Temper, Temper, Temper

I am impressed that Obama has created a donor base of 258,000 Americans and I look with awe on the amount of money a neo-candidate managed to raise this quarter. It's quite a political accomplishment.

But with every superlative, there is tempering.

Money is a single metric. At this point, it's the most available of several other metrics to us political journalists, and so there is a tendency to interpret every other metric in light of one, rather than to try to interpert them in their contexts.

The others include fairly reliable polling in New Hampshire, fairly unreliable polling in Iowa (owing to the difficulty of polling likely caucus goers and projecting the 40% or so who will caucus for the first time), diverging polls in South Carolina, and a slate of fairly consistent national surveys. Also -- endorsements -- quality and quantity.

Many reporters expected Barack Obama to outraise Hillary. For some reason, those same reporters are now expressing surprise at Obama's haul and once again re-writing recent history: "Hillary's inevitability is lost" -- (Wasn't it lost the moment Obama got in?) "Obama is about to surge in the states" (Where'd that come from?) "Obama has more enthusiasm than Clinton" (In some polls, yes, in others, no.) "The early state polls don't really reflect anything" -- (This is human tendency to downgrade the importance of evidence that doesn't fit the narrative.)

To me, what's most interesting about Obama's fundraising total is not what it says about the future. It's what it says about the state of the party right now, the divisions within the party's base, the enthusiasm of the Democratic donor base generally, and the willingness of donors to contribute to an idea -- that Obama's election will Change Things -- than a resume -- Hillary Clinton's.

What the recent history of nomination contests teaches us is not that money is dispositive -- it's that money often flows to the hottest candidate, that it takes money to win, and that the person who raises the most money doesn't always win.

What I'd like to know is what percentage of them contributed the maximum, how many of them are new to the party, how many of them also contributed to other candidates, how the average wealth of Obama's supporters compares to Hillary Clintons', what the average donation size is, how much money the Obama campaign spent on donor prospecting, what their rate of returns are.

And strategically, what explains the disconnect between money and measured support? Obama leads in the money race and chases Clinton in New Hampshire and (arguably) Edwards in Iowa. Clinton holds commanding leads in the Feb. 5 states, though I am wary of reading too much into those results just say.

Comments

'"The early state polls don't really reflect anything" -- (This is human tendency to downgrade the importance of evidence that doesn't fit the narrative.)'

Partly. But don't underestimate how little thought most voters have given to the primaries so far. TV ads turn the polls upside down (as Mitt Romney can confirm), and Obama's just gotten on the air in IA so we'll see what happens there...

Posted by Algernon | July 2, 2007 4:24 PM

the reason the polling and the actual support is so different is because of a few things.
alot of people are not home when a pollster calls. alot of people have cable phone or cells, not landlines.
there are tons of indies and republicans who are just switching to dem now to support Obama and many first time voters as well. many of them will not be on any calling list.
I don't know of anyone who has ever been polled. and who you usually find at home are the establishment thinking people rather than those wanting to overthrow the corporate candidate.
Many are just women who say they support Hillary but, I feel she has tons of soft support. Obama has deep support.
Besides, how many polls show the frontrunner as being totally different from the person who actually got the nomination.
And Edwards and Obama are splitting the vote who hate Hillary, like me.

Posted by dlake | July 2, 2007 5:19 PM

You are absolutely right about all the metrics that affect the ultimate outcome of an election, in this case primary. You left out two important ones however. First, Hillary Clinton's high negatives, the corrolary to her lead in the polls that raises questions about her electability. And then there are all the political liabilities of the Clinton White House. Not just Bill's behavior and her health care fiasco, but especially their highly criticized pardons-for-money. The Clintons left this country divided and at the mercy of Karl Rove, who did not hesitate to take advantage of the situation. What is the appropriate reward for that? Continuing the dynasty?

Posted by Mark | July 3, 2007 10:01 AM

Hillary means:

Hooligan
Illegaly renting Lincoln bedroom
Loser
Lorry of baggages
Antagonize & divisive
Rwanda holly cost
You sure Obama stoker

Posted by Lee kim | July 3, 2007 10:41 AM

During the 2004 election, Ohio exit polls had John Kerry leading Bush and on the way to the White House. Last I time I checked Bush was still in the White House. If anything the disparity between Obama leading in fund raising and trailing in the democratic polls, is that his contributions is coming from independants and disenfranchised voters who do not want to see Hillary Clinton elected. If she manages to win the nomination then those voters will either stay away during election day or vote Republican if the can offer a palatable candidate like Guiliani. Whether she wins the nomination or not, Hillary isn't making it to the White House. All Barack has to do is ensure that he registers and turnsout those independant and disenfranchised voters during the primary.

Posted by ASylvan | July 4, 2007 10:59 PM