Jump to content


Obama Suprasses Clinton in 2nd Quarter Fundraising


DaGreatOne
 Share

Recommended Posts

Obama Raised $32.5 Million in Second Quarter

 

By JEFF ZELENY

Published: July 1, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 1 ? Senator Barack Obama of Illinois raised a total of $32.5 million from April through June, his campaign announced today, drawing 258,000 contributors since entering the Democratic presidential race nearly six months ago.

 

While money continued to be tabulated from a final burst of donations that arrived before the fund-raising period closed Saturday, the Obama campaign provided an early estimate of its figures, hoping to demonstrate its financial muscle and widespread support.

 

The campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has said it would raise ?in the range of $27 million.?

 

No other candidates, Democrat or Republican, have suggested they will surpass those tallies for the second quarter of the year.

 

?Together, we have built the largest grassroots campaign in history for this stage of a presidential race,? Mr. Obama said in a statement. ?We now have hundreds of thousands of Americans who are ready to demand health care for all, energy independence and an end to this war in Iraq.?

 

The Obama campaign said it had attracted 154,000 new contributors in the second quarter, with $31 million designated for the primary race. Over all, the campaign said it had raised at least $32.5 million during the second quarter, including at least $1.5 million that can be used in the general election campaign, should he win the nomination.

 

The second-quarter figure brings the amount of money the campaign has raised this year to nearly $56 million.

 

?That?s the kind of movement that can change the special interest-driven politics in Washington and transform our country,? Mr. Obama said. ?And it?s just the beginning.?

 

While the second fund-raising period of the year ended Saturday, candidates have until July 15 to file reports with the Federal Election Commission, detailing how much money was raised and spent.

 

The campaign of John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, said that it had raised more than $9 million, compared with $14 million raised in the first three months of the year.

 

?We now know this campaign will enter the next phase with the resources to compete,? Mr. Edwards?s campaign manager, David Bonior, wrote in an e-mail to donors late Saturday. ?No matter what they throw at us, John Edwards?s message of substance will break through to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and key states all over the country, and that?s all we need to win.?

 

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico reported raising more than $7 million in the second quarter.

 

Looks like my boy Obama continues to be a fundraising juggernaut while taking no money from lobbyists or PAC's.

 

BTW off-topic but has anyone noticed that potential GOP candidate Fred Thompson is a registered lobbyist? Can you imagine a lobbyist as President? What has the GOP come to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


And yet his campaign organization is still a massive joke and if you want to contest this. Why then is he still in the same place in the polls when it came out his first quarter fundraising was a huge haul?

 

That's right, he has a nice smile but he has yet to build a proper organization that can win in either Iowa or New Hampshire states with fickle populaces that will not roll over for a nice smile. If he does not win at least one of the first three(and I'll say it's very unlikely he does) it's over before he can get to states where he has more reasonable chances.

 

BTW, look at Obama's sponsors some real nice people there. And BTW a lot of good decent people are lobbyists, you see their doing this great job of talking up people's vested interests. Isn't free speech great? Look, if you run afoul as a lobbyist you can be taken away don't knock a guy because he did a job where he followed the rules and a select few didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lobbyists suck. Too often they buy politicians to vote the way they want them to.

 

These days, corporations have far more control over the government than the people.

Coming from a guy who probably claims to support Labor Unions despite never being in one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet his campaign organization is still a massive joke and if you want to contest this. Why then is he still in the same place in the polls when it came out his first quarter fundraising was a huge haul?

 

That's right, he has a nice smile but he has yet to build a proper organization that can win in either Iowa or New Hampshire states with fickle populaces that will not roll over for a nice smile. If he does not win at least one of the first three(and I'll say it's very unlikely he does) it's over before he can get to states where he has more reasonable chances.

 

BTW, look at Obama's sponsors some real nice people there. And BTW a lot of good decent people are lobbyists, you see their doing this great job of talking up people's vested interests. Isn't free speech great? Look, if you run afoul as a lobbyist you can be taken away don't knock a guy because he did a job where he followed the rules and a select few didn't.

 

So what? The real campaign has yet to start. We'll see what his money does for him when he goes all out with advertisements and get-out-the vote drives. Trust me, it's way way too early to really gauge what his money has done for him. Let's wait until early January 2008 to see what happens.

 

I am not supporting either Obama or Clinton yet... I will support the nominee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet his campaign organization is still a massive joke and if you want to contest this. Why then is he still in the same place in the polls when it came out his first quarter fundraising was a huge haul?

 

That's right, he has a nice smile but he has yet to build a proper organization that can win in either Iowa or New Hampshire states with fickle populaces that will not roll over for a nice smile. If he does not win at least one of the first three(and I'll say it's very unlikely he does) it's over before he can get to states where he has more reasonable chances.

 

BTW, look at Obama's sponsors some real nice people there. And BTW a lot of good decent people are lobbyists, you see their doing this great job of talking up people's vested interests. Isn't free speech great? Look, if you run afoul as a lobbyist you can be taken away don't knock a guy because he did a job where he followed the rules and a select few didn't.

 

First of all I have yet to see anyone call his campaign organization a massive joke. He hasnt gained any really because Clinton still has name recognition over him and were still over 6 months to the first primary so lets not get carried away. Lets not take away where credit is due. What he has done collecting so many donations from people is quite incredible.

 

Plus I never said lobbyists were evil because I've considered working for a lobbying firm. But lobbyists hold way to much power in government already and making a lobbyist president defintely would not help that problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet his campaign organization is still a massive joke and if you want to contest this. Why then is he still in the same place in the polls when it came out his first quarter fundraising was a huge haul?

 

That's right, he has a nice smile but he has yet to build a proper organization that can win in either Iowa or New Hampshire states with fickle populaces that will not roll over for a nice smile. If he does not win at least one of the first three(and I'll say it's very unlikely he does) it's over before he can get to states where he has more reasonable chances.

 

BTW, look at Obama's sponsors some real nice people there. And BTW a lot of good decent people are lobbyists, you see their doing this great job of talking up people's vested interests. Isn't free speech great? Look, if you run afoul as a lobbyist you can be taken away don't knock a guy because he did a job where he followed the rules and a select few didn't.

 

First of all I have yet to see anyone call his campaign organization a massive joke. He hasnt gained any really because Clinton still has name recognition over him and were still over 6 months to the first primary so lets not get carried away. Lets not take away where credit is due. What he has done collecting so many donations from people is quite incredible.

 

Plus I never said lobbyists were evil because I've considered working for a lobbying firm. But lobbyists hold way to much power in government already and making a lobbyist president defintely would not help that problem.

Yes, he's done well in raising money I will not deny that but the fact is Mitt Romney's done well raising money too and is much less known than Obama and Romney is leading in both New Hampshire and Iowa with national poll numbers that are much below Obama's. Obama has yet to prove he has what it takes to run a real campaign and the fact is this is his first major campaign and he's doing poorly given the zeal he inspires and the massive amounts of people who admire him. We forget he did not have a challenge when he ran for the senate because he didn't have an opponent to August thanks to the Ryan sex scandal so he's now finally running a campaign and to this point he's been a major major disappointment.

 

With all the momentum he built up in the spring it should be translating now to something other than money and he should be using that money effectively. That's yet to be seen and I don't know if it will ever be seen. Obama's a great guy but I'm beginning to doubt whether he's a great politician and if he's not he won't win anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitt Romney has been much more aggressive in campaigning and getting his name out there. He's been actively campaigning in New Hampshire and Iowa much longer. Remember, Obama is still in the Senate, so he's not 100 percent concentrating on the campaign.

 

It's not reasonable to compare those two because Obama is going against a real heavyweight, Clinton.

 

In addition, NH and Iowa won't matter as much. The other big primaries will matter more, especially now that so many of them have been moved up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitt Romney has been much more aggressive in campaigning and getting his name out there. Remember, Obama is still in the Senate, so he's not 100 percent concentrating on the campaign.

 

It's not reasonable to compare those two because Obama is going against a real heavyweight, Clinton.

Yes that's quite right which just proves my opinion that he's not running the effective campaign that that type of money can buy and it's not just actual foot time in these states. Romney's uses his money to build up and absolutely stunning ground army of volunteers and networks that run through those states, and has purchased plenty of TV time.

 

Obama's organizational abilities are flat which is truly sad given the fact that most of his base is very very tech and internet savy and yet Obama's done a poor job tapping that.

 

Face it, he's not run the campaign that is going to win an election, and excuses will not count because ultimately unless he wins this was all for nothing, no one's going to say "Well, it was Hilary so it's understandable". No, it's not he has more money than her, he's more likable than her, and he has more inspired people behind him than her yet what has that translated to?

 

He's running third in the nomination process when you get down to the states. He's not doing his job plain and simple and excuses will not count when you're raising 25+ million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol @ the random, OT 'shot' at Thompson.

 

The same can be said for the dems with two of their leading candidates being senators who have accomplished little in their brief senate terms.

 

Did you know that John Edwards was once a trial lawyer? Can you imagine a trial lawyer as president? What has the democratic party come to? lolz!!!!!111

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has money raised ever translated to definite success? No.

 

Have early poll numbers ever translated to definite success? No.

 

I agree that Obama doesn't have the organizational strength that Hillary has. But that doesn't mean what he has done is a joke. Both Bill Clinton and John Kerry's respective campaigns were in the dumps with much less time to spare than Obama. To be this critical of Obama this early makes no sense. There is plenty of time for him to build the momentum and structure needed to bite into Hillary's numbers.

 

Plus in election years where there is no dem president or vp, the party has had a tendency to bail on the early front runner.

 

As for the personal attacks on Obama, that just isn't necessary. You attack Obama for being just a smile. That tells me that democrats like you continue to underestimate how important charisma and likeability are in electing a president. Nobody listened to Gore's extremely valuable policy arguments because he was a "robot" and Bush was more likeable.

 

For the life of me, I can't figure out what any particular candidate has told me that would want me to vote for them. Nobody has any substance. But I know one that has ridiculously high negatives and one that has really low negatives, which can translate big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the personal attacks on Obama, that just isn't necessary. You attack Obama for being just a smile. That tells me that democrats like you continue to underestimate how important charisma and likeability are in electing a president. Nobody listened to Gore's extremely valuable policy arguments because he was a "robot" and Bush was more likeable.

 

For the life of me, I can't figure out what any particular candidate has told me that would want me to vote for them. Nobody has any substance. But I know one that has ridiculously high negatives and one that has really low negatives, which can translate big time.

Yeah put words in my mouth, it's kinda laughable you'd say I'm the one who doesn't understand, this coming from the guy who was gung ho Ned Lamont.

 

The fact is charisma and likeability are huge factors in an election but so is actual substance behind that charisma and if you want an example that will negates the whole charisma and likeability thing I'll give it to you.

 

John Edwards as a VP canidate.

 

Thank you, and good night.

 

Naw, I'll stick around. John Edwards was a real nice smile and a guy who everyone liked yet no one thought he won the debate agaisnt Cheney. He also offered nothing to the campaign and other than a good organization did nothing in the primaries because their was nothing behind that smile and people can understand a nice guy from a guy you want on their side.

 

Clinton and Reagan we're very likable people but they also offered something when they campaigned they weren't yellow bastards like Obama who is afraid to utter a sentence or even offer anything of substance. Come on the guy went to a health care convention where he knew the canidates we're all going to be there with health plans and he came with nothing! He is so utterly afraid to say anything that might taint the golden boy image he's built up for himself. Where was he during the Iraq spending debate? Shouldn't our most popular guy be leading the way not be led by the contemptable Harry Reid? Where was he during the Immigration debate. Oh that's right, to lead it requires you grow a set and make up your mind.

 

You are laughable if you think his likeability will win this election and the fact is this election is far too important to send out a face because it won't do jack sh*t. If you want your face team up Edwards and Obama and have them go across the country waving but staying mum on any issues that the American people want to hear about. The last guy who got it for us was James Carville and he knew if Bill was to win he had to talk about the issues, he knew Bill could be more than just a face and it worked brilliantly. Chuck Schumer understood we needed more than faces to lead the way and we ended up sweeping the Senate races that matter, where we had guy and woman who grew a set.

 

For christs sakes we had a senate race victor who was a guy who was fat, had a crew cut, and was missing fingers, and yet we one because Tester was not afraid to talk about the issues.

 

Where's pretty boy Ned Lamont?

 

Oh, that's right he's at home and the guy who talked about the issues is holding the Senate seat.

 

Charisma's nice but it does nothing for anyone if it comes with a phoney attached to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it that surprising that the leading male candidate is leading in fundrasing?

 

Is it that surprising that the leading minority candidate is leading in fundrasing?

 

Is it that surprising that the candidate who is both a man and a minority is leading in fundrasing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying that this applies to you Rune (although your virulent hatred of immigrants makes me wonder), but I have run into several democrats that are closet racists and do not support Obama for some "non-racial" reason. One guy I know is the epitome of the closet racist, and he says he really likes Obama but that, unfortunately, he won't vote for Obama because he doesn't think "America is ready for a black president." Such BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call BS on a lot of black people who are supporting him and will vote for him just because he is black.

 

While I think someone saying 'America isn't ready for a black president' is total sh*t, I think what I described above is equally as bad.

 

My dad's brother was literally surprised that my dad didn't want to vote for Obama. On the basis of race. :banghead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying that this applies to you Rune (although your virulent hatred of immigrants makes me wonder), but I have run into several democrats that are closet racists and do not support Obama for some "non-racial" reason. One guy I know is the epitome of the closet racist, and he says he really likes Obama but that, unfortunately, he won't vote for Obama because he doesn't think "America is ready for a black president." Such BS.

What are you spouting? My dad and I just got in a fight because I wouldn't help him get the addresses of Spector or Casey because I was for the immigration bill. Honestly, are you just off your rocker? I wrote several editorials to my local paper about Mayor Barletta's ordinance being a cheap attempt at political opportunity on the backs of a heated issue. I just attacked Obama for not taking the lead with the Democrats on the issue of Immigration, literally in this thread.

 

Do you not read the above posts? Why would I bash Obama for not helping the Democrats on the issue IF I DIDN'T SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC POSITION.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol @ the random, OT 'shot' at Thompson.

 

The same can be said for the dems with two of their leading candidates being senators who have accomplished little in their brief senate terms.

 

Did you know that John Edwards was once a trial lawyer? Can you imagine a trial lawyer as president? What has the democratic party come to? lolz!!!!!111

 

Reason I brought it up was because I read it here in DC in the Politico which is a conservative leaning paper. I didnt think it was necessary to make a whole topic on it.

 

Well luckly for me I really dont support John Edwards and I think he is quite fake.

 

And as for Thompson I hope he gets the nomination because I think he is very beatable especially when you compare him to Giuliani, McCain and even Romney.

 

The fact he recently called Cuban illegals terrorists, clearly tells me he isnt the brightest bulb. First because Cubans as soon as they touch land are granted aslyum and because by saying statements like that he could lose a large portion of the Cuban voting base in Florida and in the process lose Florida. Not very smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact he recently called Cuban illegals terrorists, clearly tells me he isnt the brightest bulb. First because Cubans as soon as they touch land are granted aslyum and because by saying statements like that he could lose a large portion of the Cuban voting base in Florida and in the process lose Florida. Not very smart.

Are you that easily swayed by Hillary twisting the words of Thompson to get some cheers at her rally?

 

Thompson was clearly talking about Castro's henchmen and not Cuban-Americans. Talking about not only strengthening our border with Mexico but we have to think about the rest of the world as well. I'm damn glad he isn't just sitting on his hands when it comes to Latin American totalitarianism.

 

lol @ Hilary acting like she gives a sh*t about Cuban-Americans or has been some huge backer of their cause. It was a cheap ploy to construe words from their original intention and meaning - sadly, looks as if it worked. Which leads me to believe that those it 'worked on' may not be the 'brightest bulb'.

 

It's totally asanine to describe the Cuban-American community or any other minority community as blind sheep that vote in a pack and will do what others do and will be swayed by what the masses do. Also, pandering is a huge tactict for the Dems - not so much for the GOP.

 

In '04 the strengthening on the US embargo towards Cuba that limited visiting rights and such was supposed to be a huge opening for Kerry which turned out to be false and Bush won by a larger margin then he did in 2000 even though in '00 the support of Cuban-Americans for Republicans was even stronger.

 

A big *yawn*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact he recently called Cuban illegals terrorists, clearly tells me he isnt the brightest bulb. First because Cubans as soon as they touch land are granted aslyum and because by saying statements like that he could lose a large portion of the Cuban voting base in Florida and in the process lose Florida. Not very smart.

Are you that easily swayed by Hillary twisting the words of Thompson to get some cheers at her rally?

 

Thompson was clearly talking about Castro's henchmen and not Cuban-Americans. Talking about not only strengthening our border with Mexico but we have to think about the rest of the world as well. I'm damn glad he isn't just sitting on his hands when it comes to Latin American totalitarianism.

 

lol @ Hilary acting like she gives a sh*t about Cuban-Americans or has been some huge backer of their cause. It was a cheap ploy to construe words from their original intention and meaning - sadly, looks as if it worked. Which leads me to believe that those it 'worked on' may not be the 'brightest bulb'.

 

It's totally asanine to describe the Cuban-American community or any other minority community as blind sheep that vote in a pack and will do what others do and will be swayed by what the masses do. Also, pandering is a huge tactict for the Dems - not so much for the GOP.

 

In '04 the strengthening on the US embargo towards Cuba that limited visiting rights and such was supposed to be a huge opening for Kerry which turned out to be false and Bush won by a larger margin then he did in 2000 even though in '00 the support of Cuban-Americans for Republicans was even stronger.

 

A big *yawn*.

 

Unlike other people on this board I can admit when I'm wrong.

 

I stand corrected. I had gotten that information from a friend a couple days ago.

 

But the fact is he had to send out a correction to what he said because he knew what he said didnt sound right.

 

From the conservative leaning National Review:

 

Wow. The first unforced error of a so-far-very-smooth Thompson campaign:

 

In his speech, Thompson assailed "unbearable tax burdens," called for restrained spending, and argued for a smaller federal government. He expressed his opposition to the immigration bill in Congress and decried the flow of illegal immigrants from Cuba, saying: "I don't imagine they're coming here to bring greetings from Castro. We're living in the era of the suitcase bomb."

 

Aw, man. Of all the groups Fred Thompson could cite as a potential security threat, did he have to pick the Cubans? The one group of Hispanics that leans Republican?

 

And no, they're not bringing greetings from Castro. The vast majority are trying to get away from Castro.

 

I'm sure it was just a slip of the tongue, and Thompson's broader point about securing the borders is spot-on. But this will probably come up again, closer to the Florida primary...

 

http://hillaryspot.nationalreview.com/post...zM4NWU0MWM4Y2I=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, pandering is a huge tactict for the Dems - not so much for the GOP.

 

ho ho! I'll remember you said that.

Yeah, that's a good one to tuck away. *COUGH* Evangelicals *COUGH*

 

I will agree with Rune that many of the Democrats, particularly Obama, have done a poor job of taking a stronger stance on issues. He was very quiet about his vote on the Iraq bill that Bush later vetoed. Hillary is still trying to keep herself from being anti-war, even though it's the popular position. I hate it when some politicians are too afraid to do anything except attempt to play an issue both ways.

 

I still think that Obama is the best candidate on the DNC's side, with Richardson second and Edwards third.

 

I really hope that Hillary doesn't win the nomination, because it guarantees an almost certain loss for the Democrats in 2008, and I guess I will have to vote for her, because there are no moderate Republicans that have any chance at winning the nomination. I was intrigued by Giuliani before the debates began, but I quickly lost any respect for him after he trotted out the whole "Vote for a Democrat and we'll have another 9/11" BS. Fear-mongering is a joke to me, and I don't know how you can take someone seriously once they play that card.

 

Unfortunately, it seems like most of the time, a candidate's personality can be a difference over their political views (see 2000 election). The same could also be said about 2004, where John Kerry had zero charisma, and took almost zero risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW my racist self is supporting Bill Richardson for President because apparently I have multiple personalities.

 

Apologies. That's why I said I wasn't saying it applied to you. Although for some reason I recall you supporting the local ordinance. I probably misread what you had written.

 

Sorry. I made a mistake. :thumbup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...