So, I know that I haven't written a new post for this blog in almost 2 months, but whatever. It's not like anyone actually reads this thing anyway. I already know what goes on inside my head. I don't need the Internet to remind me. But here we go again, regardless.
So, Sen. Barack Obama released his fundraising statistics Sunday night. We all learned that he raised a remarkable $32.5 million in the last fiscal quarter (April-June). That is an incredible number. According to The Los Angeles Times, it is the second highest fundraising total for a quarter since the President raised $35 million in the second quarter of 2003. That is an incumbent president raising that much money, an incumbent who has made many a bedfellow with shady corporate donors and political action committees. (see article here).
Barack Obama has raised the second highest amount of money for a political campaign during any quarter in history. His $32.5 million is more than all the 2004 Democratic candidates raised in the 2nd quarter of 2003 combined. Of that $32.5 million, $31 million is set aside for the primary campaign. That raises the amount of money he has raised this year to battle Senator Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination to $55.7 million. Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that Obama's campaign is not accepting money from PACs or lobbyists.
To her credit, Clinton raised $27 million this quarter, about $21 million of which will go to the primary. When you add that to the $26 million that she raised last quarter, along with the $10 million she transferred from her Senate campaign war chest, she has actually outraised Senator Obama $63 million to $55.7 million. However, not all of that money is earmarked for the primaries. In fact - I do not have the actual numbers in front of me - but it appears as though when you take the $6 million this quarter, along with the similar figure from last quarter, and some of her $10 million transfer into account as general election money, Obama and Clinton are on an even keel, even with the former-First Lady's $10 million head start.
But putting the money aside, as huge a statistic as this is for the Obama camp (of which you can count me a member, if you hadn't noticed), the real revelation lies in another number. More than 258,000 people have donated to the Obama campaign since January 1. That is, without question, more than any other single candidate at this point in history. These 258,000 have made more than 350,000 donations, and more than 1,500 people join the ranks everyday. Talk about a grassroots explosion (read more here).
While money does not buy every election, simply ask Ross Perot, it will amount to an enormous shot in the arm for Obama's campaign. He will almost certainly come close to reaching $100 million by the end of 2007. That kind of money buys him several things.
One is notoriety and media coverage. Any candidate who can garner this kind of unprecedented support is certain to steal the headlines on a semi-regular basis. Even if Bill Clinton is making the rounds with his wife and squeezing money out of the Clinton stalwarts from the 90s, Barack Obama is going to make the nightly newscast, he is going to get play on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News. And most publicity is a good thing at this point in the race, especially free publicity.
Also, $55.7 million provides you with a great chance to buy publicity. He has more than enough money to run TV and radio spots in the key early primary states. He has a good marketing & PR team, as well as friends in Hollywood who can capitalize off of these.
Another benefit is that he is able to set up shop in these early states already. He has full-blown campaigns running in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada already - more than 6 months from the first caucus. Having a physical presence on the ground, especially in states where face-to-face politics means as much as it does in New Hampshire and Iowa, can make all the difference between catching the momentum like John Kerry & Bill Clinton and falling face down like Howard Dean & Gary Hart. And as we all know, no amount of money or media play can equal the power winning in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Even though he continues to lose to Clinton in national primary polls, Obama has fared far better on a state-by-state basis. While he is currently running anywhere from -10% in the Cook/RT Strategies poll to -23% in the Fox News poll (which is ridiculous, I must say. No way that Obama has 19% to Clinton's 42%), his marks are better in the states.
In Iowa, he is neck-and-neck with Clinton and John Edwards. Edwards is winning the Strategic Vision poll, leading Obama and Clinton 26%-21%-20% (notice how Barack is beating Hillary as well), and Clinton is leading in the Mason-Dixon poll with 22% to Edwards' 21% and Obama's 18%. (find these numbers here). In South Carolina, Mason-Dixon has Obama ahead of Clinton 34-29%.
Of course, these numbers mean absolutely nothing at this moment. But one thing to give some credence to is a recent poll by Mason-Dixon regarding favorability and votability (yes, I think I just made that up) of the major candidates. Fifty-two percent of those polled said they would not vote for Clinton under any circumstances, and 42% said that recognized her name & were unfavorable towards her (read more here). That's a pretty rough number. Like I've said all along, people don't like Hillary Clinton. She is polarizing and she can't win a general election against a decent & well-funded Republican candidate. Oh, and she would have NO chance against Fred Thompson. But that's just one man's opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment