That local woman's donation to Barack Obama written up by David Postman was part of something special. Today's announcement of Obama's fundraising totals for the 2nd quarter is simply astounding.
The fact he outraised Hillary, Inc. this past quarter by $10 million in primary funds is impressive. The total of 154,000 donors for the quarter (for a total of 258,000) is stunning.
There's a catch though. The last Democrat who garnered comparable grassroots enthusiasm, bringing non-political types into the fold, flopped rather famously. Is Barack Obama the next Howard Dean?
Maybe, maybe not. Though we're not likely to see a horrendous "scream" meltdown from him in any case.
Here's the catch. Despite the obvious enthusiasm in some circles for Obama, he's not showing a comparable breakthrough in any polling numbers yet. While the rolling averages at RealClearPolitics are incredibly useful snapshots for national and early state polls, the charts at pollster.com compile a longer trend of polling numbers that give a clearer picture of momentum in the race over time.
Looking at related charts for national polls (scroll down to "Top Democratic Contenders" at the link) as well as polls for the early state of Iowa and New Hampshire don't show Obama breaking through. Nationally he's hit a sustained plateau. In Iowa and New Hampshire - where candidates are doing the most retail politicking - he's on a slight downward trend. Only in South Carolina is he gaining ground, though RealClearPolitics doesn't have him in the lead yet as does pollster.com.
Will the round of positive media Obama will no doubt earn from these recent fundraising totals give his campaign another shot in the arm? Is he destined to be another Howard Dean, who injects a mighty shot of grassroots enthusiasm but who then fades when early primary voters have to make the choice, "yes, this man is the best choice to be President"?
Tough to say. But goodness this campaign cycle is fun.
UPDATE: GOP web guru Patrick Ruffini weighs in with some similar thoughts on Obama's impressive take, including somewhat parallel thoughts on the possible similarities between Obama and Howard Dean, plus some long-term musings on where the GOP needs to head in response.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 01, 2007 07:56 PM | Email ThisOn the other hand, Bush had the thing in the bag for a while
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2rep.htm
The reason money is so important at this stage is that it allows you to build a good ground game in early primary states. Even as we move toward a de facto national primary, those early states still matter.
Posted by: Giffy on July 1, 2007 08:27 PMObama has been working his pants off to take his online supporters OFFLINE and get them to commit not only their money, but their time and effort into his campaign, an effort that he's had a great deal of success with. Who knows how many of those contributors will translate to actual votes for him, but he knows where Howard Dean failed and is doing his darndest to correct those problems.
Given the fact that Dean was at the top of the polls and his candidacy fizzled in two weeks, how can people make predictions about any candidate at this point in the race? We've had upstart candidates like Dean who were at the top of the polls AND raised the most money, yet died in the first primary, and we've had establishment candidates that were at the top of the polls and outraised most of their competitors and still didn't get the nomination OR got the nomination, but didn't win the general election. Personally, I think the current polls still represent Hillary's name recognition, which she's built over nearly 2 decades in the national limelight.
Obama just began his ads in Iowa, so his advertising should help him. I think Obama's 1st and 2nd quarter results are even more outstanding because Hillary tried to shut him down financially by having her staff threaten supporters who dared to contribute to Obama, yet Obama still found a way to raise the cash he needs.
I'm not making any predictions. All Obama can do is run the best campaign he possibly can, and he's doing that. He's doing AMAZING!!!
Posted by: Jen on July 1, 2007 08:53 PMAccording to his campaign manager "Together, we have built the largest grass-roots campaign in history for this stage of a presidential race," Obama said in a statement Sunday. "That's the kind of movement that can change the special interest-driven politics in Washington and transform our country. And it's just the beginning."
What is even more significant is the number of donors - over 358,000 compared to Hillary who has only about 60,000. Even the 60,000 donors that Hillary has over half of them are coming from President Clinton. To put this in perspective, I think Hillary is not doing so well as the made up national polls suggest.
The way to measure how well a candidate is doing is to look at the number of donors. You can not lie with these numbers but you can make national poll numers and talk about them.
"The last Democrat who garnered comparable grassroots enthusiasm, bringing non-political types into the fold, flopped rather famously. Is Barack Obama the next Howard Dean?"
Obama is not Howard Dean. Gov. Dean only raised about $10 million and had less than 50,000 donors. Obama has raised over $58 million from more than 358,000 donors. You need to listen to what Obama said about the war before the war. You need to hear Obama display his intellectual ability on issues like Religion and Abortion. Forget about programmed debates with sound bites. Forget about made up national polls.
Posted by: Amos Ajo on July 1, 2007 09:00 PMDean spoke frankly in a way that was refreshing to his supporters. Obama is reaching people with a different message: a message of hope.
Obama is appealing to conservatives who cannot vote for another of the current brand of Republican candidates.
He is appealing to people who have never been involved in political activism before.
As these figures show, his appeal is very broad, and probably not well represented in the polling either. In fact I've become very skeptic about presidential polling, and Clinton would do well to be as well.
Posted by: Daniel K on July 1, 2007 09:37 PMOh really? Name one.
Posted by: Misty on July 1, 2007 09:41 PMI respect your points, though as you could read my comparison between Obama and Dean is loose.
Nonetheless there are similar issues facing Obama that Dean dealt with as well. A) He's bringing lots of people to the table who aren't known for actually voting in Presidential primaries. B) He still faces a ton of questions about whether or not he will prove to be Presidential material (in style and substance) on the campaign trail.
Those are both issues Dean confronted and lost over. Until Obama proves he can overcome them they are reasonable points to raise.
Lastly, please show me some data that conservatives are rallying to Obama. Yes, there's Michael Dowd, the former Bush advisor, but he was a Democrat before he signed on with Bush and he has a son in Iraq now so he's not the most representative conservative out there. Yes, Obama breeds enthusiasm in some circles, but don't bore us with claims he's bringing conservatives in any significant numbers to his camp.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 1, 2007 09:46 PMMisty, try Sen. Kirk Dillard, who recently appeared in one of Obama's Iowa ads. You know something is up when a republican appears in a Democrat's campaign ad to support that democrat, the year before elections. I'm not saying all conservatives are beating down Obama's door and offering their support, but it's certainly an indication he's been able to make friends across bi-partisan lines.
Posted by: Jen on July 1, 2007 09:47 PMSen. Dillard has endorsed John McCain, regardless of his appearance in the ad. There's a big difference between being able to work across the aisle in a state legislature and actually getting significant numbers of people who traditionally vote for the other party to join your campaign for a Presidential primary.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 1, 2007 09:50 PMHe's up against guys like Biden, Dodd and Richardson who have been in this political game for DECADES and yet aren't doing nearly as well in the polls or fundraising. It's not as if Obama is a single issue candidate, with all of his support/money only coming from the African American community. His support is multi-racial and widespread.
John Edwards is still in the race, but even he - a past democratic VP candidate in the last general election - is fading (for the time being). If Obama's results are so meaningless, why isn't the last VP candidate faring much better on all measures?
Will he win the nomination? Who knows. But I'm certainly laughing at all these know-it-all's who are just brushing him off.
I'd like to see all these would-be pundits throw their hats into the next presidential election. We'll see how well they'll fare.
Posted by: Jen on July 1, 2007 10:13 PMFair points. I'm not brushing him off by any means. He and Clinton are in a top tier by themselves, which is a profound compliment to his campaign thus far. That being said, if I had to put my money on either of them right now, I think Hillary probably wins a brawl in the primaries. He remains vulnerable on his lack of experience and policy specifics. Almost no amount of money and volunteer support can overcome that if the Clinton camp plays their cards right.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 1, 2007 10:26 PMThese people should really try to afford this crap bringing home the checks that most people do in this country.
Posted by: gs on July 1, 2007 10:46 PMSome GOP pundits are silently gunning for Hillary to get the nomination. The theory has something to do with her negatives, and the anti-Hillary wave that could help another R.
Myself, I think that R has to be McCain, Giuliani, or Fred Thompson. But an Obama vs. Thompson would be just as thrilling as a Hillary vs. McCain. I don't think anyone in their right minds wants to see two New Yorkers, e.g. Hillary vs. Giuliani, go head to head.
Just my humble two cents.
Posted by: Patrick on July 1, 2007 10:59 PMAs for being Presidential material, I think in the first few debates he has shown himself to be measured and calm. But then again, what is "Presidential material"? If Bush is the measure, the bar has been lowered considerably. Still, I think Obama passes that test.
Finally, as to my remark concerning conservative support for Obama (note, I'm not saying Republican support), I attribute that in part to recently spending time talking about this with my father, a life-long conservative and until recently a staunch Republican. I believe he well represents a type of conservative who does not see his conservative values represented by modern Republicans, and he indicated he would most likely support Obama, and I got the sense from him that he was not alone in his crowd to think that way.
Interestingly many Democrats would paint Clinton as more conservative than Obama, but there is a fatigue out there with the past, and Clinton is going to have trouble shaking that despite the fact she is definitely a skilled politician and potentially strong leader. Obama benefits as a new face presenting a message that many view as one that could heal many rifts, even to conservatives like my father.
Posted by: Daniel K on July 1, 2007 11:18 PMBoth Hillary and Obama have a job ranking LOWER than the president right now. To say that either will win on anti Bush sentiment is just luney.
Doing the electoral college math- do you see Obama taking New York or Mass if either Mitt or Rudy are running? Do you see Hillary taking Mass if Romney is on the ticket.
Posted by: Andy on July 1, 2007 11:26 PMWe can't bury our heads in the sand. Obamomania is staking America by storm. He's bigger then The Beatles in 1964, bigger then BIG! Ok, I might be exaggerating.
Posted by: Manco on July 2, 2007 06:18 AMWhat is fair and interesting to point out, I think is that one of the hurdles he has to clear is something Hillary doesn't. She has more poise and seems to know how to play the media better (there were a few anti-Obama stories in the press in the last few weeks). She is a proven entity on the national stage (witness her high negatives, we already know lots about her) and he isn't and in a Presidential race having run before is always iimportant because in all likelihood there will be a gaffe moment if you have not had that intense experience.
What the fundraising really shows is grass roots Democrats are against the war in IRaq and are expressing this by giving to Obama rather than Hillary. It is very interesting that collectively the Democrats are raising more than the Republicans. This war is an albatross around the Republican Party's neck, it represents foreign interventionism and nation building of the kind the Republicans always said they were against, it does nothing to stop terror attacks in the UK or the USA because guess what, terrorists don't need to go through Iraq to "come over here" or get to London or Glasgow, and a large number of people are saying we should just get out.
The fundriasing of OBama also shows that with the internet maybe we really can get beyond the special interests.....it lowers the cost of raising funds and apparently ordinary people are the bulk of his donors.
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on July 2, 2007 06:18 AMIraq was never about trying to pin down the terrorists there so they don't come here. Anyoen with half a brain knows all the terror cells that exist in America, England. The real point of Iraq was to set an example to the entire Middle East. However, Bush screwed it up by nation building.
Posted by: Manco on July 2, 2007 06:23 AMGood point. What many outside the military don't understand is that the ultimate funtion of our forces is to kill people and destroy property at the behest of the US government, not to build nations or any other touchy-feely crap. It's like using a screwdriver as a chisel. Sure, it can work, for a while, but eventually what you end up with is a tool that's not a screwdriver or a chisel and is essentially useless.
In military operations, if the nation does not have what it takes to "win," then it should not commit US troops to conflicts.
BTW, you conservative Republicans should be working actively against Obama. The only way the Republicans will hold on to the White House in 2008 is if the Democrats run Hillary.
Posted by: Libertarian on July 2, 2007 07:30 AM...so he's one of them... (whilst jesse and al were clowns, this guy isn't)
Posted by: righton on July 2, 2007 07:34 AMI would just caution you to avoid drawing conclusions based on limited anecdotal experiences like with your father. I understand the point, but I've learned extrapolating trends from such encounters is risky at best.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 2, 2007 07:55 AM1. The first credible Black candidate was Rep.
Shirley Chisjolm of NY. Sharpton/Jackson's
runs for president were a joke and they
used the campaigns for fundraising. Although,
she was smart as a whip, she came from a
Jamacian immigrant background and lacked the
polish of an Obama. Also, it was too early for
a woman to run.
2. You have made my point about a lot of
what is going on in the education debate,
including the flap recently at Madrona
elementary school. A lot of the dissension
in education involves not only race, but class
as well. Obama fits in with the elite of both
parties who are more similar than people want
to believe.
3. As for he looks Black, he is Black.
Legislatively we don't have the one drop of
Black blood makes you Black anymore, but
functionally, we do. Most Blacks in this
country, myself included are a mixture of
ethnic backgrounds. Still, we are Black. It is
interesting that Al Sharpton is related to the
late senator Strom Thurmond. What a country.
4. He is just as qualified to be president as
Hillary Clinton who stuck with Bubba all these
years and used him as an elavator to her
ambition and Edwards who has a spouse that
really is ready for prime time, unlike him.
Still, I agree with you, most Caucasian libs can sleep better at night knowing that there is at least one Black they could invite over for cocktails.
Posted by: WVH on July 2, 2007 07:56 AMWe knocked off one of the only states in the mideast that was not actively or secretly supporting terror. We really showed them.
Posted by: Giffy on July 2, 2007 08:02 AMhttp://members.tripod.com/~cbn2/dlink.html
It would be well for Barack to remember that the Clintons don't always play nice.
Posted by: JDH on July 2, 2007 08:12 AMYou've got to be joking right? Saddam publicly was funding Palestinian suicide bombers. But I guess dead Jews don't count as human beings.
Posted by: Manco on July 2, 2007 08:18 AMThe only "conservatives" cited are either former Democarts or anti-semites looking for another place to go that they sense GOP is too pro-Israel for their taste.
Posted by: Manco on July 2, 2007 08:21 AMCome on, get real.
Posted by: swatter on July 2, 2007 08:26 AMWell, if you live long enough, you will find something to agree with no matter the person.
My conspiracy theory for the week is the Clintons will pull a dirty trick on Obama and that it will backfire. Hillary thinks that since she is aligned with the first Black president, never knew how married these folks are or were she can do no wrong as far as Blacks are concerned. The dirty trick might backfire and Blacks may stay home. Many Blacks won't vote for any republican no matter how good because pubbies are seen as the party of David Duke.
Still, I think this perception of yours in not off the mark.
Posted by: WVH on July 2, 2007 08:29 AMDanial K @ #5: "Obama is reaching people with a different message: a message of hope." Message of hope? Hope for what from what? This isn't Darfur or Cuba. There is something inherently dishonest on offering a "massage of hope" in the country one country that allows anybody to grow as far as they care to go. Hope from oppressive government regulation, taxation and meddling perhaps? Somehow I don't think that is what he means.
And - The national press keep wagging (lead by the L.A. Times): "Is America ready for a black President?" I think that before we find out if America is ready we will find out if Democrats are ready. The poor guy has to get past the primary before America casts it's vote. This will be a nice referendum on how colorblind the Democrat voters really are.
Because being frontrunner is a lot harder. A wise, but risky, strategy.
Posted by: pudge on July 2, 2007 11:09 AMHe has the same goal as the rest of us- No Hillary for President.
Posted by: swatter on July 2, 2007 01:26 PMHe was saying something different. He cared. He was ready to admit mistakes. he thought things could be different. He brought hope to the table. I almost voted for him.
It only took a few years to realize that Jimmy Carter was the greatest mistake of a president in the 1900's. (I'm sure that in the long run he'll even out rank GWB. At least Bush is fighting over strategic property instead of giving it away.)
I hope we don't have the same thing happen with Obama. Maybe he should get move right on to building low-income housing and save us all a lot of pain.
He was saying something different. He cared. He was ready to admit mistakes. he thought things could be different. He brought hope to the table. I almost voted for him.
It only took a few years to realize that Jimmy Carter was the greatest mistake of a president in the 1900's. (I'm sure that in the long run he'll even out rank GWB. At least Bush is fighting over strategic property instead of giving it away.)
I hope we don't have the same thing happen with Obama. Maybe he should move right on to building low-income housing and save us all a lot of pain.
You are correct in that perception is reality. Byrd's activities with the KKK go back more than 20 years ago and except for a couple of Biden like mouth eruptions, he has been underwraps so to speak. The election between Duke and Edwards for governor of LA was more recent and fresher in the consciousness. Also, the quality of recent history taught in most schools is probably not as in depth as it could be and the fact of his Klan membership may or may not be taught.
I and many others are geniune indies and will vote for whomever supports our issues. One party rule has not helped Blacks in Philly, Newark, Gary, and other places. It is not an issue of handouts, but there are issues where interests align such as building strong families and Jack Kemp's enterprise zones, for example.
As people mature politically, one realizes that I don't have to love, like, or even want to go to Starbucks with a politician. But, if they help to advance my agenda, then it is workable. More and more people are coming to that conclusion.
Posted by: WVH on July 2, 2007 02:38 PMExpect the Republican candidate to point out how many elderly people were scammed in Whitewater land deals.
There is also the Peter Paul lawsuit in which she is a defendant in out in California. If that gets any traction, she is history.
Posted by: Don on July 2, 2007 03:07 PMNEXT!
Posted by: Misty on July 2, 2007 05:54 PMStill, I want a president who doesn't need on the job training.
Posted by: Vote4Fred on July 3, 2007 10:21 AM