Obama Outraises Clinton By About $11M** In Primary Funds

CHICAGO -- There is no other way to put it: not only did Sen. Barack Obama set a record for single quarter donations by a Democratic candidate, but his fundraising total -- $31M from 154,000 new donors -- imposes an obligaton on all of us who cover the race: we need to figure out why the "national" frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, isn't generating as much excitement as her chief competitor.

A whole tranche of the political press has been verging on pronouncing the active phase of Obama's campaign dead -- and re-asserting Sen. Clinton's "inevitable" claim on the nomination. But the evidence belies those assertions.

A quarter of a million Democratic donors are hungry for something different, and they've invested direclty in Barack Obama. Yes -- Obama's supporters tend to be a bit more upscale that Clinton's base -- but the breadth of his support can't really be explained away by an appeal to political demography.

Kudos, incidentally, to the campaign high command for keeping this number under wraps. As of a week ago, I was convinced that Hillary Clinton would raise more primary funds than Obama, partially because I misread the signals emanating from the Obama campaign and partially because I bought the very spin I've condemned above.

** = I'm estimating that Clinton would up raising about $20M in primary funds, btw. That's based on an estimated ratio of primary to general donations. The ratio, I am told, is about the same as the first quarter for Clinton.

It'll be a while before we learn how much cash both campaigns are carrying, how much they raised off the internet, what the gender breakdown of donors are, how much was raised in the last week, etc.

A side note: Ex-Sen. John Edwards hit his $9M goal; Gov. Bill Richardson raised an impressive $7M.

On to the Republicans...

Comments

And this is on top of the Clinton campaign attempt to pre-empt the figures by been the first to release an estimate that lumped the money together while intimating Americans that Obama would outraise them.

They said that he's fading, but I don't see that in this wallet polls, which to me is the most reliable polls right now.

The Trend is your Friend and Obama got the momentum from the polls that matters.

This is a 25% improvement from last quarter numbers.

Posted by Frank Igwealor | July 1, 2007 3:19 PM

The most recent CBS News poll of Democratic primary voters shows Clinton 48%, Obama 24%, and Edwards 11%. Further, when asked if there is any candidate that you feel enthusiastic about, Clinton leads with 28%, Obama 22%, Edwards 2%.

In consideration of this, as well as her overwhelming dominance in the national polls, state polls, general election matchups, debate performances, and her $27.5 M, the real obligation of the press is to figure out why the press still clings to the belief that she is in trouble, at all?

Posted by JoeCHI | July 1, 2007 3:22 PM

The problem was in that Hillary "purchased" the press to keep her on top (as Bill Clinton did in his run for re-election) but even when the press sells its soul to the devil for pittence, the people speak! The majority does not want the witch! Clintons have outdone ALL there usefullness, they are history now (thank God)!

Posted by Frank | July 1, 2007 3:29 PM

The most recent CBS News poll of Democratic primary voters shows Clinton 48%, Obama 24%, and Edwards 11%. Further, when asked if there is any candidate that you feel enthusiastic about, Clinton leads with 28%, Obama 22%, Edwards 2%.

In consideration of this, as well as her overwhelming dominance in the national polls, state polls, general election matchups, debate performances, and her $27.5 M, the real obligation of the press is to figure out why the press still clings to the belief that she is in trouble, at all?

Posted by JoeCHI | July 1, 2007 3:40 PM

HEY HILLARY! WHAT HAPPENED TO VINCE FOSTER AND WHERE ARE THE REST OF THE RECORDS?

Posted by Gus Burk | July 1, 2007 4:26 PM

There needs to be a way to modernize polling. Way too many people are not home much, have cell or internet phone service and the polling is not getting thru.
Alot of indies and republicans are reregistering as dems to vote for Obama in the primaries.
But, one thing that stands out and is more and more being talked about on the blogs is the msm spinning everything for hillary.
She lacks the experience and substance they attribute to her. She is using her husband's resume as her own. and she has no policy or tells how she is going to deal with the issues. Yet, Obama is being spun as being this way when in actuality he has more years and has addressed many issues and has policy out.
Because clinton speaks in her school marm way and throws out mostly cheap applause lines the media spins the debates in her favor. But, what is she really saying. nothing. The pundits are taking the cheap lines and proclaiming her winner.
If it was Edwards or Obama doing that they would crucify them.
so, why are people saying Hillary to the polls? Because the media tells them to.

Posted by vwcat | July 1, 2007 4:26 PM

There is no other way to put it: not only did Sen. Barack Obama set a record for single quarter donations by a Democratic candidate, but his fundraising total -- $31M from 154,000 new donors -- imposes an obligaton on all of us who cover the race: we need to figure out why the "national" frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, isn't generating as much excitement as her chief competitor.

Your observation is very correct. National Polls at this stage of the campaign do not mean much. The other factor that may show you why Obama is doing much better than Hillary is the number of donors. 258,000 is simply unprecedented. If Hillary and Bill Clinton combined can not beat the unknown Sen. Obama, it tells you that Obama is ahead of the game one million times

Posted by Amos Ajo | July 1, 2007 6:39 PM

And good financial receipts attract even BETTER financial receipts: I have been vocally supporting Obama here in my state of New Mexico for a while, but had not yet donated. Now I will be sending his campaign my first $100.00 donation.

Posted by digbydolben | July 1, 2007 6:52 PM

"A quarter of a million Democratic donors are hungry for something different, and they've invested direclty in Barack Obama."

Do we know this for sure? Could the discrepancy in the polling be due to Independents/moderate Republicans contributing to Obama and these individuals aren't reflected in polling that's targeted to registered Democrats?

Posted by Dickens | July 2, 2007 11:08 AM