Obama Campaign Raised More than $130 Million in Q1

Back in January, Barack Obama's presidential campaign brought in a record $36 million, then in February he shattered that record by raising $55 million for the month. Now comes his March haul:

Sen. Barack Obama, second to none in the race for campaign cash, raised more than $40 million in March and boosted his vast network of donors to nearly 1.3 million, the campaign announced Thursday.

Taking in more than $130 million in a quarter is a pretty remarkable feat, and speaks to one of the real strengths Obama would have in a general election. While it is the case, and I've mentioned it before, that money does not necessarily correlate with success -- Obama lost both Ohio and Texas to Hillary Clinton despite having outspent her in both states -- a general election campaign flush with hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank rather than merely $80 or $90 million (which is the cap set by the public financing program) would be able to help a candidate expand the map and put more states in play. Given that some states that are not traditionally blue are already potentially in play for Obama, I have little doubt that he would be able to find 270 -- or a lot more -- come November.

Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic primaries, Fundraising (all tags)

Comments

115 Comments

The best part is...

McCain has no legs to stand on if he wants to try and get Obama to accept public financing.  McCain is already in violation of financing regulations, and the only thing keeping him from suffering consequences is Bush's obstructionism on the FEC nominees.

It'd be tough for the FEC to really chastize a sitting president, so Bush's plan is to keep financing from being enforced in hopes that McCain will win.  

Sadly for him, this also means that Obama's massive fundraising juggernaut will ensure media market saturation and packed stadiums all over the country while McCain is relying on press conferences and late show appearences.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-03 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: The best part is...

Obama would also have a strong case to make that he is publicly financed anyway considering the size and number of his donations.

There's no need to fear McSame on this non-issue.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-03 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The best part is...

I know the Republicans are so jealous of all the money that Hillary and Obama (especially Obama) has raised.  That used to be the Republican campaigns that was racking in the big bucks.

Not anymore.

by stefystef 2008-04-03 08:32AM | 0 recs
True enough

Last I heard, the RNC was nigh broke, and had just wasted like 1.7 million of their dwindling funds on the Illinois run-off for Denny Hastert's seat that Foster won for us.

Guess pissing off the evangelicals and ruining the economy wasn't such a great idea after all.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-03 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

Go for it Obama you are our nominee and we will back you all the way.

Obama 08.

by KathyM 2008-04-03 08:15AM | 0 recs
More than $140 Million

With the 100s of milllions he has raised, it amazes me that he has not won the race so far.  Yet, at least 45% of the Democratic voters have supported other candidates.  

Yes, he could have a money advantage in the general election.  That would be good for Democrats.

In the end, it is my view that Obama and Clinton each have positives and negatives for the general election.  Each could defeat McCain, but each could lose.

McCain is a strong candidate with a compelling, and quite different, narrative from Obama or Clinton.  I think we delude oursleves if we thing the general election will be easy with either candidate.    

by TomP 2008-04-03 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: More than $140 Million

Because he's running against Hillary Clinton -- who is a fantastic candidate with a huge well of support and has institutional resources beyond what even Gore had with the power of incumbancy on his side.

In any other year, Obama would have cleaned up. Can you imagine him(now) versus Kerry(then)? And any other year, Hillary would have cleaned up. Can you imagine her (now) against... well, against Bill(then?)

It's a testiment to these two how tight it is.

Remember, Obama started with a tiny fraction of what Hillary began with. She did well with her advantages, but seemed unprepared after the front-loads ended. He had a better plan.

Ultimately I think that's the end result here. Obama wins, but not because Hillary lost.

by Lettuce 2008-04-03 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: More than $140 Million

Obama started with minimum funds, but he got a lot of financial supporter early on.  He got a lot of money from corporations and lobbyists to get him started.  I remember reading about how much he was raising early on in fundraisers, even from people who use to give a lot to Hillary.

Now we have the friggin' British getting involved in our fundraising (Murdoch's daughter and Elton John).  You gotta love this campaign season, you gotta!!!

by stefystef 2008-04-03 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: More than $140 Million

Source on the "lobbyists" and "corporations?" The latter is illegal, if I'm not mistaken, and the former has been a point of contention.

Yes, he got a lot of early funds -- but mostly it was the same way then as now -- small donors.

by Lettuce 2008-04-03 08:47AM | 0 recs
I know people differ, and many

people here support Clinton, but I don't see her as that great of a candidate or having run that great of a campaign so far.   I mean no disrespect.  She's okay.  Eye of the beholder, I guess.

by TomP 2008-04-03 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: More than $140 Million

Hillary has raised a lot too -- but from big donors.

As for, "it amazes me that he has not won the race so far," Obama has won the race and his upset of the indomitable Clinton Machine is perhaps the biggest one ever.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-03 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: More than $140 Million

Hmm, maybe not easy, per se; but McCain has significant liabilities as well, which I guarantee you, we will exploit to the fullest.

It's important to keep in mind that the number of Republicans who have swore never to vote for McCain are legion!  Now that he seems like their only hope, we see a little bit of coalescence on their side; but that can be exploited by forcing him, over and over, to choose between the Republican narrative and the Sanity narrative.  Make him wed himself to Bush's positions time and time again, or risk losing his own base.  Remind that same base of McCain's cavalier nature of the last several years.  

I don't think he's agile enough to keep up.  He's certainly not as tough as the Clinton machine, and if Obama can beat them - which he pretty much has done - then McCain won't stand in his way either.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-04-03 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: More than $140 Million

Yet, at least 45% of the Democratic voters have supported other candidates.  

In some circles, we call that "winning."

by juliewolf 2008-04-03 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: More than $140 Million

not between two people and not in the real world

by Andre X 2008-04-03 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: More than $140 Million

That's funny, here in the real world, in the contests between two people for President, the winner won with FAR less of a vote advantage then Obama is currently experiencing over Hillary.  

What 'real world' are you talking about?

by Cycloptichorn 2008-04-03 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: More than $140 Million

huh?

by Andre X 2008-04-03 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: More than $140 Million

What?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-03 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: More than $140 Million

I think that we have 2 awesome candidates.  I think that the original 10 had 4 or 6 candidates the I wouldn't want to face this year if I were a republican.  

I think McSame is a very weak candidate and as soon as one of our candidates is focused on him and the voters don't have more than one democrat from which to choose, we will beat McSame like a rented mule.

But there has to actually be a "we".

by lockewasright 2008-04-03 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

Your arithmetic is wrong by 10 million. He raised 130m not 140m.

by JCarlFinn5 2008-04-03 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

Thanks. Early morning...

by Jonathan Singer 2008-04-03 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140

If this is considered a delegate race, then obama won texas

by aaaa05 2008-04-03 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

Obama promised to vigorously pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee regarding public financing in the general. He is now backtracking from that promise. The media is probably not going to call him out for this broken promise but if he gets stuck into accepting public financing, he won't have the money advantage in the general to "expand" the playing field.  

by gomer 2008-04-03 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

McCain already broke his FEC promise.

by Andre X 2008-04-03 08:36AM | 0 recs
There is NO way Obama accepts public $$$

That is a hit he's willing to take (the media bytching about inconsistent past statement), if at the end of the day it gives him a tens of millions of dollar advantage. He'd be a fool, and I would think less of him, if he allowed the media and McLame, to bully him into accepting public financing.

by highgrade 2008-04-03 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: There is NO way Obama accepts public $$$

McCain has no legs to stand on if he wants to try and get Obama to accept public financing.  McCain is already in violation of financing regulations, and the only thing keeping him from suffering consequences is Bush's obstructionism on the FEC nominees.

It'd be tough for the FEC to really chastize a sitting president, so Bush's plan is to keep financing from being enforced in hopes that McCain will win.  

Sadly for him, this also means that Obama's massive fundraising juggernaut will ensure media market saturation and packed stadiums all over the country while McCain is relying on press conferences and late show appearences.

by KathyM 2008-04-03 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: There is NO way Obama accepts public $$$

Copy/paste for the win?

It's okay, I approve of this one. :)

by Dracomicron 2008-04-03 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

"Obama promised to vigorously pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee regarding public financing in the general. He is now backtracking from that promise."

That's McBush/McClinton spin.

Obama has not said he won't seek for an agreement with McCain, and he certainly will. But such an agreement is unlikely since it would have to involve McBush somehow reigning in all the 527s which will operate in his behalf.

It would be irresponsible suicide for Obama and his party to simply disarm in the face of McSame's 527s.

I suggest you and others stop carrying water for McBush in this matter.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-03 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

whatever, that is like saying that there won't be 527s on the Democrat's side. I am not carrying water for the Republicans. I am quoting Obama's own words. Words don't matter now since Obama said them apparently. He shouldn't have made that promise but now he either negotiate with McCain or break his promise.

by gomer 2008-04-03 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

the hell?  Obama hasn't broken his promise at all.

ONCE WE FIGURE OUT who is going to be the Dem nominee, the issue of public financing can be sorted out.

considering how BADLY McCain has abused the public financing system already, it's highly likely that Obama will not want to engage McCain on those terms.  why accept only public financing when the GOP opponent is already laughing off FEC rules?  frankly, that's the only way to approach this if any Democrat seeks to win in November.

by fightinfilipino 2008-04-03 09:07AM | 0 recs
Almost hide rated you

For the McClinton remark.  There is no point being antagonistic with the Clinton supporters. We need Unity and not name calling. I am an Obama supporter and i WILL follow his lead and not deride or disenfranchise the Clinton supporters by making fun of her or calling her names.  

Please if you have a true democrat inside you, please try and discuss things civil and not make attacks on EITHER Democrat Candidate for President.

by gnosis 2008-04-03 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Almost hide rated you

When Hillary or those who claim to speak for her carry water for McBush in order to hurt Obama (the Democratic nominee), she will be called McClinton.

I recommend not using the rating option exception for cases which obviously deserve it. Otherwise it has no real value.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-03 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Almost hide rated you

When you intentionally try to provoke people here (yes unfortunatly the majority on this site are Clinton supporters) by posting stuff like that it is borderline trollish.  That is what the rating system is for or have you not read the F.A.Q.?

by gnosis 2008-04-03 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Almost hide rated you

I think you're trying to provoke me into hiding your comments. But then, I'm not a good enough mind reader to know when people are trying to provoke except in the most obvious cases.

I suggest you stick to the topic.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-03 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Almost hide rated you

"That is what the rating system is for or have you not read the F.A.Q.?"

Gnosis, candidates are fair game here. I have seen you "hide" rate posters for criticising candidates, and that is not what the ratings system is for. Differences of opinion on candidates are to be expected, and it is part of free speech to express them. We do need to discuss the pro and cons of candidates, whether we agree with the person or not.

I already know LiberalAvenger's position and it is up to me whether I want to be provoked by it.

From a Clinton supporter.

by 07rescue 2008-04-03 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

Actually his proposal was much more complicated than simple public financing in the general from what I recall.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-03 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

Obama hasn't backed away from his pledge at all. In fact, his vast fund raising is entirely in keeping with the intent and letter of his pledge. The funds are drawn overwhelmingly from small individual donors and he actively prevents 527 groups from bypassing fundraising restrictions on his behalf.

The real problem is that people are trying to spin his pledge into a commitment to the public financing system, which it very explicitly was not. In the future, please check your facts to avoid spreading this kind of misinformation.

by noop 2008-04-03 09:21AM | 0 recs
Gomer's words, not Obama's

What he DID say was he was willing to sit down and see if there was some sort of common ground on the topic. He made no promise whatsoever. Gomer's characterization is entirely wrong. In some circles we call that lying.

by Quicklund 2008-04-03 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Gomer's words, not Obama's

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story .php?storyId=19188824
One year ago, Obama seemed to make a commitment and asked the Federal Election Commission about raising early money for the general election on a "provisional" basis. If the Republican nominee opted for public funds, he would, too.

Three months ago, Obama stood his ground on a questionnaire from 20 public interest groups in the Midwest, writing, "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican."

But now, the Obama campaign says it was not a pledge, just an option. The campaign declined to have anyone speak on the record for this story.

You accused me of lying. This is Obama's evolution on the subject. First, he would opt for public financing if the Republican would as well. Then he said he would negotiate an agreement. Now, he said well it's probably just an option.

by gomer 2008-04-03 10:12AM | 0 recs
This is how Obama answered the questionaire:

OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Typ e=B_PR&SEC=%7B91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4 E-3A81E6427C7F%7D&DE=%7B6754C630-51E C-4B19-A44F-1160D8CAC5AA%7D

Obama's stand is more nuanced than you're letting on.  He's saying, "Sure, we'll do it publically, but we have to do it a certain way to make sure it's fair for everyone."

None of this matters until we get to the general, anyway, but the lack of a working FEC will certainly limit opportunities to implement unique and revolutionary plans.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-03 01:40PM | 0 recs
I missed the part

Where Sen Obama was alrady given the Democratic nomination.  There seems to be a bone of contention over that - coming from your camp. Sinc he is not the Democratic nominee, yet, he has no standing to negotiate this issue - as he stated but you somehow avoid recognizing.

You were lying, I mean, saying?

by Quicklund 2008-04-03 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

Where is the money come from is what I would like to know.   I am always wary of candidates who raises a lot of money.   Is it from the Republicans?

by lowentravel 2008-04-03 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

Small donors like myself.  Millions of us.

by Andre X 2008-04-03 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

I do not think it is the best idea to be always wary of candidates who raise a lot of money.

Far better to restrict your wariness to somebody that raises big donations  from few people rather than small donations from a lot of  people.

(indeed, one of the tactical problems that Senator Clinton  has at the moment is that her campaign team relied too heavily on big donations from fewer people. At the moment Senator Obama's campaign has shown itself to have a better solution by going for small donations from lots of people)

by My Ob 2008-04-03 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

You need to get your foil hat refitted.

Obama's donations are in the public record. Look it up before you blindly smear.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-03 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign

And me.

by Newcomer 2008-04-03 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

You can go and look at all 1 million plus donors as they are in the public record. Let us know if you find any Republicans.

by hankg 2008-04-03 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $140 Million i

"I am always wary of candidates who raises a lot of money."

MCBush hasn't raised much money. Are you wary of him? If not, you should be.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-03 09:59AM | 0 recs
Republicans giving to Obama

Tens of thousands of Republicans decided the best way to win POTUS for the GOP was not to contribute to a Republican candidate, but to Obama. Does this make sense to you?

Explain the logic of these Republicans--Republicans who aren't contributing to Republicans--giving to Obama.

When will the protestations of the extremist HRC supporters become nonsensical enough that the responsible HRC supporters explain, "Yo, sister, that doesn't make sense"?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-04-03 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $130Million

It came from me too, and I've been a Democrat since before I was born.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-04-03 02:52PM | 0 recs
ATTN: Jerome & Jonathan

Jerome & Jonathan --

I'd love to see a "big-think" blog post from one of you discussing how you believe Obama (and the Clinton campaign for that matter) have changed the future of presidential campaigning. My own sense is that if I'm a Governor or member of Congress eyeballing a future run for President in 2012 or 2016, I'm probably realizing that many of the old metrics for gauging support need to be thrown out, and the strategy for building popular support needs to be fundamentally rethought.

The single most important task for any future candidate: "Get Vast."

by blueflorida 2008-04-03 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $130 Million i

I have doubt. Considering he outspent Clinton 2 to 1 and sometimes up to 3 to 1 in some states yet lost tells me something. He won the caucus states because Clinton did not compete in most of them. Money does not equal electability. If that was the case, then Obama would have been our nominee long ago.

by RJEvans 2008-04-03 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $130 Million i

They are both very strong candidates. This a credit to both of them. If it was anyone else but Obama, HRC would have locked this up 2 months ago. Same with Obama.

by KathyM 2008-04-03 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $130 Million i

"I have doubt. Considering he outspent Clinton 2 to 1 and sometimes up to 3 to 1 in some states yet lost tells me something."

You're referring to states where he was behind by  double digits and closed the gap to single. You're referring to states that Clinton got to brag about winning, but where Obama quietly added to his delegate lead.

And with the dubious except of NH, Obama has lost no state where he has had a lead in the polls. Clinton has blown many leads.  

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-03 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $130 Million i

It tells you that he's up against someone with over a decade of name recognition and is still winning. He's ahead in just the primary states as well.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-03 09:23AM | 0 recs
The stronger candidate

Actually Hillary would have been our nominee if that was the case. At the start she had the money, the Clinton machine, a large number of declared super delegates already lined up behind her and the name recognition and not only did she not close the deal she is so far behind at this point as to be considered a very long shot.

When you start with 2 candidates one with every advantage and the other having to build everything from scratch with no personal fortune or national organization to rely on and the person who started with such a disadvantage now has a commanding lead it's clear who is the stronger candidate.

by hankg 2008-04-03 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $130 Million i

Let's get the basic facts right, can we? Obama WON Texas. This is a delegate fight and he won more delegates from Texas, get it right! It's not hard to remember...

by losdela 2008-04-03 08:51AM | 0 recs
Obama up by 2 in Penn.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/P PP_Penn_Release_040208_1.pdf

I know, I know, one poll. But still ....

by Cleveland John 2008-04-03 08:58AM | 0 recs
Texas

Hillary did not win Texas. Yes, she won the primary portion, but Barack won the caucus portion and the overall delegate total.

by blueheron 2008-04-03 08:59AM | 0 recs
All that cash wasted


I really, really hope the next president makes public financing mandatory.

Frankely, I would prefer to see that money donated to some charities (homeless shelter, help for single parent families, etc... ) it's not like there is no need for it.

by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-03 09:05AM | 0 recs
Wasted?

The President of the United States of America is such an insignificant position in your mind that money spent on choosing the office holder is a waste? You ned to broaden your perspectives.

In the first place, the amount of money America spends is tiny, yes tiny, in the scheme of things.  All the money spent by all campaigns, both primary races and the general election all combined, add up to roughly the same amount Aemricans spend on video games on one month. And the POTUS race occurs only once in four years.  

The money spent amounts to about one fifty-thousandth of what the US economy produces in teh four-year period.  It is fairly important to put a good person in the job.  It's worth spending less than 1% of 1% ... that comes pretty cheap.

More importantly even is this.  The broad-baes little donoer support system means millions of ordinary Americas feel they own a little tiny bit of the process.  For once being a little donor MATTERED.  That means more enthusaism for the elctoral proces, more citizen involvement, more energy, nothing but upside.

Wasted? Look for the bigger picture.

by Quicklund 2008-04-03 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Wasted?


Give me a break, you almost talks like a republican when they say that corporation have an important role to play in society etc etc...

Endorsing, even encouraging, a system where compete with unequal funding is something that you better be carefull doing, it might come back and bite us in the ass.

And to answer your happy talk about ordinary Americas donating, here is my answer: Whay do you think megachurches have so much political power?

by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-03 10:05AM | 0 recs
Funny thing

The megachurches seem pretty quiet this year.  I guess they're sick of being pandered to and not having anything on their agenda completed to show for it.

Anyway, Clinton's unpaid bills aside, you have to realize that the campaigns are a boon to the economy of every state and town they visit.  This isn't money being sunk into another experimental weapon or into Halliburton's pockets, this is money going to schools, AV shops, hotels, caterers, bars, restaurants, and, yes, bowling alleys.

None of this money is "wasted."

by Dracomicron 2008-04-03 01:48PM | 0 recs
Obama won Texas

by Bee 2008-04-03 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

Yeah,  Obama used his cash to game the caucus system and won in the end and OVERTURNED the popular vote.

You can brag about that if you want.

by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-03 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

Yeah. He created the caucus system with all of his money from muslim governments and then he won the caucuses by employing a ring of suicide bombers outside of the caucus locations that would only detonate of HRC supporters got close. That or the 100K+ GOPers who voted for HRC in the primary didn't feel like spending all day at a caucus.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-03 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

say all you want,

Caucuses victories STILL carry a lot less legitimacy than regular primary victories. Especially if it's in the same state.

by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-03 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

I always find it ridiculous when people complain                   about the "legitimacy" of caucus victories by making the claim that they are less democratic.

The irony in those making this argument is that these are often the same people who believe its acceptable for establishment leadership (aka superdelegates) to vote against the candidate leading in the popular vote.

This position can be summed up as follows:

  1. Caucuses are undemocratic and thus less legitimate.
  2. Superdelegates can and should vote against the candidate who leads in the "more democratic" measure of race: the popular vote.  

For some reason, this "anti-democratic" portion (number 2 above) of the Democratic nomination process is more acceptable than the caucus system (number 1 above).  

This doesn't strike me as a coherent position to hold.

by sorrodos 2008-04-03 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

As a matter of fact, I am on the record advocating for a suppression of both: Cacuses and superdelegates

by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-03 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

Thats great.  My criticism wasn't directed at you, though it probably didn't seem that way as it was found within a reply to your comment.

I replied to your comment because it was what made me think about what I put into the comment.

I appreciate your logical consistency :)

by sorrodos 2008-04-03 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

That's ok, I don't check the post history of the people I am responding to either. lol

by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-03 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

I have never seen this explained any better.  Kudos.

by mefck 2008-04-03 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

I assume then that you believe the super delegates should go with the with the will of the people rather than the other way. Is that correct?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-03 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

That's why the delegates chosen by caucus get only .78 votes at the convention!

They're by no means less "legitimate" except in a calculation where you think someone else should win.  It's a different measure.  The primaries measure who has a broader base of minimal-level support.  The caucuses measure who has a broader base of more active, committed support.

In Texas, Clinton had a slight edge among all people who were willing to come to the polls and are likely to come to the polls in November.  This is important.

Obama had a moderate edge among all people who were willing to commit more time to come caucus and defend their vote in a forum -- people more likely to donate, volunteer, and advocate for their campaign in November.  This is also important.

This is why we have both caucuses and primaries.  It's good to measure both things, because in the end, they both matter in a 3-month general election campaign.  And we weigh them by apportioning delegates to them in a particular way.  Who's the stronger candidate overall?

By the system we have in place: the one who gets the most delegates.

by Rorgg 2008-04-03 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

HillaryCo had an equal opportunity to win, knowing in advance how the system works in Texas. Characterizing his win as "gaming" the system is sour grapes. His campaign is far more competent.

Hillary lost the state.

by Bee 2008-04-03 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

One third of the oportunity as he outspent her 3 to 1. (He really wanted to win Texas you see)

by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-03 09:29AM | 0 recs
Hanky?

by Bee 2008-04-03 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Hanky?

I'm not a native english speaker, so I don't get all the one-worders sorry.

by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-03 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

He really wanted to win Texas...and willing to pass off the caucuses as a "win" of the whole state.

Lame.  Truly lame.

By the way, Obama, you still lost Ohio and RI by double digit.  Wanna talk about it?  It's sad when the Magical Mystery Tour is winding down.

by stefystef 2008-04-03 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

Not Rhode Island! NO, GOD! WHY?

by ragekage 2008-04-03 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama won Texas

No, he didn't win it won't go into his win column.  Saying he won Texas over and over again won't work.  

by stefystef 2008-04-03 12:34PM | 0 recs
Doesn't need to

He got more delegates.  It doesn't matter what color CNN has it on their fancy map.  By the measure that the game is played by, he won.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-03 01:53PM | 0 recs
Er, no.

Obama used the greater enthusiasm of his supporters to game the system... which is not gaming the system, because that's what they're supposed to do.

I know a guy who is an Obama local delegate, and up to the state caucus he was getting robo-calls from Clinton reminding him that he could always change his mind and vote for her.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-03 01:52PM | 0 recs
BARACK OBAMA IS WINNING

by Andre X 2008-04-03 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: BARACK OBAMA IS WINNING

I'd say don't bet your house on that prediction.

by stefystef 2008-04-03 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: BARACK OBAMA IS WINNING

really? please explain.

by brimur 2008-04-03 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $130 Million i

It would be great for the party if Hillary Clinton would admit she won't be the nominee, and step aside so Obama can focus exclusively on defeating John McCain.  By staying in a contest she can't win, Hillary Clinton is imposing an opportunity cost on Democrats by keeping Obama from being able to devote his full resources from taking on John McCain.  But even though she refuses to admit she shouldn't continue, at some point, her bank account may insist that she admit to the world, and admit to herself, that she will not win, that Barack Obama will be our Presidential nominee.  

by KathyM 2008-04-03 09:21AM | 0 recs
So what, Obama can't win on his own?


Outspending her 2, 3 to 1 is not enough to win?

Frankely, the fact that he didn't manage to win any decisive battle so far reinforce my doubts about his overall strength.

by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-03 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: So what, Obama can't win on his own?

TaChi, they are both strong candidates, both can win against McCain. Both can win. Any other candidate than Obama, HRC would be the winner by now and vice versa.

by KathyM 2008-04-03 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: So what, Obama can't win on his own?

I disagree, Edward would have beaten any of those two by now.

by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-03 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: So what, Obama can't win on his own?

I wish that was true, but Edwards never got the media boost that Obama had so Edwards, the best of all the candidates, didn't have a chance when Chris Matthews professing his orgasms for Obama and Oprah proclaiming him "The One".

I can only hope that Edwards would consider VP under Hillary, but he told AP, No.

Let's hope he changes his mind.

by stefystef 2008-04-03 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: So what, Obama can't win on his own?

With all that money, he should have put Hillary out of the race already.

But he hasn't.

Why?

Because he can't DELIVER THE GOODS!  Sounds like a "two-pump Chuck" to me.

by stefystef 2008-04-03 12:31PM | 0 recs
It's a credit to Clinton

She's still in the race. She's done great... but don't suggest that Obama should have put her away already even with his fundraising advantage.  Money only goes so far, and Clinton has 16 years of national name recognition for him to get past.  You can't buy that kind of advantage.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-03 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $130 Million i

every single one of your comments demands Hillary step down, even though she will most likely win PA, IN, KY, WV, PR and be competitive in the other states.

Stop spouting talking points!

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-03 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $130 Million i

Oregon cancels out WV, KY.
NC cancels out PA.
IN is a toss up.
PR has tons of mixed black population, cultural dymanics to favour Obama.
MT, ND is for Obama

I mean you tell me. I'm looking at maths

by KathyM 2008-04-03 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $130 Million i
Oregon cancels KY and WV?  Ha!  You wish.
Don't forget PR and IND...add that to the mix.
by stefystef 2008-04-03 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $130 Million i

The commenter did mention Indiana and PR.

I agree that Oregon prob just cancels Kentucky- Oregon is worth 52 delegates and Kentucky is worth 51. But Montana and South Dakota will more than cancel out West Virginia (31 delegates versus 28 at stake). So even assuming Clinton gets a victory in PR and IN, she can't net more than 30-40 delegates in the most impossibly extreme of cases (winning roughly more than 2/3 of the vote in those states).

She's down by 170.

by brimur 2008-04-03 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Campaign Raised More than $130 Million i

It would be nice if Obama-followers would stop begging and being whiny ninnies.

Hillary is in this to the end.
GET OVER IT!!!

by stefystef 2008-04-03 12:29PM | 0 recs
WOW

Total Raised in March: More than $40 million
Contributors in March: More than 442,000
First-Time Contributors in March: More than 218,000
Average Contribution: $96
Total Contributors to Date: More than 1,276,000

Wow

by gil 2008-04-03 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: WOW

Even the most ardent HRC supporter has to be amazed by those numbers.

Triple wow

by gil 2008-04-03 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: WOW
Remember back about a year ago, when the Hillary campaign meme was that she was inevitable, largely because no one could raise as much many has she could and as she already had. That was the context for many superdelegates to declare their support of her. I, too, thought she was inevitable.

Back then, I could not have imagined that Obama would have raised $130M in Q1. It is really an amazing story.
by xtrarich 2008-04-03 12:50PM | 0 recs
Dirty money, politics as usual

Obama has accepted money from people and "bundlers" who work for oil and gas companies, despite misleading claims in his ads that he does not.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ obamas_oil_spill.html

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry.

He also cozies up to lobbyists, despite his claims to the contrary.

We've noted before that Obama's policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting. It's true that he doesn't accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign.

by bluestatedude 2008-04-03 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Dirty money, politics as usual

He has never take money from lobbyists or PACs.

by KathyM 2008-04-03 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Dirty money, politics as usual

Accepting money from people who work in an industry does not necessarily mean that the money was bundled.

Also, Obama took a voluntary pledge. I'm sorry if your interpretation of Obama's pledge is different from Obama's interpretation.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-04-03 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Dirty money, politics as usual

I work for a huge financial institution that does, among other things, subprime mortgage loans.

I have absolutely nothing to do with anything financial -- I'm an IT admin.

Ergo, my contribution proves Obama's being funded by subprime lenders.

QED.

by Rorgg 2008-04-03 10:12AM | 0 recs
All that money and yet no re-vote

So Obama get 130mil, yet is too strapped for cash to go half for MI&FL re-votes. hmmmmmm

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-04-03 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: All that money and yet no re-vote

It is not a campaigns duty to pay for elections... that would be insane

by CardBoard 2008-04-03 09:57AM | 0 recs
True

It was crazy enough that Clinton superdelegates were willing to fund them.  Talk about suspect.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-03 02:01PM | 0 recs
there will be blood

There will be blood in the water, Republican blood.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-04-03 09:53AM | 0 recs
Obama WON Texas, Jonathan

by Virginia Liberal 2008-04-03 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama WON Texas, Jonathan

No, he lost Texas.
Hillary won the popular vote and the primary vote.

I still consider the caucus double voting because I'm sure that people who voted in the primary voted in the caucus too.  And the Obama camp infiltrated the caucuses and made over-votes for Obama.  So many accounts of the caucus tells about the fights, the confusion, the disgust.  It was a friggin' mess.  But I guess in Texas, that's the norm.  You'd never get away with that in NY.

Hillary probably won in the early voting too.  But no one wants to announce that.

Obama's people are getting desperate.  They can't land the KO punch, because their guy ain't all that.  Hillary is staying in there and looking strong every day.  She got past the Bosnia thing while people are still concerned with Rev. Wright.

by stefystef 2008-04-03 12:16PM | 0 recs
Huh?

Yes, you're supposed to vote in the primary and then in the caucus.

You're... accusing Team Obama of voter fraud?  Because that's not what happened.  They just showed up in large numbers because they were enthusiastic about their candidate, and won.

To be fair, most caucus states, including my own, have been a mess because they weren't prepared for the turnout.  We had people lined up around the block to get into a tiny bowling alley in my neighborhood for the caucus.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-03 02:04PM | 0 recs
Be serious.

He lost Texas. To say otherwise undermines the seriousness of your arguments. Does it matter who won or lost? No, not that much.

He also pledged to follow the public financing system. Certainly that's what everybody thought back then, and he certainly didn't say anything to make them think differently.

He wanted to make himself look like the purer candidate back then. When he realized he might have a big advantage without it, he started backing away from it. No amount of convoluted reasoning will get away from that conclusion.

by OrangeFur 2008-04-03 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Be serious.

I don't think either camp can honestly claim a victory in TX.

Obama supporters will say he won TX because the primary is a race for delegates and on that score he won.

Clinton supporters will counter that neither campaign can cross the delegate threshold without superdelegate support. Additionally they will argue that the person best positioned to win the SD argument is the winner of the popular vote. Thus, TX counts as a win for her since she wont the primary part of that state's contest.

I think a neutral observer would have to say that both arguments have merit behind them.

by tessellated 2008-04-03 01:47PM | 0 recs
Not true

Obama never backed away from public financing.

He said that he would work something out with the Republican if (and only if) he were the nominee.

He's not the nominee yet.  Regardless, McCain is so deep into violation of FEC guidelines (that he helped create) that it will never happen now.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-03 02:07PM | 0 recs
Texas - correction

Obama won Texas, not Clinton.  The purpose of the election in Texas was to apportion delegates.  Quite simply - Obama won more delegates.  

End of story.

by Chango 2008-04-03 01:36PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads