Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Obama’s $52 million June, marked down from $100 million [Karl]

Camp Obama finally announced they raised $52 million in June — a bit short of the $100 Million June some supporters had been hyping.  I had thought that the previously leaked $30 million June figure could be a head fake, but the official number is not much better than Kerry did four years ago — and he sewed up his nomination earlier.  Moreover, the Politico’s Ben Smith reports that “[i]n total, the Democrats have some $92 million on hand, to the combined Republican total of $95 million.”

Although Camp Obama apparently does not provide a detailed breakdown, the fact that David Plouffe’s recent online money beg was echoed in this morning’s e-mail suggests that the small donors provided the bulk of the June money when Obama finally secured enough delegates to become the putative nominee, and that today’s announcement was intended as the sort of “event” they could use to energize their base into giving again.

48 Replies to “Obama’s $52 million June, marked down from $100 million [Karl]”

  1. Ric Caric says:

    Hey Karl! I’ve got a tip on something else you can turn into a negative on Obama. It turns out that Obama’s working out a lot. Here’s the url for the CNN story (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/). Go to town man.

  2. Palooza says:

    Yeah, Obama almost matches his own record for one month ($55 million in Feb 2008) and its a negative (because he didnt haul in $100 million). You people are so freakin’ transparent. By the way, I am reading that the average donation was $68 — people powered.

  3. Mr. Pink says:

    I wonder if he has a Marlboro in his mouth while he is pumping iron?

  4. Mr. Pink says:

    It is a shocker CNN would conduct such a hard hitting piece of journalism on Obama as to expose the fact he “works out”; and here I thought the media was in the tank for the guy. I mean they must have had 20 investigative reporters on this story.

  5. Sdferr says:

    The Obama camp will soon realize they have a ‘bad’ economy story on their hands and will tout their poorer than expected showing as due to recessionary pressures on expendable income. Lose-win, so to speak.

  6. cranky-d says:

    Ric Caric apparently needs some attention. Perhaps his diaper needs changing.

  7. TheGeezer says:

    Naw…it’s a negative that’s not negative followed by sarcasm diluted by insignificance.

  8. MayBee says:

    Here’s what Halperin says about the workout:

    AP finds the Illinois Senator visited a friend’s Chicago apartment to work out at his gym twice on Wednesday and again Thursday morning.

    Lack of visible sweat and business casual dress has the wire service guessing “whether he was actually exercising or using the gym visits as cover for conducting vice presidential vetting or interviews.”

    Plus: ABC News adds up the minutes, finds he spent 91 minutes on the trail Wednesday and a total of 188 minutes in the gym. Permalink

    Obama’s getting pretty Cheney-esque, the way he keeps hiding who he’s meeting with (and where!).

  9. MayBee says:

    Sadly, that $52 mil is pretty darn good. Did some idiots give him their stimulus checks? (is that why he wants a new round sent out?)

  10. Squid says:

    Ric and Palooza,

    It would help me understand your criticism of Karl’s post better if you could explain where you see a negative bias. The Hill reported predictions of $100MM for June; this is verified by clicking two links. The campaign reported a total of $52MM, which Karl repeats accurately here.

    I’ll disagree with Karl’s comparison on the Kerry front, in that $52MM is significantly more than Kerry’s $31MM average from May and June of ’04. Yet somehow, I don’t think this is the source of the negativity you perceive.

    If you can clarify the source of your perception of Karl’s negativity, I’d be appreciative. I’ve been trying to improve my ability to see through authorial bias from a variety of sources. Given your observations on this post, it appears that the two of you may be able to help me sharpen this skill.

    Thanks in advance.

  11. happyfeet says:

    No fairs. Karl is purposely overlooking the $48 million in free media Baracky got to make this look like Baracky is underperforming expectations.

  12. If my numbers are accurate, then if this is the average for Obama going forward that means that he and McCain will have about as much raised when you add in McCain’s public match. That would be rather ironic, if at the end each had about as much after the bru ha ha.

  13. TheGeezer says:

    Man, I hope Barack comes to his senses about exercise soon. Carbon footprints expand in direct proportion to amount of exercise due to exhaled CO2. He may be depriving a small, nonwhite child somewhere of breath.

  14. Karl says:

    Squid,

    If you’re going to look at Kerry’s $31MM May, then you also have to look at Obama’s $22MM May.

    Kerry’s combined May-June $62MM would inflate to least $69MM in 2008 dollars. Obama’s combined May-June total of $74MM is fairly described as only marginally higher, esp. when you consider there was still a contest (of sorts) and Obama’s historic securing of enough delegates in June.

    Contrary to the strawman erected by the first two commenters, I’m not saying that’s terrible. I think it is fair to say that it does not comport with either the hype of some fundraisers or the image of Obama as a transformative pol in this regard. I have previously linked to stories quoting both campaigns as to their ultimate findraising targets. Obama/DNC claims a goal of $450MM; McCain/RNC claims a goal of $400MM. The difference in percentage terms is not all that great, esp. since much of it will be spent on TV ads that ultimately have diminishing returns.

  15. Karl says:

    Plus, the coverage of O!’s fundraising tends to suggest that they probably got most of their online donations when he locked up the nomination and that online intake has tailed off since. Again, this is not terrible, in the sense that it could easily perk back up when more people return their attention to the elections. But it does suggest that July and August could be so-so months for Obama and that the ultimate gap will not be all that big (as Michael Volpe notes in #12).

  16. Squid says:

    Karl,

    That’s a good point, but you’re really not helping understand where Caricalooza’s perception of negativity comes from.

    Professor, won’t you help me learn? I’m an empty vessel, yearning for enlightenment!

  17. happyfeet says:

    It’s nice for Bush that he can take an hour or two out of every day to run, bike or pump iron. Unfortunately, most of us have more demanding jobs than he does.

    An obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy I think.*

  18. Mr. Pink says:

    Well Karl did not either put a picture of Obama up with a halo behind his head, or type how much he loved being HOPEd into a state of orgasm during an Obama rally. This has to be a total negative slam with out at least one of those.
    I have the feeling this dissent is patriotic meme will be right out the window the minute Obama becomes President. Then dissent will be classified as teh racist.

  19. Palooza says:

    How about the title: Obama’s $52 million June, marked down from $100 million.

    Which should read: Obama Hauls in Near Record Campaign Contribution of $52 million.

    And of course, saying its not much better than Kerry’s (when indeed it is indeed 20 million better than Kerry’s as pointed out by somebody above.

    This is mickey mouse crap that happens here all the time.

  20. McGehee says:

    O! tried to play the Expectations! game and lost.

    It’s like betting on the trifecta and having only the first two horses you bet on, win. You still lose.

  21. Mr. Pink says:

    Palooza please cite the Politico if you are going to steal their headline.

  22. PMain says:

    Oh goody, Prof Caric’s back! & for a bonus, we now know who the other CNN viewer is.

  23. Karl says:

    Palooza might want to read #’s 14-15. Or not, as they get in the way of Teh Narrative.

  24. Karl says:

    Or — as Palooza likes the Politico — he could look at the Politico quote in my post: “[i]n total, the Democrats have some $92 million on hand, to the combined Republican total of $95 million.”

    It’s a juggernaut, I tells ya!

  25. Squid says:

    I realize I’m slow, so please bear with me:

    Karl noted the $100MM prediction from Obama’s fundraisers at the time they made it. Was this positive, because Karl was following the Obama media machine, or was it negative? If he’d ignored the prediction at that time, would it have been indicative of negative bias, or positive? How?

    Today, Karl noted the actual June total, and compared it to the value predicted earlier, and also to Kerry’s figures from the last election. Were these comparisons indicative of negative bias? If so, was it because they were unfair comparisons? Or perhaps that they were incongruent with the message Obama’s campaign would prefer to focus on?

    Again, I thank you for your attention. With your help, I’m certain that I’ll be much better able to spot Karl’s trickery in the future.

    Karl, you are tricksy and false, and we hateses you!

  26. Palooza says:

    Karl, I am glad that McCain with about a 3 month head start in fund raising is now essentially tied with Obama about one month after he began fund raising for the general election. If we keep this up, at a rate of $30 million more than McCain each month, I think Obama will have more than enough money. If you think this bodes well for you on the fund raising side, well you are bigger fool than I imagined.

  27. BJTex says:

    Palooza: Have you considered meditation or aroma therapy? You seem tense and out of sorts.

    The change is here and the hope and the halo and the seal and the unicorn! HUZZAH!

    Why so tense?

  28. SevenEleventy says:

    Why so tense?

    It’ll be the manic phase until November, then…

  29. JD says:

    I love Lollapalooza. And Lilith Fair. Liz Phair is teh hawt.

  30. If you think this bodes well for you on the fund raising side,

    ah, the imaginary argument. it’s all a zero sum game.

  31. Sdferr says:

    Oh the ignominy to be imagined a fool by palooza, eh Karl?

  32. Karl says:

    Palooza lurves his strawmen, don’t he?

    Where, exactly, did I write that Obama won’t have enough money?

    I’m pretty sure — certain in fact — that he has a goal of raising $450MM (combined with the DNC) and will hit it. The combined McCain/RNC goal of $400MM also seems doable, based on what I read.

    What Palooza seems to be missing is that Obama can raise lots of money, but regardless of whether it goes into the O! column or the DNC column, it may all be coming out of the same pool of money. Conversely, GOP people who aren’t McCain fans may give to the RNC if it makes them feel better, but it’s really just bookkeeping, as the parties are allowed to coordinate with their candidates.

  33. Karl says:

    JD,

    Phair is teh hawt, but caught Sheryl Crowe’s disease in her later years. She’s going back to an indie label; we’ll see if that’s therapeutic.

  34. SevenEleventy says:

    Yeah Karl, you’re harshin’ palooza’s mellow!

  35. BJTex says:

    Palooza:

    OOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

  36. JD says:

    I do not think that ignominy is a word that Lollapalooza would understand.

  37. JD says:

    Sheryl Crowe’s disease

    Is that the disease that causes formerly hot women to start looking like a horse, and date uni-testicled men?

  38. SevenEleventy says:

    Liz Phair is incredible looking, but I’ll take Susan Tedeschi. I caught Derek and Susan at the Belly Up in Solana Beach. This vid doesn’t do her justice.

  39. Karl says:

    Well,

    Not to harsh on anyone’s mellow, but the fact that sewing up the nomination did not produce as much money as February might also suggest that O1’s online donors are contest-driven — and there aren’t many such events between now and the convention. It might also suggest that Clinton’s supporters did not exactly rush to fall in line behind the O! where their wallets were concerned.

    None of which is to say that O! made some huge error in passing on public financing. He may well raise more than he would have gotten in matching funds. One underlying issue, however, is just how much of it will roll in on low-cost online fundraising. Time and money spent on donor maintenance is time and money not spent on other things. Another issue is where the money that comes in gets spent. O! is –as I would expect — apparently spending wisely on organization in swing states now. The potential pitfall is the temptation well-funded campaigns tend to face, which is overspending on TV ads. Down the stratch, people get sick of them and ROI tails off. In the abstract, I would presume O! learned that lesson in Pennsylvania. In the heat of the campaign, consultants will always gin up a little unease that just happens to benefit them financially.

  40. Karl says:

    Sheryl Crowe’s disease

    Is that the disease that causes formerly hot women to start looking like a horse, and date uni-testicled men?

    No, but it does cause you to lose your artistic edge and make albums of overly-commercial pap.

  41. Palooza says:

    I will take a $30 million per month advantage in candidate fundraising — how about you chumperellas? LOL! The beauty — we are challenging McCain and the GOP in Dark Red areas where suddenly, the Democratic party is VERY competitive… I love watching McCain have to spend money in these places….

  42. Karl says:

    Palooza still demonstrating a complete lack of the bookkeeping concept. Funny how many left-leaners have problems with accounting realities.

  43. McGehee says:

    we are challenging McCain and the GOP in Dark Red areas where suddenly, the Democratic party is VERY competitive

    And come Election Day, when the votes are cast, those areas will still be Dark Red.

    Or did O! change the rules so votes no longer decide the election?

  44. Education Guy says:

    Oh I get it. Palooza is thinking this is a site full of McCain supporters. Heh.

    That said, I think that turning the red states blue theory isn’t really very solid.

  45. kelly says:

    That said, I think that turning the red states blue theory isn’t really very solid.

    Sure it is. The MSM tells us this, oh, every four years or so.

  46. Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) says:

    “…I love watching McCain have to spend money in these places,,,”

    – Maybe. But what I’m guessing that you don’t love so much is having to depend on a pool of contributers that are largely comprised of young turks and turkettes, (turkeys for short), that normally have one good bash to wrench from their wallets, since its always a battle to see which apostle you’ll have to stiff this month, while your party has made things ever so much better with the artificial oil mess they’ve created through obstruction.

    – As a direct result, small, onlibe contributions, something thats basically a flash in the pan at best, is now more than ever, strapped to be of much use.

    – Against that mighty money machine, you have the upper middle income people on McCains side that could write a check to buy lunch for several dozen of your youth-dorks.

    – Think I’d choose door number two. You think?

  47. Scrapiron says:

    Small donars, aka terrorists and terrorist governments.

  48. Just Passing Through says:

    “None of which is to say that O! made some huge error in passing on public financing.”

    Obama is not formally bound by this until he is the formally selected nominee and puts in the paperwork to the Federal Election Commission. He is still in the nomination cycle where the rules are different. Anything said before formal nomination concerning general election funding is not binding. He’ll concoct some story that he now must accept public funds to offset some unfair republican advantage, and he’s off into the general election race having suckered a lot of money beforehand out of a lot of imbeciles he would not have had otherwise.

    The safe bet is to assume that Obama considers nothing that he says binding if there is a perceived advantage in changing tack.

Comments are closed.