NEWS: Republicans Still Getting Their Asses Kicked

POLITICS: Republicans Still Getting Their Asses Kicked

Remember back in April when the first quarter fundraising reports showed how badly Democrats were trouncing their Republican rivals? Well the second quarter ’07 presidential numbers are in, and shit is looking even worse for the GOP.

$17 million isn’t exactly chump change and is actually quite an improvement for Giuliani, so one could argue that things are going just fine for Republican presidential hopefuls. You could say that, until you look at how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did the last three months.

Yikes. Thirty-two million dollars. That’s roughly double what Captain 9/11 brought in last quarter. Hillary’s numbers also doubled-up Moneybags Romney’s haul. All in all, that’s a butt-whippin’.

It gets even worse for those candidates who aren’t in the top tier, like our old buddy John McCain.

So with Republican leaders lagging woefully behind their Democratic counterparts, Fred Thompson’s impact on the race completely unknown and John McCain having trouble raising money with the gigantic fork sticking out of his back, it’s no surprise that the folks at the RNC are a little jumpy. That’s even before we mention that all three major Democratic presidential candidates are currently dominating head-to-head presidential polls up and down the board. In short, it’s not a good month for them.

All of that said, the real story is Obama’s record fundraising quarter. After besting Clinton in Q1, Obama repeated the feat in Q2 and did it while by recruiting an unprecedented number of donors to his cause.

Yeah, I’d say amassing a quarter of a million donors when most candidates are struggling to hit the 6 digit mark qualifies as “not falling behind”. While it is worth noting that Obama seems to be focusing on raising money for the primary and Clinton seems to be concerned with the general, it’s also astounding that someone who wasn’t even a candidate 6 months ago could have come this far this fast to establish himself as the dominant fundraiser in the race. We’ll see what happens once Hillary brings in the big guy, but as of now she’s got a hell of a fight on her hands and a bit of egg on her face, courtesy of the Distinguished Junior Senator from Illinois.

Subrosa was one of the 258,000.

Barack is lookin good.

This was on the news the other night at a friends house and he said " that's just because all the Muslims are funneling money to him"

Needless to say, we had a little talk.

Thanks for the article Subrosa, that's good stuff.

while I'm glad to see that the Democratic candidates are doing well, I"m skeptical about seeing all this money pouring into thier campaigns. given where most of that money is likely to be coming from, I think we're watching the buying of the Democratic candidates as surely as we watched the special interests' buying out of thier Republican counterparts over the last decade.

it's interesting that that would seem to indicate that the established business and corporate interests are banking on a Democratic victory.

Great news!

I can't believe that even Edwards is spanking them in the polls!

The *breadth* of Obama's organization is really stunning. He's like Dean, in that he knows how to work the web, with some Bill thrown in, given that he's likable in front of real people too. Woot for community organizers! I hate big, broad predictions that are all sunshine and shit - but Obama seems really like a once-in-a-generation kind of candidate, who can inspire people and has something new to offer. Fingers officially crossed.

They said all that about Dean, too, until he faceplanted in the Iowa caucuses.

Exactly. The elections - even the primaries - are a long way away.

I'm not clear what you're getting at. Who is "buying" Obama? The people? Because that's who is donating the huge, lion's share of his funds.

THAT is something I find incredibly interesting as well.

It should be noted that Edwards raised like $9 mil. He needs to turn that around or he'll be back with the Richardsons and Tancredos of the world before we know it.

That was something I found very interesting when I read about it the other day. Obama seems to be providing a template for future candidates to follow. He seems to be getting a lot of funding from people who dislike Hilary Clinton, or just think she's unelectable.
As for corporate interests, they're just blowing with the winds, hoping the Democrats will feel some obligation to them.

Totally true. Though, to me, Obama seems to have a lot of youth and charisma that Dean never had. But that's pretty subjective, so like I can't back that up with, you know, a real argument.

Also very true. Though, the amount of money raised at this state is not without importance. Not only because it's resource, but it probably reflects depth/breadth of organization - effectively, the ability to mobilize people. Strong organizations are more resistant to minor bumps in the road (gaffes, less than stellar primary showings etc). You're right - it doesn't mean anythings in the bag. But his current capacity suggests Obama's got legs, plus some to spare.

I hear the Libertarians are gaining ground.

They certainly seem to think so.

Obama is a very interestign candidate. He's such a federal newbie that I would be resident to elect him, but him versus Rudy would be a great debate ticket to watch. The most excited i would be for an election in some time.

I'm wading through the reports to find if there is any indication of seperating his donations from individuals and PACs and the like. All the numbers show is that he averaged a little over $200 a donor in the last quarter. so I may be premature in assuming that these donors are largely anything more individual people taking an interest in him as a candidate. but I cannot help but maintain my skepticism on this, given the history of American politics and even Obama's willingness to "play the system". I guess the real thing to watch will be once he starts soliciting funds for the general election in earnest.

yes but would it be a good thing or an indicator to look forward to more of the same. not on the level of Dubya nitwittery, but still a vested interest in protecting corporate profits over genuine social responsibility?

According to their campaign, they don't accept PAC money. Whether that's true or not, I can't say. But it's worth noting.

I think it's a good thing for the Democrats because it both shows that the writing is on the wall and also deprives the RNC from similar donations. Clearly the Democrats are also going to be beholden to corporate interests to some extent, but on another level I'm not sure that's universally a bad thing.

WRONG. One might perhaps rightly think that about Hillary (though I don't have access to her exact fundraising information).

Reread the article. The bulk of Obama's money comes in small amounts (like $100-300) from INDIVIDUALS. What's that mean? It's not big business, unions, trial lawyers, PACs nor any of the usual bogeymen. It's people like Subrosa (OK, maybe he IS a trial lawyer, heh) and myself who want to see the guy become President.

What makes Obama's fundraising even MORE AMAZING is that the low amounts of each donation means that he can go back to those same people in a few months (and during the general election if he wins a spot on the ticket) for MORE MONEY.

On the other end of things, Hillary's contributions tended to come in large donations from well-off and powerful people (I'd figure) and from bundlers (those who raise funds from others and then contribute it en masse.

One would expect that Hillary's methods would be the most effective means of raising campaign funds. They haven't proven to be. And interestingly enough, she very often CAN'T go back to these same people for more money the way Obama can.

I can't say whether this is the future of fundraising, he is a charismatic individual who is "clean" (and by this I mean there's less old baggage to hang around his neck) and has a sizeable amount of the American populace that'd perhaps have a personal interest in seeing him elected even if he didn't have that charisma and the right positions on everything.

How DARE you, sir!

It's perfect!
1) do nothing
2) wait for media to make you the Paris Hilton of politics
3) ?
4) get democratic nomination!

Do nothing? Really?

I'm sorry, you don't get a quarter of a million donors by doing nothing.

This is good news. Thanks for the update Subrosa. I haven't had the time recently to watch the news. I appreciate it.

Rats, there goes my retirement plan.

Do nothing is the part before the Paris Hilton of politics part.
But yea, he does have a MySpace and money, so... you know, them's some beefy credentials

Do you just pop this shit off the top of your head?

The man spent three years in a civil rights law practice, you know, fighting for regular people's rights. He then was a Senator in Illinois (that's not quite Rhode Island, ya know...) for seven years. He's since spent three years in the U.S. Senate. Ten years in politics, that's six more than Shrub, two more than Reagan had before becoming President (eight years as Gov of Cali).

Are you counting the years Reagan spent being a toadie for McCarthy as years "in politics"? Because some might argue those should count too.