Third Quarter Fundraising Prediction Time: The Democrats

Many of you have asked for it and now, after a round of phone calls, here it is. I reserve the right to change my reporting as further information warrants.

Sen. Hillary Clinton: between $20M and $25M. Donors are coming home, and many who were on the fence seem to believe her nomination is inevitable. They're coming aboard too late to get anything substantive from the Clinton trough, although this week's homeland security lobbyist/access fundraiser shows that the Clinton team is capable of being creative in that respect. By this point, one fundraiser told me, these donors don't want to not be on board if and when Clinton wins.

Sen. Barack Obama: a ceiling of $20M. It's not clear whether this ceiling is artificial or real, whether it's an attempt by campaign insiders to manipulate expectations or to tamp then down. Obama will still wind up accumulating more donors than Clinton this quarter; he might not raise as much.

Ex-Sen. John Edwards: around $5M. It's been a tough quarter, money-wise. Edwards's natural fundraising reseviors are dry, his anti-lobbying/donor shtick probably shooed others away, and some internal staff turnover issues have reduced the efficiency of his fundraising operation.

Gov. Bill Richardson: between $4M and $6M. He could beat John Edwards this quarter.

Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Joe Biden: each will probably raise less than $2M.

Tomorrow: the Republicans.

Comments

You are so being played..... Obama is going to knock it out of the park LOL.

Hillary knows it, its why is she running around having "pay to play " fundraiser with Lobbyist.

Posted by Grace | September 19, 2007 5:26 PM

Marc...make a bet with you...he (Obama)exceeds last months number !!!! Pick a number (bet) I need a new Prada bag LOL

Posted by Doris | September 19, 2007 5:29 PM

Nice expectations for Obama...Clinton will of course pad her numbers with general money.

Posted by rashomon | September 19, 2007 5:44 PM

I haven't been following the internal staff turnover issues in the Edwards campaign. Could you enlighten us Marc?

On the fundraising side, I expect big numbers from Clinton.

Posted by Art | September 19, 2007 5:50 PM

Wow. Based on Marc's prediction, Edwards is starving for cash. Is he still viable in the race?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | September 19, 2007 6:15 PM

Well if Chris Matthews is right and hillary is "pimpin lobbyists" she should do well.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??g=17e90837-5cd4-4b48-a045-eb34ab1580e0&f=34&fg=email

Posted by outsider | September 19, 2007 8:57 PM

I have not read or heard any news from the Edwards campaign. Do you really expect only $5 million for Edwards? Is he struggling that bad?

Posted by Rick | September 19, 2007 9:50 PM

The Edwards estimates don't surprise me. He's got a core group of followers who seem - ahem - intensely devoted, but his firebreathing rhetoric against the so-called "establishment" is likely to have scared off all but the most partisan. It's tailored to the far left - to the blogs, really - and certainly not designed to attract mainstream voters. And every day there seems to be another "do as I say, not as I do" story about him, furthering the "hypocrite" meme.

His national poll numbers never got out of the teens, and Hillary has caught up to him in Iowa. If he loses in Iowa, I'll be surprised if he lasts past the big primaries on Feb 5th. If he loses badly in Iowa, he'll be gone by the end of January.

And just for the record, I am a Democrat.

Posted by Wonk | September 19, 2007 10:59 PM

Edwards...that figure isn't suprising. He just doesn't have as broad a fundraising base as HRC & Obama. However, his campaign is so Iowa-centric that he doesn't need very much. His campaign set for itself a goal of raising $40M by the end of the year. They'll get fairly close to reaching that total.

Obama vs. HRC...I find it hard to believe she'll outraise him given the trendlines from the first two quarters, but I do think they'll remain at rough parity which is a net victory for HRC.

Richardson...okay, so he might outraise Edwards but he spent a huge amount of cash this quarter. Not much financial daylight for him.

Dodd & Biden...prediction: Dodd will be the first to drop out if his fundraising is that low. Biden could join him although Biden may pull a McCain and fire everybody yet stay in anyway just for the press attention for his Iraq plan.

Posted by dry_fish | September 20, 2007 12:41 AM

@ Wonk -

mainstream voters aren't the one's contributing to Hillary's campaign....

the big money is from the people buying influence like Jones DAy that hosted HIllary's payola fundraiser. their clients include Halliburton and KBR and Diebold to name a few....

so ya if you attack the deep pockets you're not going to raise as much

Posted by OUtside the Beltway | September 20, 2007 8:49 AM

" Clinton team is capable of being creative"... That is a very "creative" way to describe an old fashioned shakedown.

Posted by CGibson | September 20, 2007 10:06 AM

Those numbers sound about right. I think Clinton will pass Obama this quarter by a significant amount. The inevitability theme and intimidation from the Clinton machine will start shaking loose a lot of change from people afraid to get on the wrong side of her.

If Richardson passes Edwards, that's a major ouch for Edwards. Especially since Edwards has stated that he needs $40 Million for the year. Falling off pace for that would really, really hurt in terms of logistics and perception.

Posted by Geek, Esq. | September 20, 2007 10:27 AM

OUtside the Beltway said:

"so ya if you attack the deep pockets you're not going to raise as much"

You say that like it's a good thing. If you don't raise as much as your opponents, you lose - unless you have "something" that's gonna get you free publicity. And the only free news coverage Edwards seems to get these days is negative.

Cue the "the media is against John Edwards" violins. WATB, any campaign that can't generate good news coverage is being run badly - aka, being run by Joe Trippi.

Edwards already has the scent of a loser on him, and his campaign is flailing wildly. Having Elizabeth accuse Hillary of stealing John's health care plan? More whining, and again he sends the wife out to do his dirty work. If Edwards' wants to go negative against Hillary, then let John go negative. Having his wife do it only makes him look like a wimp.

And threatening to cut off Congress's health coverage? Yeah, that'll happen. Way to piss off the people you need to pass your legislation, John-Boy.

Posted by Wonk | September 20, 2007 10:54 AM

I'm an Obama supporter, but I do think his numbers will probably come in below Hillary's. She's a 20-pt lead juggernaut, and that matters in fundraising. It also seems like Obama has had many fewer large-scale, $25 rallies/fundraisers. I just hope he's not below $20M, because that will be blown up in the press (negatively, of course).

Posted by cms | September 20, 2007 11:48 AM

I am always surprised (why, I don't know) how Obama supporters can blow off what here is clearly just numbers crunching.

If Obama comes in under $20M, that will be news as it would be a substantial drop from the two previous quarters. People will make of it what they will. I think, though that it will be hard not to see this as a negative development for Obama. The same numbers for Clinton would be equally negative.

Posted by Pragmatic Liberal | September 20, 2007 2:02 PM

I don't know if Obama will beat Clinton again, but Obama will exceed his 2Q amount.

Posted by TDR | September 20, 2007 2:55 PM

Wonk: The Edwards estimates don't surprise me. He's got a core group of followers who seem - ahem - intensely devoted...

Yeah, a core group of ambulance-chasing Ungeziefer.

Of course, that begs the question of whether or not his supporters are worse than a swarming hoard of Chicom Peoples' Liberation Army bag men [and Bag Ladies] and their allies at Loral & The New School.

The Republic is doomed.

Posted by Lucius Vorenus | September 20, 2007 3:02 PM

If Obama brings in 20M that is good, because the "bulk" of it will be primary monies. Remember, Clinton has tapped out most of her "primary checks". Any monies will be for general election. We can not expect these campaigns to continue to haul in 30+M a quarter. This is the ending of Q3 and bringing in 20-25M is staggering this late in the game. Don't look at the amount, look at what is "primary" monies vs. "general election" monies. Word is that the Obama Camp is keeping this extremely close to the vest. So, right now, sheer speculation.

Posted by icebergslim | September 20, 2007 4:13 PM

my connections on the campaign tell me that Edwards will be dead in the water after this quarter from a lack of money.
Hillary and Obama will be closer to one another, though neigther will be as high as the second Q. The Oprah Fundraiser helped Obama stick with Hillary.

Posted by joejoejoe | September 24, 2007 12:06 AM

Everyone drops during this quarter ... except, maybe, Biden and Dodd, who have been doing more fundraising than usual. But Obama will beat Hillary, since he has less maxed out donors. Richardson won't beat Edwards. I don't know where this info is coming from ...

Posted by Sam | September 24, 2007 1:04 AM

Who cares? Money is the problem with politics as it is. It's pretty easy for sold out candidates to raise money.

It's pretty funny to me that people say they are sick of corporate lobbyists, and money dominating politics, then they ridicule the candidates who raise the least amount of "money," even though those candidates tend to be the ones with the best ideas.

Just another indication of hypocrisy-based surface thinking.

Posted by framecop | September 30, 2007 12:33 AM