• news
  • WEDNESDAY JULY 4 2007 6:00 AM

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.

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.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
ASSH0LE

ASSH0LE

Las Vegas, NV
June 2003

JUL 10, 2007 08:24 PM

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.

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



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.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUL 10, 2007 08:39 PM

ASSH0LE said:
It's people like Subrosa (OK, maybe he IS a trial lawyer, heh) .



How DARE you, sir!

DrStinkypants

DrStinkypants

Saint Paul, MN
October 2002

JUL 10, 2007 09:03 PM

ericwine 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.



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.



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

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUL 10, 2007 10:12 PM

DrStinkypants said:

ericwine 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.



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.



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.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JUL 10, 2007 10:19 PM

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

joker_

joker_

Minneapolis, MN
October 2005

JUL 11, 2007 02:45 PM

Subrosa said:

DrStinkypants said:

ericwine 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.



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.



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.



Rats, there goes my retirement plan.

DrStinkypants

DrStinkypants

Saint Paul, MN
October 2002

JUL 11, 2007 09:19 PM

Subrosa said:

DrStinkypants said:

ericwine 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.



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.



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.



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

ASSH0LE

ASSH0LE

Las Vegas, NV
June 2003

JUL 11, 2007 10:48 PM

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).

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUL 11, 2007 10:53 PM

ASSH0LE said:
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.

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

JUL 11, 2007 11:59 PM

DrStinkypants said:

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



Fixed. Meet Fred Thompson.

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

JUL 12, 2007 12:03 AM

oyaji said:
Reagan did have a lot of experience using the military to abuse college students. That is important in a President.



Don't be such assholes. The man was president of the Screen Actors Guild. PRESIDENT.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JUL 12, 2007 05:31 AM

FearTheReaper said:

oyaji said:
Reagan did have a lot of experience using the military to abuse college students. That is important in a President.


Don't be such assholes. The man was president of the Screen Actors Guild. PRESIDENT.


And he helped round up Communists. COMMUNISTS.

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

JUL 12, 2007 05:37 AM

Zarth said:

FearTheReaper said:

oyaji said:
Reagan did have a lot of experience using the military to abuse college students. That is important in a President.


Don't be such assholes. The man was president of the Screen Actors Guild. PRESIDENT.


And he helped round up Communists. COMMUNISTS.



Cuz they were out to steal his Jelly Beans. JELLY BEANS.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JUL 12, 2007 05:46 AM

_Poptard_ said:

Zarth said:

FearTheReaper said:

oyaji said:
Reagan did have a lot of experience using the military to abuse college students. That is important in a President.


Don't be such assholes. The man was president of the Screen Actors Guild. PRESIDENT.


And he helped round up Communists. COMMUNISTS.


Cuz they were out to steal his Jelly Beans. JELLY BEANS.


Not just steal them, my friend - collectivize them. COLLECTIVIZE.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUL 12, 2007 07:05 AM

oyaji said:
Reagan did have a lot of experience using the military to abuse college students. That is important in a President.



Let's be fair. They were Cal students, so they probably deserved it.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next