their personal fortune that they are dipping into and their clear fundraising strength, this all just goes to show how Obama is the true underdog in this race.
Seriously, Greg, send them an email asking if this is all primary money. I double dog dare ya.
Everybody knows you can't duck from the double dog dare!
If she has seriously raised that much I will nod my head to her as she is full of surprises.
February 8, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you Obamabots really this brain dead? How many people contributed more than $2300 online? Why are you still so stupid as to ask how much of the $8 Million raised by Clinton is for GE? You guys are beneath comtempt!
February 8, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but they keep proving to me that you have to dig for the whole truth rather than the partial truth. Do i believe they got millions? Yah. Do i believe they got 8 for the primary? Not so much.
In the 2007 Q4 about 14% of her donors were maxed out for the primary.
February 8, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Memo to David Ploufe:
Now might be a good time to update that ticker on the website. It is free good-press ink.
February 8, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think that Ploufe was smart to pull that down. You don't want to give your opponents a target they can rally towards. The longer it looks like Clinton is behind in fundraising, the longer her fundraising efforts can get a boost from supporters. Unless you're behind, it's better to let the story drop as soon as possible.
Plus, it seems that Obama would rather run as an underdog, and talking too much about being able to outraise her makes that harder to do.
February 8, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Christ, who cares Hillary? Quit acting like you have something to prove here. We don't think you are less of a politician for being a little behind in fundraising, calm down. If she was a man I'd suggest a bad case of penis envy and some serious overcompensation. I'm not sure what the appropriate metaphor here would be.
February 8, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right.
Of course, nothing is stopping anyone from fudging the numbers on this stuff. Tell me when either reaches $30m since Super Tuesday.
February 8, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howard Wolfson is embarassed to be bisexual.
February 8, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree, Greg. Obama's point has been made. Hillary was running out of money. Obama can outraise her without even straining.
All it's doing now is giving Hillary free publicity with all of the horse-race junk. And that allows her to raise more money.
Silence the ticker for a while.
February 8, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...considerably closed the gap." What gap? They're own or the still huge gap between them and Obama considering, at best, they've only matched his numbers over the best 2-3 days? Does anybody ask follow-up questions on these conference calls?
February 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, folks do ask follow-up questions. They just do not receive much by way of answer.
February 8, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
must we now be bombarded with daily fundraising totals? The only reason the Clinton camp leaked the "oh we're so poor" stories was to beef up their claim that she's the underdog, and to goose their donors into giving. Clinton and Obama are both doing well. Period.
February 8, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Latest count from CNN which is more reliable than PMS-NBC becasue it is actual count and projection garbage:
Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 840 Superdelegates: 193Total: 1,033Barack Obama
Pledged: 831 Superdelegates: 106Total: 937
No matter how much money Ploufe and other yes men raise, mathematically he won't be able to overcome the disadvantage. Proportonal devision of delegates is 2 edge sowrd that u guys didin't realize when were touting it. Just look at results in AL where HRC got more delegates just like in NV BHO got more.
So in total remaining will be split 50-50%.
So u guys can only pray for supergelegates changing, better be a good prayer.
He is behind in in pedged delegates also. I waiting for the entertainment from u whiners when BHO loses by a few delegates.
February 8, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"More reliable"? Depends on what you mean by "reliable." Yes, CNN is only including those precincts which have been completely counted, but on the other hand there will come a time when all the precincts are counted and those delegates will be thoroughly determined. NBC is giving us a reliable picture of how those will shake out. If you prefer to wait a few days to admit as much, it is no skin off my nose, but in the meantime I am not losing any sleep about the delegate count. We are ahead in pledged delegates, and Clinton is ahead overall. That is to say, she is winning right now, but only just barely. Neither side has good reason to feel confident at this point.
February 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll notice, on the CNN count, that Alabama awards 52 pledged delegates and that CNN has only accounted for 41 of them. The problem with allocating delegates by district is that even when the statewide vote isn't close, there can still be several districts in which the difference between 62% and 63% of the vote is the difference between splitting the delegates 2-2, or winning them 3-1. And of course, this dynamic is nationwide, not just limited to Alabama. For instance, Illinois awards 153 pledged delegates, yet CNN has only accounted for 136 of them, meaning that Barack will still pick up more delegates as the counting continues.
Bottom line: all, even Penn/Wolfson, agree that when the counting is done, Barack will lead in pledged delegates. Not by a lot, but he'll be ahead.
February 8, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll notice, on the CNN count, that Alabama awards 52 pledged delegates and that CNN has only accounted for 41 of them. The problem with allocating delegates by district is that even when the statewide vote isn't close, there can still be several districts in which the difference between 62% and 63% of the vote is the difference between splitting the delegates 2-2, or winning them 3-1. And of course, this dynamic is nationwide, not just limited to Alabama. For instance, Illinois awards 153 pledged delegates, yet CNN has only accounted for 136 of them, meaning that Barack will still pick up more delegates as the counting continues.
Bottom line: all, even Penn/Wolfson, agree that when the counting is done, Barack will lead in pledged delegates. Not by a lot, but he'll be ahead.
February 8, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with cube3u, stop playing this game. The clintons are getting free press and it is playing into their hands. The point was made. Drop it. The clintons can say they raised 100 million in 24 hours and how could you disprove it. Just drop it.
February 8, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about Clinton's claims that she has 35,000 new donors? Obama's ticker shows that over 335,000 individual donors have donated this year to Obama. That's just ridiculous. My prediction is the Obama camp is waiting until after this weekend, where he is projected to win NE, WA, and LA, and will then release February numbers - maybe something close to $20 million.
February 8, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, let the Clinton Team crow about it. They haven't had much good to say about fundraising for awhile. Good for Clinton, she's raising a lot of money this month. Meanwhile, Obama is trying to get more supporters INVOLVED and has a target of 300K by March 4.
February 8, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is trying to get more supporters INVOLVED and has a target of 300K by March 4.
Uh, he's got way over 300K already. He's going for 500K by March 4.
February 8, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody cares anymore. Obama knows he's crushing her in fundraising.
This reminds me of the college I went to. We had a small "rival" school, only nobody at my school cared about the rivalry. At their school, however, they had shirts that said my school "sucked."
The only people who get into such a fuss over such things are insecure to begin with.
February 8, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Message from Obama:
As of this afternoon, more than 300,000 people have given in 2008 alone, taking ownership of this campaign by making a donation of whatever they can afford.
......................
Today we set a new goal: 500,000 people giving to our campaign this year by March 4th.
Wow!
February 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unnamed poster said "If she was a man I'd suggest a bad case of penis envy."
Actually, according to Freud, who coined the term, it's women who have penis envy there are many people who would benefit from a good liberal arts education
February 8, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any proof that Hillary raised this much money? Obama had a counter on his website, I haven't seen anything like that for Clinton. It really sounds like they are just making up numbers so they don't look so bad compared to Obama.
February 8, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone follow up on Clinton's tax returns? My understanding is that she and Bill have joint accounts, so it'd be nice for her to demonstrate how it was "her" money as opposed to "their" money.
February 8, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This might say more about me than it does about Burton or the average voter, but the above strikes me as ludicrous. I can understand why each side wants to claim the mantle of the "underdog," but right now neither side can wear that mantle convincingly. It simply insults the listener's intelligence to try to make out as if it were otherwise.
February 8, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because the Marlins made it to the World Series in 2003 didn't mean the Yankees weren't still the favorites until the final out was made. No matter how much money he raises, Obama is arguably still the underdog until Clinton concedes defeat.
February 8, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I swear I'll give 50 bucks to whichever candidate's surrogates promise to stop trying to proclaim them as the underdog. It's just asinine.
February 8, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg DeLassus
No CNN counts includes places where all prceincts are counted and delgates assigned. They don't include projection garbage like NBC which is just a best guess. Unlees u think best guess is better than actaul count.
Stop being delusional!
February 8, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
O.k., suit yourself. In a week or so when the final numbers are in, you may revise you assertions at your own leisure.
February 8, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a good job for Wolfson: he can take over for Jerry Lewis on the telethon. He seems to have a fascination with total boards.
February 8, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Wolfson should take over from Jerry Lewis next September. He seems to have a fascination with total boards.
February 8, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC/NBC has been deplorable, except Keith and Tom Brokaw (a calm and adult presence). Shuster always seemed to do fine as a straight news reporter (i.e., during the Libby trial), but he has morphed into Chris Matthews, who does not even try to hide his bias. Shuster's lame non-apology apology ("to the extent anyone thinks I was being pejorative . . .") is absurd. He crossed the line in a disgraceful way and he should not be hedging. If he said anything like that about the Edwards family, or the Obama family, or the Bush family, he would have been ripped to shreds by every media outlet.
February 8, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe her numbers at all. Not the way she's portraying them.
For starters, I think the number itself is a lie. three weeks from now when the actual numbers come out, it will be called a "correction."
Whatever she DID raise, I'd bet more than 1/2 is for the general election and she can't touch it.
ALL 7.5 million Obama raised is FOR THE PRIMARY and done by hundreds of thousand of small donations. It's called people powered politics. Bottom up. Her 50,000 new voters? Lie.
HRC doesn't just accept special interest money, she IS a special interest.
February 8, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see some of the posters here are raising questions about full financial disclosure and income issues.
I fail to see what the big deal is (other than the innuendo from her opponent) regarding complete financial disclosure by Hillary Clinton as it relates to the 2008 Presidential campaign.
Here are some facts about Senator Clinton’s non-disclosure of campaign contributions and who her main corporate contributors are:
She has only refused to disclose 18% ($16 Million) of the over $101 Million raised as campaign donations in 2007 (1st quarter of 2008 disclosures due in late February).
Not only is PAC money completely irrelevant here, the fact is that ten of her top fourteen business contributors (with a total of $2.4 Million donated) were investment bankers, including Goldman Sachs ($422,000), Lehman Bros. ($251,000), J.P. Morgan ($241,000), Citigroup ($222,000), Jones Day ($182,000), Citidel Investments ($171,000), and Morgan Stanley ($155,000). Rounding out the top ten are legal firms ;-)
Also telling is that the top 10% of her contributors donated a mere 64% of the total cash that is financing Senator Clinton’s campaign!
That means that an impressive 36% of her total campaign contributions comes from the remaining 90% of contributors – that is, not just from other big business contributors, but quite a lot of that 36% is from small individual contributors.
I don’t see what all the fuss is about.
Oh, was I saying “Senator Clinton” all along here? I meant to say that all these things quoted above are on the record regarding Senator Obama’s campaign finances to date. So, you can stop sputtering, foaming, and forming your retort now. It’s all kumbaya okay, don’t you see? It’s the Obama magic at work. Hillary does stuff like this = bad and bought and paid for. Obama doing the same things = change (somehow).
Yes, the above-cited facts and numbers regarding the breakdown of campaign contributors, the top financial contributors, and the non-disclosure of 18% of total campaign contributions are actually the numbers from Senator Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign to date.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
Now I understand that Obama supporters just know that the bulk of his financial support comes from dewy-eyed children who break open their piggybanks to send money to the only one who can help them realize their American dream (unless you’re one of Obama’s kids dreaming about becoming President like dad someday – his supporters don’t like “dynasties.”).
But the facts are sometimes such sticky things to a true believer.
February 8, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo!
February 8, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
caindp MSNBC includes precincts where the count is in and not likely to change but unofficial as of yet. Relax, it will play out of over time and we'll know soon enough. You're starting to sound like some kind of cultist or something. ;-)
February 8, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama campaign doesn't miss a beat. They must be giggling with delight watching The Clintons' reaction to that Super Tuesday lob.
Come to think of it, the incredible efficiency and professionalism of the Obama campaign is one of the seriously underreported news stories of the campaign season thus far.
They rarely miss a beat
A thing of beauty
February 8, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they could debate who raises the most money at their weekly debates .... oh, wait. Sorry Obamists.
February 8, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because of some of the hackflaks on here, I just gave yet another donation to Obama. Thanks for the motivation.
February 8, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
With their personal fortune that they are dipping into ..........this all just goes to show how Obama is the true underdog in this race.
Just like we all know Mitt Romney was the favorite to win the Republican nomination. LOL!
February 8, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anonymous above says: Also telling is that the top 10% of [his] contributors donated a mere 64% of the total cash that is financing Senator [Obama's] campaign!
Where do you get this information from the open secrets website? Are you saying that the 10% of the population who gave the most money individually contributed 64% of the $$? Because that's wrong. The 3% of the individuals who contributed the maximum ($4600) account for 10% of the total dollars. The 25% of the total number of contributors that contributed at least $2300 (half of the maximum allowed) still only account for 43% of the total dollars, so your top 10% giving 61% can't be right. I can see that the top 10 employers of contributors that you site above contributed less than 3% of the total dollars. Or perhaps you are referencing the chart that says that 69% of $$ comes from contributions that are "coded" meaning that they were able to determine which sector the person worked for? (of course this includes "retired" which was the second largest source of contributions, after lawyers, that contributed to his campaign). The 31% they list as "uncoded" are people who put things like "self-employed" and "student," so they couldn't determine the industry they worked for. I think that chart speaks more to demographics of the population--most people work in an identifiable sector of the economy--than of his contributors and is about the same for Kucinich and Clinton and all the other candidates.
I really cannot see what you are talking about.
February 8, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love that Bill says self-financing of campaigns is against the spirit of campaign finance and was pissed at the Supreme Court for allowing it, yet the very next month the Clintons drop $5 million out of their personal cash and into their campaign. That is sketchy itself, especially given Bill's post-presidential financial dealings, but the hypocrisy is simply hilarious, just another example of saying one thing and doing another! I think they call that the Clinton shuffle.
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/25868500
February 8, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink