« Mike Huckabee Defeats Romney For West Virginia's 18 Delegates | Home | Netroots Open Fire On Hillary For Agreeing To Debate On Fox »
Report: Obama Has More Female Donors Than Hillary
A pretty interesting finding buried in a new report from the Center for Responsive Politics:
Clinton has outraised Obama with women—$35.1 million to his $28.8 million—but his campaign finance reports list more female donors—29,000 versus her 25,000. Clinton and Obama's percentages from women are about even—45 percent of her total and 43 percent of his.
Keep in mind that the number of donors is the key stat -- and on that front, Obama has raised money from more female contributors than Hillary has. These numbers refer to all of 2007.
Meanwhile, Think Progress points to another noteworthy stat: Obama has raised more cash from members of the military -- $94,000 -- than any other Dem, Hillary included.
Late Update: It should be noted that the report says that only donors who gave $200 or more are itemized. Still, this is an eye-opening comparison.
Advertisement
I thought Obama had nearly 500,000 donors in 2007. Am I to understand that only 29,000 out of his 500,000 donors (5.8%) were women?
February 5, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the end of the report it says that only donors contributing $200 or more are itemized. I assume this breakdown is restricted to those bigger donors.
February 5, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same question as ColoradoJones. I'm one of Obama's female contributors. How many more are there, really?
February 5, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colorado Jones:
Yes, that is correct. The remainder of donors to the Obama camapaign (those not listed as "men"), are in a separate category - that is - "wide-eyed children who've broken open their piggybanks to support their only hope of realizing their American Dream."
That is, except for one small group of children. Those would be the children of President Obama who could not run because their fathers' supporters do not approve of "dynasties."
It's a most wondrous and beautiful thing that Senator Obama managed to win election in such a non-politics-as-usual state like Illinois is - simply by being so hopeful and by rejecting money from corporatists. Sometimes I close my eyes when he's talking so pretty and uplifting and all, and I can almost see and hear a darker-skinned Leon Freakin' Trotsky.
Sorry, I gotta run. I need to ask one of my donor's wives for a favor - just a little real estate purchase to sorta help me out a bit.
Have a Super Tuesday!
February 5, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colonpowwow, is her last name rich? Can you find out how much a pardon goes for nowadays? Thanks.
Good luck to your candidates' attempt at a third term.
February 5, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many times does Oprah count?
February 5, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh, this posting system is awful. Second try.
Hey, colonpowwow, is her last name rich? While you talking to her about your land deal, can you find out how much a pardon goes for nowadays? Thanks.
I guess we'll see tonight if your candidates' can keep alive their dream of a third term and reliving the 90's. Hope we get to move forward as opposed to going backwards.
February 5, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the other side, Sen. Clinton has raised more money from federal lobbyists than anybody else.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=K02&Cycle=2008&recipdetail=A&Mem=N&sortorder=U
Same for telecom companies.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=B09&cycle=2008&recipdetail=s&Mem=Y&sortorder=U
And liquor companies, for some reason.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=N02&cycle=2008&recipdetail=s&Mem=Y&sortorder=U
February 5, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the late update Greg, that makes more sense.
February 5, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael A. says:
"I guess we'll see tonight if your candidates' can keep alive their dream of a third term and reliving the 90's. Hope we get to move forward as opposed to going backwards."
Guess the little lady (you know, the one you used to call Mrs. Bill) couldn't possibly have any ideas on her own regarding being the President, right? Especially any that might lead us forward like universal healthcare and such.
Old sexist ways die hard for some, I guess.
February 5, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I guess they do colonpowwow. Look up the definition of a sexist and then look in the mirror. You clinton people are really pathetic.
February 5, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colonpowwow, your constant hurling of the sexist charge is really tiresome. I suggest that you look up the definition and then look in the mirror. You will see a sexist.
Have I ever said that she didn't have her own ideas? Nope. She's the one running around taking "credit" for the 90's and wanting to relive them, not me. So how is that f'n sexist? Pathetic.
By the way, I found another great vote by your candidate. We have the Iraq war vote, the Iran war vote and voting against banning cluster bombs and mines that kill and maim children. Is she a freaking democrat? I don't think so. She is running in the wrong primary.
February 5, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael A:
I know how you feel. I'm finding it's useless even tossing a comeback in the direction of people like colonpowwow, who sound more like drunken fools in a sports bar, insulting players from teams they doesn't like. Being in the sports field myself, the type is easily recognizable.
This is a sport to them, and for those of us (whether for Hillary or Obama or a Republican) who take this as seriously as it needs to be taken, let's ignore them.
As for the item, I believe it refers to 2007 only. Reading the links, it's a little difficult to decipher.
February 5, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has more donors PERIOD than does Clinton. So is it really suprising that he has more women donors? IOW, if we're trying to counter the fact that Clinton gets a higher percentage of women voters, I'm not entirely sure that this does it.
February 5, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, Scientific and Michael A.
There's nothing to my charge that calling the Senator from New York, "Mrs. Bill," or implying that she's somehow taking us back to the 90s when her husband was the President (and a rather good one as I remember) - when her campaign is very forward looking and progressive and stands on its own.
Anyhow, there's nothing sexist about your newfound concern about the Iraq Authorization Vote of Hillary Clinton (which I also disagree(d) with BTW). I see what a huge HUGE issue it was with you re Kerry/Edwards 2004. So ask yourself, why is it such a deal-breaker when applied to Hillary Clinton?
I stand corrected. Thanks.
I'm a sexist, eh? LOL I was one of the co-founders of the Milwaukee Chapter of NOW in 1970. I learned the word that describes those who insist that a woman's only value flows from the man she married. It rhymes with "hexist."
February 5, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, Scientific and Michael A.
There's nothing to my charge that calling the Senator from New York, "Mrs. Bill," or implying that she's somehow taking us back to the 90s when her husband was the President (and a rather good one as I remember) - when her campaign is very forward looking and progressive and stands on its own.
Anyhow, there's nothing sexist about your newfound concern about the Iraq Authorization Vote of Hillary Clinton (which I also disagree(d) with BTW). I see what a huge HUGE issue it was with you re Kerry/Edwards 2004. So ask yourself, why is it such a deal-breaker when applied to Hillary Clinton?
I stand corrected. Thanks.
I'm a sexist, eh? LOL I was one of the co-founders of the Milwaukee Chapter of NOW in 1970. I learned the word that describes those who insist that a woman's only value flows from the man she married. It rhymes with "hexist."
February 5, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what that even meant, or why it was directed to me. I simply advised Michael A not to get flustered by people who are obviously trolling.
February 6, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, Scientific and Michael A.
There's nothing to my charge that calling the Senator from New York, "Mrs. Bill," or implying that she's somehow taking us back to the 90s when her husband was the President (and a rather good one as I remember) - when her campaign is very forward looking and progressive and stands on its own.
Anyhow, there's nothing sexist about your newfound concern about the Iraq Authorization Vote of Hillary Clinton (which I also disagree(d) with BTW). I see what a huge HUGE issue it was with you re Kerry/Edwards 2004. So ask yourself, why is it such a deal-breaker when applied to Hillary Clinton?
I stand corrected. Thanks.
I'm a sexist, eh? LOL I was one of the co-founders of the Milwaukee Chapter of NOW in 1970. I learned the word that describes those who insist that a woman's only value flows from the man she married. It rhymes with "hexist."
Oh, and Scientific, Maybe I'll stop with the namecalling (you know, calling a sexist a sexist). Thanks for showing me the way with your drunk-at-a-sports-bar example. It's what we've become accustomed to from you and your ilk here.
February 5, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really are tiresome colonpowwow. In case you check back I just respond. I say again, look up the definition of sexist, you clearly fit the bill. If using the term mrs. is sexist, then the times is sexist as is the vast majority of the country.
Also, you constantly distort what the clintons are pitching. For months and months it was relive the 90's, when that didn't work and obama started getting a head of steam they altered the message. For months and months and months the clintons were inevitable and centrist, now they are "progressive." Give me a break.
On iraq, I explained this to you already and am sick of this charge. I was against the war from the beginning. To claim that its just because she is a woman is really pathetic. How many hundreds of thousands of people have died and you don't care. You just want to get the clintons back in the white house. That's all you care about.
I am not surprised that you were a co-founder of a chapter of NOW in the 1970's. It doesn't mean that you aren't sexist. Also, by the way that may explain your selective memory and constant distortions of facts.
Send the clintons packing in 08.
February 6, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink