Turns Out: Obama Still Found More Donors

When we got out first look at the third quarter estimates two weeks ago, it seemed that Sen. Hillary Clinton had attracted more new donors to her campaign than he did -- approximately 7,000 more.

But the final numbers give the edge to Obama in this category: he found 108,000 new donors and Clinton attracted 100,000.

That's 365,000 donors in all. 92.5% of all 550,000 donations Obama recieved have been for less than $250.00

That's campaign finance reform right there, isn't it?

Comments

It definitely is, Marc. Let's hope we can prove all the skeptics and the Establishment wrong. Obama '08

Posted by Daniela | October 15, 2007 11:23 PM

Obama is the real deal. We need to elect him.

www.barackobama.com

Posted by Bethany | October 16, 2007 12:30 AM

The real figure of interest is the percent of $$ that came from low-dollar donors, which is probably lower.

If "Itemized contributions" is in fact contributions over $200, then the low-dollar share for Clinton is 27%; for Edwards, 30%; for Obama, 45%. By Comparison, for Giuliani it's 17%; McCain 25%; Thompson 33%. I can't remember the amount of money Romney's given to his campaign ... $17M rings a bell, in which case it's about 17% for him too.

Also a lot of Obama's itemizers are mid-dollar donors: people who gave $250-500. So his donor base is much different from Clinton's or even Edwards's.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | October 16, 2007 11:05 AM

Absolutely...

Lots of donors making smaller contributions is campaign finance reform in a box.

Just like with the Dean campaign. That's why Dean's supporters (though this was considered a PR ploy by the media) overwhelmingly voted for Dean to "bust the caps" of the public finance limits.

Posted by Vermonter | October 16, 2007 12:00 PM

Clinton getting more new donors got lots of chatter. This, well, isn't. I guess just because it's important enough to report doesn't make it important enough to correct. The difference of a few thousand either way doesn't really matter, of course. It's just that it fit the narrative nicely 2 weeks ago.

NY Times on Clinton's contributor victory.

Posted by Boring Commenter | October 16, 2007 2:18 PM

2 weeks ago, Obama campaign said they had raised at least 20 miilion from AT LEAST 93,000 new donors.

I always knew they would wait to see how the Clintons and the media played up the relevance of the donor numbers before the actual numbers are released.

And the Clintons and MSM took the bait. Next thing you'll hear is that the donor numbers does not mean the donors will vote for you. Well, why don't the ones who will vote for you help bring up your donor numbers to Obama 365,000?

If Hillary can answer this question, I'll like us to have a conversation.

Posted by Diamond | October 16, 2007 5:50 PM