MyDD :: May numbers

May numbers

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:41:02 AM EST

Obama and McCain start off even, in fundraising. That's a bit of a surprise. And actually, Obama is behind when we factor in the committees and the GE, but we all expect that Obama will increase his advantage in the coming months.

Obama spent $27M in May, and raised $22M. He has $33M on hand for the nomination, and $10M on hand for the GE.

McCain spent $12M in May, and raised $22M. He has $32M on hand for the nomination, and will get $84M in public financing for the GE.

There is also a big disparity among the committees, the DNC and the RNC. From April, the DNC had $4M on hand, and the RNC had $40M on hand.

So, we start off behind, with five months to go. Obama and the DNC having $37M on hand and $10M for the GE, McCain and the RNC having $72M on hand and $84M for the GE. That totals $47M for the DNC/Obama and $156M for the RNC/McCain, over a 3:1 ratio in McCain's favor. But that will change.

The upside of McCain for the GE is limited by that $84M amount, and he'll have to rely upon the RNC to increase their cash on hand. Obama will not only be able to raise millions more himself, I also expect that they'll focus on significantly increasing the DNC's cash on hand.

Update [2008-6-22 12:32:21 by Jerome Armstrong]: I corrected some errors above, and got the May committee numbers. The RNC reports having raised $24M in May, and cash on hand of $54M. The DNC reports having raised $5M and has $4M cash on hand. That widens the cash on hand disparity: $37M for Obama/DNC with $10M for the GE; $86M for McCain/RNC with $84M for the GE. The Obama/DNC total of $47M against the McCain/RNC total $190M is much more of a disparity than I would have expected. But, there lots of upside for Obama, and we'll see how much he closes the gap in June for a good indication. No alarm bells yet.

Tags: McCain, Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 80 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: May numbers (1.00 / 7)

You all are taking Obama's flip flop on public financing very well.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:47:05 AM EST

Re: May numbers (1.75 / 4)

We also take trolls very well.

Go back to redstate.

Hey guys? You know we won right? You can stop the doooooomsaying now.

by JDF on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:49:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (1.75 / 4)

seems we're quite tolerant of trolls also.

by venician on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:49:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a flip-flop to say you might (2.00 / 1)

Do something if conditions are met and then, when conditions are not to not follow through as you said you would in the beginning?

Which means, Obama did exactly what he said he would? And that's a flip-flop.

Interesting. I never heard that definition of the term before.

Learn something new every day!

Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?

by BrighidG on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:51:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a flip-flop to say you might (1.00 / 1)

I have not been able to find information where he had set conditions on accepting public financing.

In my opinion Obama was for public financing before he was against public financing.

However you have to admit the bit about being a campaign truly financed by the American people is a bit of a stretch.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:26:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a flip-flop to say you might (2.00 / 1)

How is it a stretch? I am personally donating and I am an American. Sounds like a campaign financed by the American people to me.

by sweet potato pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:29:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a flip-flop to say you might (none / 0)

ALL the donations don't come from individuals, do they?

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:46:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a flip-flop to say you might (2.00 / 1)

Do you know of any contributions that were not made by individuals? By law, contributions cannot come from a corporation's general funds and Obama has refused PAC money, so what exactly is the allegation?

by rfahey22 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:30:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a flip-flop to say you might (none / 0)

I may be just be naive, but I find very little difference in the goals of a PAC and a bundler.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:52:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a flip-flop to say you might (2.00 / 2)

Again, what is the basis of your criticism? Now you've changed your argument to be about bundling, but you provide no data to support it. Are you talking about a certian proportion of bundlers relative to ordinary donors? A certain amount of money? Do you have actual facts at your disposal? I would think that there would be a little more meat to your charge than the vagueries you've thrown out so far.

by rfahey22 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:04:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a flip-flop to say you might (1.20 / 5)

"He's got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer". I know, I know, that quote is from David Broder, but that doesn't make it less true.
Obama's history is strewn with Flip Flops, one that comes to mind, is this jewel: I would no more abandon Rev. Wright than I would my pooor old Grandmother. Someone please pull his grandmother out from under that bus!
Just about everything The Obama has promised, has been flip flopped on, including this, the biggest to date: January 28, 2008 10:00 Statement of Senator Obama:
I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill. Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.
The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend. No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens - and set an example to the world - that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.
And on Feb. 08, The O said this: "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."
Contrast this with his latest statement on FISA.
So much for Change! Huh?

by muggle on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 08:03:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We sure are (none / 0)

I wish I could say the same for you about your candidate's primary loss.

by JJE on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:11:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (none / 0)

Did you guys hear something? I heard an inconsequential buzzing sound...

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:09:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (1.00 / 1)

Yes it is interesting how flip flops on progressive issues that were so important during the primary are deemed inconsequential as we enter the general election. That inconsequential buzzing sound is called spin.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:15:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (2.00 / 1)

Obama would be absolutely idiotic to not opt out of public financing. Yes, he did pledge to accept public funds if his opponent did the same, and there's a bit of wiggle room in the fact that McCain had previously waffled several times on whether he would accept public money, but it's clear that Obama is in some sense breaking a promise.

You know what? I don't care. Analysts are saying he has the chance to bring in $500 million this season to his campaign and the DNC, which will help downticket races tremendously. I would rather have a Democrat in the WH and hundreds of new Democrats take over GOP constituencies than have my candidate spoil a massive 5:1 funding advantage over his opponent because of a nonbinding pledge. Is Obama's word really more important to you than winning this election and many of the downticket ones, or are you just being contrary? It's unfortunate that he broke his word on this, but the benefits are just too great for him not to.

by semiquaver on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (1.00 / 3)

The new politics sound like the old politics.

What happened to winning based on the quality of the candidate and taking the influence of money out of the process?

At what point will his promises just become lies?

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:44:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (2.00 / 1)

You sound pretty cavalier about the serious threat of McCain being elected president. Why is that?

by semiquaver on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:09:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (none / 0)

What does John McCain have to do with the promises of Barack Obama?

It sounds as if you're saying money is the key to Obama's winning in November rather than the power of his words, character, and message.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (none / 0)

This is the real world, and of course having a lot more money is a huge advantage in an election. Having money (keep in mind that it is from the people in mostly small donations) is not mutually exclusive to his having a powerful message. In fact that message is the reason for his fundraising powerhouse.

This is not some core progressive principal at issue here, it's to do with a nonbinding statement on a survey. You seem more concerned in finding fault with Obama than electing a Democrat to the White House.

by semiquaver on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:53:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain cheating (2.00 / 1)

The fact that McCain is going to break the law (and of course already has) and not be held accountable since the GOP controls the Federal Elections Committee has forced Obama to go totally private.

Only GOP trolls would consider this to be a flip-flop. Obama needs to stick that knife deep into the heart of McCain and the GOP and keep twisting. The truth is the RNC raises money hand over fists and then funnels it in unethical ways to the Fall campaign. The DNC doesn't have the money to do that.

If even half of Clintons donors come over to Obama and just give $100 along with the rest of Obamas current donors, McCain wont be able to compete.

by monkeyga on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:47:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (2.00 / 0)

Better than McCain's 20 plus flip flops on various issues... and counting.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:14:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (2.00 / 1)

McCain spent the entire month of May doing high dollar fund raising. Obama was still fighting hard to clinch the nomination. In 2004, Kerry raised $44 million in the month after he wrapped up the delegates to win the nomination. I suspect Obama's fundraising in June will surpass that, and he will have the time to hold some high dollar events as well.

I'm thrilled he backed out of public financing. It would have been ludicrous to disarm against a well funded RNC. It killed Kerry in 2004, and it would have done the same to Obama. This will allow him to truly expand the playing field. If McCain is forced to spend money to defend Republican states from 2004, it limits the money he can spend to try and capture Dem states.

by jadegirl on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:51:12 AM EST

Re: Correction (none / 0)

Should be "with 5 months to go." (Not 6 months...)

by nzubechukwu on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 11:54:55 AM EST

can anyone explain McCain's filings (none / 0)

It has a huge amount ($4 million) listed as Transfers (Line 18), then it names individuals. What is that all about?

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/f orms/C00430470/345410/

New Jersey politics and news

by John DE on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:06:54 PM EST

Re: can anyone explain McCain's filings (2.00 / 1)

McCain, exploiting a loophole in the McCain/Feingold law, has held several "Joint Victory Fund" fundraisers with the Republican National Committee where an individual can give up to $70,100 to McCain, the RNC and other Republican committees. The $4 million represents the amount allocated from the Joint Victory Fund to McCain for President (with a max of $2,300 per person) raised at these fundraisers. Of course, anyone giving big money to the Joint Victory Fund is going to want and has been getting serious personal face time with McCain at the fundraisers.

When Obama says that McCain/Feingold has become obsolete, this is part of what he is talking about. Anyone who thinks that Obama should have opted for public financing in the general should have their head examined.

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:02:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the problem: (2.00 / 3)

Because Obama has refused to accept public financing in the general election and only has $10 million earmarked for the GE, he starts Sept. 4 with a $75 million deficit against John McCain. He won't have time to do any fundraisers from Sept. 4 to Nov. 4 (Election Day) as his Republican opponent will be able to campaign 100% of the time. In other words, Barack Obama needs to raise enough money from now until Sept. 4 to earmark $85-100 million for the general election so he won't have to do any fundraisers and can significantly outspend McCain during that time. If Obama can't raise that kind of cash by Sept. 4, Democrats are in deep doo-doo.

Barack Obama is far from wrapping up this baby, and needs our money big time now so he won't have to worry about having sufficient funds for the GE come late August.

by Brad G on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:14:41 PM EST

Re: Here's the problem: (2.00 / 6)

Two things. Would it be too obnoxious to post links to Obama's and the Party's fundraising sites in articles about fundraising?

Secondly, I am low income making less than 23K a year. I have been contributing monthly to Obama's campaign since January. I have also contributed to a few congressional campaigns this cycle. I am getting really tapped out (gas or campaign contribution, food or campaign contributions) and am really annoyed at those who advocate strongly for the Democratic party and for Barack Obama, have some small amount of discretionary income, and have the attitude of let the other guy do it. This includes many of my friends who just "love" the candidate but think someone else needs to pay the freight.

We have a good shot this year at really making a difference in our country's history. Let's not blow it because of cheapness, and can this site do more to motivate people to contribute to one or another Democrat?

by mady on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:24:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the problem: (2.00 / 1)

I agree people are having a hard time. The $85 million for the general election was sitting there waiting for him to accept it. He has raised nearly $300 million dollars. He is rejecting support from 527s. I think some people would have appreciated taking the fundraising which takes a lot of time and effort out of the general election and placing the focus solely on the issues.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:42:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the problem: (2.00 / 2)

My point was not that people are having a hard time. My point was that even having a hard time, supporting this campaign ranks right up there (to me) with the basic necessities. It is what it is now, and don't you want to give electing a Democrat as good a chance as possible?

Furthermore, I was talking about down-ticket races, not simply the presidency.

Give.

by mady on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the problem: (none / 0)

My point is the American public gave $3 on every federal income tax form to the tune of $85 million dollars per candidate in the general election. Public funding of campaigns to include down ticket races would eliminate the creativity that goes into fundraising and winning would be determined more by quality of the candidate rather than how much money is spent.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:09:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the problem: (2.00 / 2)

Yes, but here we are right now, in the middle of the race, with ample time after November, after we have done what we need to, to talk about changes in how money is raised.

Raising money takes up an inordinate amount of a campaign's energy and resources, I agree. But we do need to win, now, and need the money to win, now, so I would be happy to put this entire discussion on hold until then, when we can try to find a better way of doing this.

If we lose this election, fundraising for the next cycle will be the least of our concerns.

by mady on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:15:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the problem: (none / 0)

Yours is a refreshing and honest point of view. Thank you.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:19:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the problem: (2.00 / 1)

Sorry if I get a bit carried away.

That was kind :-)

by mady on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the problem: (none / 0)

First of all, public financing is voluntary, so not every person has contributed $3 on their federal returns. Second, the amount of money available is insufficient to fully contest a national election, as shown by the fact that Bush and Kerry spent (or funds were spent on their behalf) well in excess of the ceiling in place at that time. Finally, what you call "creative" fundraising would continue to occur regardless - as noted in this diary, McCain raised over $20 million this month, largely as a result of hitting the dinner circuit, and he is also coordinating with the RNC and probably 527s for the fall, yet he ostensibly will receive public financing beginning in August. All you've stated is an ideal that falls far short of reality.

by rfahey22 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the problem: (none / 0)

But it is the reality Obama supported, right?

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:44:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the problem: (2.00 / 1)

He said he would discuss public financing with the Republican nominee and commit to it if certain conditions were met. His surrogates did that, the camps could not agree on terms, and so in my opinion he has met his obligations. Moreover, from a pragmatic standpoint I'm glad that we won't be tied to an ideal that simply does not reflect the reality on the ground. The public financing system that we currently have in place cannot deliver on its promises and does not effectively advance its goals.

by rfahey22 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:58:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the problem: (none / 0)

I think the truth is he could not have predicted how successful the fundraising would be and his lofty rhetoric of bringing integrity to the process by removing the influence of money went right out the window.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony

by feelfree on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:41:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Two Cheers for Mady.... (none / 0)

Your example is an inspiration to others...

by louisprandtl on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the problem: (none / 0)

You are right, and I just sent him another 100 clams. But I am not ready to send money to the DNC. I'll send directly to candidates I like.
If there was a way to give just to convention expenses, I would.

by hawkseye on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:38:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you don't send to the DNC ... (2.00 / 1)

... there won't be a convention. The DNC is already far behind fundraising targets.

by Brad G on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:43:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If you don't send to the DNC ... (none / 0)

Um no.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:12:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the problem: (none / 0)

LOL... Wow... if only we had some kind of fundraising tool that gives access to Democrats and allows Obama to request they donate... that would be han... What's that? Oh RIGHT THE INTERNET!

Obama doesn't really need the traditional fundraisers. He didn't hit the fundraising emails as hard during may. There is a great chance he will raise $80-100 million in JUNE.

This is not 1992... things are much different.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:11:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (none / 0)

As I said in my last diary, he'll get more Hillary money if he chooses her. That's my attitude toward him and the DNC--no money unless he chooses her. Yet he has my vote whether he chooses her or not.

by NY Writer on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:17:33 PM EST

Re: May numbers (2.00 / 3)

Are you trying to hold him hostage because your candidate didn't win? I'm about electing democrats even if my preferred candidate doesn't win so I will give what I can to make sure that happens.

Stop throwing tantrums.

by sweet potato pie on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 12:32:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (2.00 / 2)

Since when does not giving money to a candidate, or laying out the conditions under which one will give, constitute "throwing a tantrum", or holding him hostage? Political giving is not compulsory, it's voluntary. If NYW wants to spell out the conditions under which he will voluntarily give some of his/her money to Obama, you should not launch into a bunch of name-calling in response. That is called bullying, in my book.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:23:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (1.33 / 3)

Oh, such surprise Jerome. It's not as if Democrats were wasting their money for months in a primary that Hillary Clinton prolonged atleast two months past the point where she could have won it, when Republicans were saving their own money for McCain.

It's not as if Democrats are still asked in this very site to waste their money in putting to rest Hillary Clinton's debts, instead of contributing to the actual Obama campaign or other downticket campaigns?

And yet here you are, and after you've all been asking Democrats to waste their money in order to support Hillary, you talk about your concern about Obama.

BTW, when you will bloody prove that this place is still meant for Democrats and bloody well ban all the Republican trolls??

But perhaps you want MyDD to become McCain Central. Is that your ambition, Jerome?

by Aris Katsaris on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:42:56 PM EST

Re: May numbers (1.00 / 1)

A bit bitter about something?

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (none / 0)

Certainly am bitter pver somethings -- e.g. I remember receiving an official "warning" in this site that I had to "acknowledge" when I dared bash Hillary Clinton for showing flawed judgement by being married to an adulterer.

This was in direct response to people that were bashing Obama's judgement by going to Wright's church -- but I somehow doubt you gave a few hundred warnings to them. Bashing the divine Clinton during the primaries was a no-no -- bashing the democratic nominee is perfectly allowed now.

So, basically yeah. I think that it's ludicrous how hard people had to push to make this site even remotely fair to Obama's supporters back in primary season, and it's ludicrous how hard we have to push so it's NOT fair to Republicans right now.

What's moderation about if not to remove the Republican trolls? But if you want to make sure Republicans and Democrats have equal representation here, it's your site: I just wish you were sincere and upfront about it.

by Aris Katsaris on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:42:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (none / 0)

"I dared bash Hillary Clinton for showing flawed judgement by being married to an adulterer."

"What's moderation about if not to remove the Republican trolls?"

I'm sure the irony escapes you.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:55:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (none / 0)

Wow, you sound angry.

I can't speak for Jerome of course, but I have noticed article after article discussing how the 50 state + territories primary season actually invigorated the Democratic Party, drove up voter registration, and raised public awareness of progressive issues. So I do not think the money spent on the primaries was wasted at all.

Now that it's over, if we can just stop throwing the bombs at allies and focus on the enemy, the table is set for a very good fall campaign.

As for banning trolls, I am against it unless they become utterly disruptive and abusive. (The comment above about "Barky" is skating pretty close to the line, but it is so over-the-top, it comes off more like self parody.) We ought to be willing and able to debate freely, or we are not upholding liberal democratic values.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:05:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (none / 0)

Oops, I should have said 48 state + territories. The MI and FL debacle is a sore spot no matter how you view it, but from recent polling, it is starting to look like we may be able to put even that behind us by November, and avoid paying too heavy a price for it.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:33:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (none / 0)

Does anyone else feel that the spark is somewhat gone in this election since Clinton left?

The longer the season progresses, the more I feel that Obama/Clinton is the way to go.

by mjc888 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 01:48:37 PM EST

Re: May numbers (2.00 / 2)

Now that the nominations have been settled, of course the news cycle has slowed down. It won't pick up again until the conventions. The same thing has happened in every general election year I can remember.

by Covin on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (2.00 / 1)

I'd never donated to Obama. Never thought he needed it. I did earlier today and I will again.

"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."

by vcalzone on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:11:12 PM EST

All the money that the Dems spent in primary (2.00 / 0)

is ALL worth it folks. Because the Dem primary involved all but 2 states, Obama has now a LEG UP in all the states except Michigan and Florida.

He has the infrastructure in place plus the MASS voting registration that took place where Dems make up a huge block of the electorate. Plus Obama got to advertise in all those states except 2 thus those states KNOW Obama.

I hope Obama makes A LOT this month. I donated $200 instead of my monthly $100 this month because Obama needs to have a great month.

by puma on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 02:27:32 PM EST

Re: All the money that the Dems spent in primary (none / 0)

FL and MI was a debacle for the party, no matter where you choose to lay blame. Personally, I think there is plenty of blame to go around. I expect if and when Clinton hits the campaign trail for Obama, she will be spending considerable time in MI and FL. That would go a long way to healing the wounds.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:38:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Question for Jerome (none / 0)

Maybe it's just that the primary is over but the fact that McCain tied Obama in fundraising is noteworthy. I'm sure Obama will rake in the cash come convention time.

I have one question for Jerome: Obama has twice in the last week brought up the fact that the Republicans will scare people by saying that he's too inexperienced, has a funny name and is black. He's not mentioning anything they've done, only what they might do. Am I too sensitive or is Obama playing the race-card here? Pre-emptively? Is this something that will work in the general election? CNN reported it last night.

by mmorang on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:03:19 PM EST

Could the economy be a factor? (none / 0)

Since Obama has relied so much on a small donor
base, the difficult economy could impact ability to donate. I think this may be very important, but let's wait until June numbers come in before saying Obama's decision to pass up public financing is a blunder.

by esconded on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:13:10 PM EST

Re: May numbers (none / 0)

Look...McGeezer is still in violation of campaign financing...
We just finished a take me to the river Primary.
People and the Obama campaign are burned out and making the transition. Starting in July...the transition will have meshed. Our in-the-gutter-economy will benefit Obama.
Big GOP donors are hurting. Most of us still have $50-100 to contribute...
Mcwives...given his violations is in no position to attack Obama over public financing...
For those with doubts or grudges...one of the reasons for Obama's Primary victory was his ability to raise serious money with under $100 donations.

I have no doubt ..discounting 527's...The Obama Campaign will raise and outspend McSame 3:1 during the GE starting in September.

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:08:00 PM EST

Re: May numbers (none / 0)

I don't disagree with the thrust of your post, but you demean your own argument when you resort to silly name calling.

I especially object to "Mcwives": you are making references to aspects of his personal life that should be out of bounds in a rational discussion. His fitness to run the country has next to nothing to do with his married life. I didn't like it when Bill Clinton was impeached over bl*wjobs, so if I want to be intellectually honest, I have to object when I see this kind of sophistry.

Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.

by itsthemedia on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:47:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So the $33 million... (none / 0)

Obama has for the nomination, can he still spend that money up until the convention?

And for those people that donate now in June, will that money go to his primary fund, or the general election fund, or does it even matter?

by BruinKid on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 09:55:59 PM EST

Re: So the $33 million... (none / 0)

As he rejected public funding, he doesnt have to spend the primary funds until the convention, he can transfer any surplus to the GE fund. You can spend for the primary fund until the convention or until you max out.

by micha1976 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 04:55:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So the $33 million... (none / 0)

He can transfer to the GE? I don't think so.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: May numbers (none / 0)

"It's not as if Democrats are still asked in this very site to waste their money in putting to rest Hillary Clinton's debts, instead of contributing to the actual Obama campaign or other downticket campaigns?" I agree.

Flashlights helicopter video game

by analyfjks on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:22:46 PM EST

Re: May numbers (none / 0)

this is right.

Flashlights helicopter video game

by analyfjks on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:23:48 PM EST

Re: May numbers (none / 0)

Actually, I think We're all Democrats.......I haven't had a single discussion on this issue from anyone .....I'd be pleasantly suport the man who is really democratics.

Flashlights helicopter video game

by analyfjks on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:58:38 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.