BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

CULTURE

POLITICS

MUSIC

CELEB

Republicans Still Getting Their Asses Kicked

WEDNESDAY JULY 4 2007 6:00 AM

Submitted by Subrosa. Edited By erin_broadley.

TAGS: Campaign, Obama, Clinton, Romney, Giuliani, McCain is toast

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.

Mr. Romney’s campaign announced that it brought in $14 million in contributions for the second quarter, and that the former Massachusetts governor had personally lent his campaign $6.5 million. Those donations to his campaign represented a drop from the $20 million he raised in the first three months of the year.
Mr. Giuliani’s campaign raised $17 million from April through June, a slight increase from the $16 million that the former New York City mayor raised during the first quarter, when his fund-raising was just getting started after the announcement of his candidacy.

$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.

The overall figures show the Republicans trailing the top Democratic presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Mr. Obama raised $32.5 million from April through June, while Mrs. Clinton raised $27 million.

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.

The presidential campaign of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who once seemed poised to be his party’s nominee in 2008, acknowledged yesterday that it was in a political and financial crisis as a drop in fund-raising forced it to dismiss dozens of workers and aides and retool its strategy on where to compete.

The campaign said the decline in contributions had left it with $2 million. It said it had raised just $11.2 million over the last three months, despite Mr. McCain’s promise to do better than his anemic $13 million showing in the first three months of the year.

Mr. McCain’s advisers blamed his close association with the recently defeated immigration bill, which was strongly opposed by conservatives already skeptical of his ideological credentials. But he has also had to contend with a host of other issues, including his support of the Iraq war, opposition from evangelical voters, the prospect of former Senator Fred D. Thompson’s entry into the race, and the sense that his continuing struggles to raise money were consuming the campaign and making fund-raising even more difficult.

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.

Senator Barack Obama raised at least $32.5 million from April through June, he announced Sunday on his campaign Web site, attracting more than 258,000 contributors since entering the Democratic presidential race nearly six months ago.

As candidates tabulated how much money they raised in the year’s second quarter, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, appeared to be leading contenders from either party, raising at least $31 million for the primary campaign alone. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, raised about $21 million for the primary, a spokesman confirmed Sunday, and about $27 million over all.

“Together, we have built the largest grass-roots campaign in history for this stage of a presidential race,” Mr. Obama said, adding that 154,000 new donors had signed on in the last three months. “That’s the kind of movement that can change the special-interest-driven politics in Washington and transform our country. And it’s just the beginning.”

Mr. Obama waited barely 12 hours after the fund-raising period closed to trumpet his success, a quarterly record for a Democratic candidate, hoping to depict widespread support for his campaign and to rebut suggestions that his candidacy is falling behind Mrs. Clinton’s.

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.

33 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3

Chainlink

Iran

August 2005

JUL 04, 2007 06:46 AM

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.

Volkov

Austin, TX

OLD SKOOL

JUL 04, 2007 07:06 AM

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.

RudieCantFail

Intercourse, PA

January 2006

JUL 04, 2007 07:06 AM

Great news!

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

SignalNoise

Chicago, IL

February 2004

JUL 04, 2007 08:06 AM

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.

Necia

San Francisco, CA

August 2005

JUL 04, 2007 08:28 AM

SignalNoise said:
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.

zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

JUL 04, 2007 08:34 AM

Necia said:

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.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

JUL 04, 2007 08:39 AM

Volkov said:
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.

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.

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

THAT is something I find incredibly interesting as well.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

JUL 04, 2007 08:42 AM

RudieCantFail said:
Great news!

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

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.

ericwine

Charlotte Hall, MD

January 2007

JUL 04, 2007 09:22 AM

Subrosa said: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 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.

SignalNoise

Chicago, IL

February 2004

JUL 04, 2007 09:24 AM

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

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.

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

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.

smithers_jones

Los Angeles, CA

November 2003

JUL 04, 2007 10:29 AM

I hear the Libertarians are gaining ground.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

JUL 04, 2007 11:11 AM

smithers_jones said:
I hear the Libertarians are gaining ground.

They certainly seem to think so.

Drock1205

Merrick, NY

June 2007

JUL 04, 2007 11:58 AM

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.

Volkov

Austin, TX

OLD SKOOL

JUL 04, 2007 12:37 PM

Subrosa said:

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.

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.

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

THAT is something I find incredibly interesting as well.

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?

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

JUL 04, 2007 12:46 PM

Volkov said:

Subrosa said:

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.

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.

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

THAT is something I find incredibly interesting as well.

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.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3