Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter?

Could there be a reshuffling of tiers in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination? Judging by an almost offhanded comment in a front page article in today's issue of The Washington Post by Michael D. Shear and Anne E. Kornblut, it seems possible. Take a look.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who is barely registering in most polls, has told other Democrats that he expects to raise more money than Edwards this quarter.

To parse the reporting of Shear and Kornblut just a bit before I get into the substance of this, it would be incorrect to assert that Richardson "is barely registering in most polls." In fact, while it is true that Richardson's standing in most national polls is rather low (certainly below 5 percent), in polling from Iowa and New Hampshire, which are significantly more important than national polling, Richardson is averaging 10.8 percent and 9.1 percent respectively, which is hardly "barely registering."

Yet moving on to the substance of this claim by Richardson -- that he will raise more money this quarter than Edwards -- there are a number of interesting implications here. First, this is an interesting way of playing the expectations game by Richardson if in fact he does not fully expect to outraise Edwards, because if he fails to meet this mark after setting it for himself he would seem to solidify his position in a separate and lower tier than Edwards. If this is a more traditional expectations game -- i.e. a claim passed to the press not by the Richardson camp but rather by the Edwards camp to lay the groundwork for calling their Q2 fundraising a success just by being greater than that of Richardson, even if it is only about a third of either Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- this would seem to bring Edwards closer to Richardson's tier than that of Clinton and Obama (because it would be his campaign making the comparison).

If it indeed ends up that Richardson raises more this quarter than Edwards -- or even raises about the same amount -- we may in fact be looking at a three-tier race for the Democratic nomination, with Clinton and Obama in the first tier, Edwards and Richardson in the second tier, and the rest of the candidates in the third. While this has somewhat been the case in the minds of many to this point, Edwards did previously appear to be closer to the top tier than the second (even if he was in between the two). As such, a slip to the second tier would be a slip.

Of course this is all the expectations game and we're going to have to wait a few weeks to find out just how the fundraising race turned out (a race that while having a large effect upon  the race for the Democratic nomination will not determine the race's outcome). But for now this is perhaps an interesting preview of things to come.



Display:


Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

I'm starting to think Edwards is in trouble.  His campaign just "feels" like it's sinking.  He certainly has had a TERRIBLE last couple of months.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 04:57:56 PM EST

Wishful thinking (none / 0)

on your part.  

Edwards is winning in Iowa.  That is not sinking.

Of course, Edwards stood up to the capitulators.  He walks picket lines with workers.  So the MSM is trying to sink him.

It won't work.  If he is sinking, why does he beat all the Rs so handily in the Rasmussen poll?


by littafi on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:20:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wishful thinking (none / 0)

no, not wishful thinking.  I like Edwards and have sent him $.  I actually lean his way now.  But his lead in IA is tenuous at best.  It's like a point or two with HRC and Obama breathing down his neck.

However, after the political tonedeafness he showed by foolishly getting a $400 haircut AND from his campaign account, I will not be sending him another cent.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:28:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's knock off this $400 haircut crap! (3.00 / 1)

If you ask a barber for your own convenience to leave his shop to come to your location to cut your hair, you expect to pay him for the haircut plus the time lost from his shop where he could be earning money.  Granted, he may pay $100 for a haircut when most of us only ante up $25 or so but my barber probably cuts four heads of hair in an hour.  He does mine in 5 minutes; not much hair left.

The only bad thing I see in this is his bag man paying for the haircut out of the wrong bag.  I believe that was corrected but if people want to tsk, tsk and point their fingers it reminds me of grade school mentality.

As for supporting him, I just sent him another $100 because I think he is the best candidate we have to help middle class America.  That is where he came from, that is where Elizabeth came from and it is clear that they are in tune with the common folk of this country.  I also think he is the best choice to rebuild our military and take care of our veterans.


by lobo charlie on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:29:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's knock off this $400 haircut crap! (none / 0)

can you afford a $200 haircut?  can any of your friends?


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:30:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's knock off this $400 haircut crap! (none / 0)

Wow, you mean Edwards is rich? Don't be retarded.

The issue is that he screwed up and paid out of his campaign account, not that he's wealthy. You can't afford to run a credible campaign for president right now unless you've got assets well over the national median.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:36:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's knock off this $400 haircut crap! (3.00 / 1)

i didn't mean to be subtle.  my point was that most people can't afford $200 haircuts -- even those who obsess over their hair, as edwards does.  you may like his ideas, but this is the kind of thing that voters focus on.  it gives them an image they can remember (edwards getting a $200 haircut) which is a lot more influential in their voting decision than his policy papers.

and, since you missed it the first time, my issue wasn't that he's rich or that he paid for it out of his campaign account.  i was pointing out the impolitic aspect of it, giving voters a negative image/impression that could haunt him.  i will try not to be coy next time so that everyone can keep up...


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Get real! How much is an hour (none / 0)

away from the campaign worth to Clinton, Obama, Edwards or any other candidate?  My point was that the haircut was probably a $100 charge and the loss of productive time for the barber/hair stylist traveling to the Edwards event accounted for the rest of the $400.  For Edwards to have gone to the hair salon would have been a greater waste of time and money to the campaign.

Are you advocating being penny wise and pound foolish?  The Clinton/Obama crowd keeping this alive are playing to the folks that can't walk and chew gum at the same time.


by lobo charlie on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:47:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FDR & JFK (3.00 / 1)

mean anything to you? This is not a contradiction.


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:50:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's knock off this $400 haircut crap! (none / 0)

Right! If Edwards wanted to help the poor he should have stayed poor!

Also Obama is a hypocrite for proposing a UHC plan because he currently has no diseases.

Also Obama is a hypocrite because he pretends to care about people that make less than he does. Can you afford a $2000 suit?


by adamterando on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:01:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jeez Louise, this is the US of A. (none / 0)

What the man does with his own money is his own business. I have relatives who were shocked ... shocked ... to find out at the Olive Garden that you could get edible food on the short side of $50 a person.

Charging it to the campaign was a blunder by a staffer, but I don't know I would perform flawlessly myself close to midnight after a long day's work, so waddya gonna do?


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 09:44:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jeez Louise, this is the US of A. (3.00 / 1)

It is his choice what he does with his money. It is a big public relations problem for him when he is running for president. Do any of you remember when George Bush Sr. did not know what a supermarket scanner was?


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 11:39:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's knock off this $400 haircut crap! (none / 0)

Its amazing how you still miss the point... The haircut is not the issue, the issue is that his campaign did something very stupid that played into an already prominent negative theme about Edwards- his vanity.   With the strength of the potential nominees (5 right now with the potential to win the nom and the presidency) those kinds of fuck ups can cost you dearly.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 09:25:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's knock off this $400 haircut crap! (none / 0)

Exactly!

How come more people don't get it?  It's not about the fucking haircut per se.  It's the lack of political acumen and shitty decision-making that is the problem.  Personally, I could give a shit if he spent a hundred grand on a haircut.  But I ain't most people.  And it soooo reinforces EDWARDS' BIGGEST LIABILITY AND MOST NEGATIVE IMAGE OF HIM.  

I find it absolutely inexcusable that a man as educated as he is, and as experienced in running as he is (he ran for VEEP FER CHRISSAKES!!!).  I also find it unforgivable, hence why I am not wasting another dime on someone who does things like this to create amd actually reinforce their own negative frame.  It's hard enough to win without doing unnecessarily damaging things like this.

Edwards' people can blame the media all they want.  But they have a job to do and a $400 haircut is great fodder.  Don't blame the media, Edwards supporters...blame your candidate.

Btw, I still plan on voting for him in the primary.  I like his agenda.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 04:47:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about the Rezko connection with Obama (3.00 / 1)

That has not been fully explained.   Obama People can blame the media all they want.  But they have a job to do and a criminal connection is great fodder.  Don't blame the media, Obama supporters... blame your candidate.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 07:25:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about the Rezko connection with Obama (none / 0)

Obama and many different Chicago politicians had ties to Rezko.  Nothing criminal has been attributed to Obama's connection with Rezko (unlike say Blago where the evidence is mounting and will probably take him down and erase all the bad will towards the GOP in the state races)... its pretty much just circumstances.... kind of like that there is no truth in saying that Edwards doesn't care about poor people because he took a hedge fund job nor that there are big impropieties with many of them maxing out campaign donations... its just ties they both have.


by yitbos96bb on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:26:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wishful thinking (none / 0)

Edwards has campaigned in Iowa since 2001. In only a few months Clinton and Obama have reduced his lead to a few points and some polls show Clinton ahead.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Money always speaks loudly (3.00 / 1)

With the money Clinton and obama can throw around it does seem out of line for them to make head way - but lets see if it translates in the primary.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:10:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wishful thinking (none / 0)

The question is though if he is only on pace to raise $9 mill for Q2 and Clinton and Obama get similiar or bigger to their Q1, will Edwards lead or even be in 2nd in Iowa?  Only time will tell, but if he is way way way down in money to Obama and Clinton and gets passed by Richardson in money, my feeling is he will drop big type in the Iowa polls.  


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 09:23:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Great news!! (none / 0)

As a Hillary supporter, I've been waiting for Richardson to overtake Edwards for a looooooog time. This is great news for Hillary. It further dimishes Edwards' radical agenda.

If Richardson indeed overtakes Edwards in fundraising, this news will be much more shocking than Obama's expected big fundraising #. We all know Obama is going to outraise Hillary, and any temporary bump in the poll will be deflated by Richardson's money news.

Another great day for Hillary after a terrific poll from newsweek which shows Hillary's strong head-to-head #s against GOP contenders.

She is getting stronger and stronger.


by maoasada on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:05:23 PM EST

Edwards 'radical agenda'? (3.00 / 1)

Are you really a Democrat?  

Why are you so afraid of the people?  

Richardson is as abd as Clinton on economic fairness. No wonder you like him.

Remember, Edwards is winning Iowa.  Richardson is going nowhere.


by littafi on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:18:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great news!! (3.00 / 1)

We all know the corporate media wants Hillary to win - because she'll place corporate interests above ours.
But with her high unfavorable and unlikability factors - how does she win the primaries? By the corporate media continuing to discredit Edwards' character - then when the only viable progressive candidate is out of the race - they'll focus on smearing Obama.

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great news!! (3.00 / 1)

Ya! She'll strongly lose the general election, that's what she'll do.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:26:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great news!! (3.00 / 3)

I may or may not be supporting Hillary.  Right now, I lean towards Edwards (but Gore if he jumps in).

But, your post makes me kind of cringe.  "Radical agenda"?  The thing that makes me UNEASY about HRC is her reticence in having a truly REVOLUTIONARY progressive agenda.

It's Edwards' agenda that is why I like him at the moment.  

Btw, what the hell are you doing on a prog blog when you are a centrist Democrat?  Creepy post, man.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:31:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great news!! (1.00 / 3)

His agenda is radical and 'pie-in-sky' type of crap. He just unveiled a 'college for all' plan. Let's set aside whether this plan is realistic or not financially, the argument that everyone should go to college is silly.

Lots of people do not need, or do not want to go to college. There're a lot of high-paid jobs(construction, trade etc) that do not need a college degree. Having a college degree does not guarantee you a good job. There're a lot of college graduate who can not find jobs.

This just shows you how out of touch Edwards is. Everything is a 'feel good' slogan. College for all, healthcare for all, jobs for all etc. Is he copying Karl Marx's 'communist theory'?


by maoasada on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:36:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great news!! (3.00 / 1)

you gave away your being a troll by your negative statement on "health care for all."

You are a troll.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A most odd Democrat for sure! (none / 0)


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:54:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great news!! (3.00 / 3)

College for all, healthcare for all, jobs for all etc. Is he copying Karl Marx's 'communist theory'?

College for all? What does Edwards want, a highly educated populous? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard! Ha, soon he will be saying we need elementary school for everybody! Oh, wait - we do have that...

Healthcare for all? Now that's communism! If everybody had access to quality healthcare Stalin would rise from the dead and crush us all! What's next, retirement for everybody? Oh yeah, we have Social Security...umm....we'll have to scrap that!

Jobs for all? If people can't find a job they deserve to die on the street! Thank god our government doesn't offer unemployment insurance or financial assistance for the needy!! With social safety nets like that the whole country would turn red! Cuba would invade! The Red Chinese Hordes would eat us alive!

</pissed off snark>


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:51:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great news!! (none / 0)

Those goals of course are noble. Communism in theory is also very noble cause.

However, Edwards' proposals are more like 'pie-in-sky' pipe dreams. He promised these big things. How can he possibly expect to let those things pass the congress and become the law?

I'm just tired of hearing all these 'feel good' proposals. We need a candidate who knows how to fix the mess even gradually, not just press release a slogan every day.


by maoasada on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:00:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I doubt you think they're noble (3.00 / 3)

If you're comparing them to communism.

Fact is, every other first world nation manages to provide health care and higher education to its people better than the United States does, so it's not as if Edwards' proposals are "pie in the sky," in the sense that they cannot be achieved.  They can be; they have been.

And, if you put a leader in the White House with the will to accomplish them, they will be.

The fact that Hillary has set her sights so pathetically low shows that she's not that leader.

Edwards, on the other hand - he's set his sights high.  He's willing to try what Hillary has wrongly decided is impossible.  And that's why he should be the next president.

And I'll shamelessly note that if you want that to happen, you should contribute.

Barack and Hillary have $50 million so they can tell people how bipartisan and technocratic they are.  John only needs $10 million to tell American that we deserve better than compromise and small steps.


by Drew on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:18:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great news!! (none / 0)

So Edwards is comparable to communism - -- Interesting. Next on news at 11- Edwards the Anti Christ. Oh wait- I thought that was supposed to be HRC, and wasn't she suppose to according to the Christian right be a sign that the end times were here too?


by bruh21 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:11:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great news!! (3.00 / 1)

You're an idiot. The plan does not require people to go to college. It says that if you want to go to college and you do well in school and you work 10 hours a week then we pay for your tuition and books.

You really are a small-minded piece of work. You know there actually are other countries besides the US! And they even have things like universal health care and free college tuition! And they don't have high child mortality rates like the US too!

Your comments smack of elitism and it sounds like you actually like feeling superior to people and want some people to remain in poverty and in dead-end jobs. It's like, 'hey that's capitalism, tough luck bud'.


by adamterando on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:06:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great News! The Plan Does NOT ... (3.00 / 1)

... call for sending everyone to college ... the plan is to make sure that nobody who successfully completes a college track HS degree, is accepted to college, and agrees to work at least 10 hours a week is denied the opportunity to go to college.

You have it confused with Universal Health Care, where everyone who has a physical body will be covered.

In the future, you can prevent these kinds of information mistakes by reading the details before you comment:

A National Goal: End Poverty Within 30 Years ... included an brief overview of the College for Everyone plan, and from your comment, a brief summary ought to be a substantial improvement in your information base, while here are details of the Health Care Plan (pdf).


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 09:50:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL! (none / 0)

His "radical" agenda? You mean UHC, reforming HUD, providing college assistance, reigning in on payday lenders and credit card company abuses...how "radical" of him. Geez, I guess I would much rather have a "radical" agenda over a more centrist agenda any day of the week.


Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley
by Sarah Lane on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:11:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tiers are not based on (3.00 / 1)

money.  Richardson is going no where.  Edwards is leading in Iowa.

John Edwards will raise enough money to compete.


by littafi on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:14:03 PM EST

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (3.00 / 2)

I suppose if your definitnion of dear is money - sure.


by bruh21 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:29:20 PM EST

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (3.00 / 4)

One of the problems is that the media seems to only cover negative stories on Edwards.

Meanwhile, Hillary and Obama get a ton of free positive press.  I often wonder why it is that the headlines for Edwards read "$400 haircut" or "large mansion" or "used non-profit to build bridge to 2008"....

I think the media does have a bias.  They have no interest in having a politician like Edwards win.

I'm giving a big donation again, I hope we are able to rally.

-Zen Blade


by Zen Blade on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:41:05 PM EST

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

Is there any way to check what max. donors are giving to both Richardson and Clinton? My take on Richardson has always been he is going to take on whoever is the biggest danger to Clinton just as Gephardt cut a deal to go negative on Dean in '04. If there are more than a few donors who gave the max amount to Clinton and Richardson, Clinton in Q1 then Richardson in Q2 then I would be very suspect of how Richardson conducts himself with regards to attacks moving forward.

Note: I don't have any evidence to back this up. It's just a wild-arsed theory based on my perceptions of Richardson as a member in good standing of the Clinton I administration.


"Nothing seems to embarrass the political class today." - Bill Moyers
by joejoejoe on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:44:55 PM EST

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

Interesting question.  So Richardson might be a stalking horse for Hillary, designed to sink Edwards.  Hmmm.  I'd like to find out how many of Richardson's big donors also gave to HRC.

I have always suspected - don't know if any of it is true - that Wes Clark is another candidate that is secretly a Clintonite.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:50:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0)

Richardson did say he was asking Hillary's maxed-out donors to give to him as well, but I don't think that suggests collusion so much as it suggests similar views.


by Drew on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:20:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

eh (3.00 / 1)

I do seem to remember Richardson asking Clinton donors for money, appealing as a "strong second choice" or something. But it's not really fair to put that on Richardson at this point. He hasn't really been going negative at all, unless you include the website comparison thing, and he attacked Hillary there too. Also, his commercials are great, and they seek to present him as the experienced alternative to the top 3. He's not my first or second choice, but we should give him the benefit of the doubt until he gives reason to do otherwise.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:45:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

There are a lot of contributors who give to multiple candidates.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:00:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

right.  we've gotten fund raising calls from six of the candidates (including the one my wife got from hillary).  she supports richardson (who we met at the convention in 2004) while i support obama.


"We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." - President Obama, Sept 9, 2009
by bored now on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (3.00 / 1)

I think the media does have a bias.  They have no interest in having a politician like Edwards win.

I think they're just dumb. Edwards has given at least half a dozen major policy speeches that propose not just programs but entire agendas -- on inequality, on health care, on reducing carbon emissions, on foreign policy, the other day on credit -- and the dailies can't assimiliate that much material. They need a single story line and for them the story line is still "Edwards ... didn't win last time, wants to run again."

The thing is, voters pay attention to the agenda, when they can cut through the crap. Thats only possible in a retail campaign environment, which is why Edwards is doing well in Iowa and will do well wherever he can get his message to voters directly. Where he has to rely on the mainstream media, people only know that he's rich and gets haircuts and didn't win last time.


by desmoulins on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 05:49:12 PM EST

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

If Richardson does raise more than Edwards it will put Edwards in a very difficult position. He is betting everything on Iowa and Clinton and Obama have closed the gap there. If Edwards goes back to being a second tier candidate some of his Iowa voters may move to Clinton, Obama, and Richardson.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:05:29 PM EST

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (3.00 / 3)

your argument would be based on voters in Iowa voting based on 2nd quarter fundraising numbers.

History does not prove that indicator to mean much in that regard.

Come January, the second quarter fundraising number will mean nothing.

The election does not start in earnest until after Labor Day.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:14:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

Don't forget that it was much later than this in 2003 that Kerry had to loan himself money to stay in the race.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 04:18:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

Richardson's recent rise has cut a little into all 3 candidates, likely because his "experience" commercials point out a perceived flaw in all 3--that they're not seasoned enough to take on the job. Check out the pollster.com Iowa graph.

Also, I don't think the fec reports are really gonna matter a whole lot to voters--as long as Edwards stays on message, most local papers are just gonna take a couple choice quotes from what he says without placing it into the larger context of a "failing campaign".


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:59:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

I'm not so sure. It harms him amongst the media, but it does open the potential to run more of an insurgent campaign, which Trippi already seems to be moving towards, particularly if Richardson's numbers are based (as I suspect they will be) on a lot of maxed-out donors.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:41:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (3.00 / 3)

This strikes me as not sound thinking at all.

Bill Richardson has had a terrible quarter in every way but, apparently, fundraising.

His poll number in Iowa and NH are due to spending on advertising. His every debate appaearance has been borderline disastrous.

He is running, it seems clear now, for VP at best.

He can not win in Iowa or New Hampshire so he has NO chance to win the nomination.

Edwards chances are likely slim , but slim is better than none. You see, Edwards CAN win Iowa. Richardson can not.

What is the rationale behind your tiers?

IMO, if you are ranking based on who actually has a chance to win the nomination, then there are three tiers.

Clinton, a clear favorite for the nomination.

Obama, who can catch fire and sweep Iowa and NH and thus win the nomination. Indeed, if either Clinton or Obama win Iowa, I predict they will win the nomination.

Edwards, who if he wins Iowa, has a CHANCE to win the nomination, but no guarantees.

The rest of the field, including my own personal favorite, Dodd, have no chance to win the nomination.

To argue that Richardson is in a tier with Edwards as to the candidates with a chance to win the nomination seems to be ignoring reality.

Right now, there are 3 candidates in play on the Dem side. No more.

Right now means little in regards to the top 3 in that Iowa can turn on a dime but Bill Richardson has shown NOTHING to indicate that he can breraqk through. In my opinion, this quarter has confirmed that Bill Richardson is a nonstarter as a serious candidate for PRESIDENT.

As for VP, he trails Obama, who is almost certain to be the VP candidate if he does not win the Presidential nomination.

In my view, this is very flawed analysis.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:11:51 PM EST

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

I would not rule out Dodd or Richardson having some shot at moving up. If Edwards continues to fall behind in the polls that will catch up to him in Iowa at some point. When the Lieberman campaign failed to take off as expected in 2004 the media eventually wrote him off, that could happen to Edwards in 2008 if his polls and fundraising continue to decline.If the media writes Edwards off as no longer being viable for the nomination it will create at least a small opening for someone like Richardson or Dodd. Edwards has to show some improvement long before Iowa or it may not matter much whether he wins.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

and some of Edwards drop-off seems to be being picked up by Richardson in the early states where he's advertising.

that being said, i pretty much agree with BTD on this one.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:02:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (3.00 / 1)

I do not think this statement of yours is supported by history:

If Edwards continues to fall behind in the polls that will catch up to him in Iowa at some point. When the Lieberman campaign failed to take off as expected in 2004 the media eventually wrote him off, that could happen to Edwards in 2008 if his polls and fundraising continue to decline.

You are referring of course to national polls as Edwards has remained ahead in Iowa in most polling.

But worse than that, the idea of Joe Lieberman in 2004 having any relation to John Edwards is strained at best. Joe Lieberman had NO CHANCE, none whatsoever, of winning the Demo nomination. He was supporting the Iraq War. This was overwhelmingly opposed by Dems. Joe Lieberman was NOT a serious candidate in 2004.

I think, from an Edwards point of view, John Kerry would be the more appealing comparison. John Kerry did so poorly fundraising that he had to mortgage his house. He was in single digits in national polling.

He won Iowa. Indeed, he won every primary exscept South carolina and Oklahoma.

To be honest, I find the focus this blog has put on the Presidential race to be rather amusing. Not only is national polling not particularly important - whoever wins the nomination has to win in either or both Iowa and New Hampshire -history is very clear on this. National polling be damned, fundraising be damned.

Bill Richardson  and my guy, Dodd, and all the rest have no chance of winning Iowa or new Hampshire unless something remarkable happens.

Having now seen more of Richardson than I care to, I find him simply an awful candidate, I am convinced that he has NO CHANCE of catching fire. None.

That leaves 3. Clinton. Obama. Edwards.

If either Clinton or Obama win Iowa, I think it is likely over. Definitely over if it is Clinton. The money name recognition etc would make it impossible. Edwards would be out. Obama would be  almost dead in the water.

If Obama won, I think the Media furor over his beating Clinton would be so huge it would sweep him to victory.

If Edwards wins, it becomes a very big deal but not as big as if Obama beats her. Plus Obama has so much money raising capacity that he can put her away early. Can Edwards have that kind of money after an Iowa win? Perhaps?

This year, more than ever, Iowa is almost everything.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

It's a big deal eithr if Obama or Edwards starts winning because it redefines the race in the media's mind. The only thing HRC really has going for her right now is the dog and pony show of claiming inevitability 6 months out. I think they are playing their hand to early. They should be doing this in the fall, and not now when no one really cares except political junkies like you and myself.


by bruh21 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (3.00 / 1)

That is basically my view - the campaign does not start in earnest until after Labor Day.

The 3RD QUARTER fundraising number s are singularly more important than the 2nd quarter.

These results will be lost in a couple of days.

The 3rd quarter will arrive just as the camapign heats up.

ndeed, if I was running a campaign, I would gauge what I could raise and MAKE SURE my 3rd quarter number looked impressive. Even if it meant sacrificing in the 2nd quarter number.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

I honestly don't think we will know until after Iowa.  I think that except for political junkie hyped on the Internets the rest of the world is only somewhat paying attention.


by bruh21 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 10:33:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton all lost in Iowa. Clinton also lost in NH. Those were in the years when Iowa was a much bigger factor than it will be for 2008. Iowa will be about the 16th state to actually start voting. By the time Iowa voters caucus both Clinton and Obama will likely already have a sizable numer of delegates.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (3.00 / 1)

Either Iowa or New Hampshire of both.

Jimmy Carter "won" in Iowa. It loaunched his campaign. No Iowa, no Carter.

Both Reagan and Bush faced do or dies in New Hampshire.

"I paid for this microphone!"

"Here I stand warts and all. thank you New Hampshire."

"Stop lying about my record!"

Reagan and Bush were the Clintons of those particular elections. Iowa meant LESS then. the time between Iowa and New Hampshire was longer.

Clinton lost New Hampshire, Iowa was uncontested in 1992, as Harkin was in the race. Clinton "won" NH by being the "Comeback Kid."

No candidate BUT Bill Clinton, whose strongest competetion was Paul Tsongas (?), has NOT won either Iowa or New Hampsire and won the nomination.

Your history is not correct.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:24:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Carter in Iowa in 1976 (3.00 / 1)

Exactly 28 years ago Monday, a little-known former governor of Georgia named Jimmy Carter polled just shy of 30 percent support in Iowa's precinct caucuses. He came in second, nine points behind ''uncommitted,'' but the national news media proclaimed him the clear winner of the year's first presidential nominating contest, if only because he had finished so far ahead of everyone else.

link.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:30:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Carter in Iowa in 1976 (none / 0)

Carter came in second in Iowa.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:55:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Carter in Iowa in 1976 (3.00 / 1)

Um. To "uncommitted."

He crushed the human candidates.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:10:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Carter in Iowa in 1976 (none / 0)

I think a couple of polls have shown a sizable uncommitted vote this time. That is one scenario that no one has mentioned for 2008.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uncommitted (3.00 / 1)

Chances of uncommitted winning or greater than kucinich or Gravel winning, but not by much.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:24:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Carter in Iowa in 1976 (none / 0)

What's likely?


by bruh21 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 10:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

It will matter if Edwards wins Iowa, whether he's still in 3rd place in the national polls or not. He'll have lots of momentum and it could potentially carry him through. It won't be easy, but he's got a shot.


Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley
by Sarah Lane on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:16:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

Edwards will need a large win and a lot of momentum to overcome the delegate lead that Clinton and Obama will have from the 15 or so states that will start voting before Iowa. There will be no way to change the votes of people who have already voted. Depending on what percentage vote by early voting he would have to crush Clinton and Obama in Iowa and then gain 20, 30, or more points in the states afterwards.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:25:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

There are not 15 states voting the week after IA.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 10:01:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

There will be 25 states that will have finished voting by the first week of February. A number of them will allow early voting.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 11:40:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

There will be forty some states that finish voting sometime after IA ... there seems likely to be one that votes after IA and before the other early states, and then one that votes after that state and before the remaining early states, and then either the same two more times or two states at once.

That is a lot of distinct news cycles from individual results to be sweeping under the carpet.

Whether it is IA, NV, NH, SC/FL or IA, NH, NV, SC, FL ... or even NH, IA, NV, SC/FL, it yet to be determined, but the one thing that is certain is that there will not be IA, followed directly by fifteen states.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 01:58:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

hasn't someone already proven you wrong on this?


by bruh21 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 10:35:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

Edwards will definately take a huge hit if Richardson ouraises him because the media will make it a big story and wonder whether Edwards's campaign is faltering...As you well know it, the first sign of a faltering campaign is huge decline on the fundraisng front.

A lot of the Edwardians always disregarded those national polls showing bad numbers for Edwards while pointing out his Iowa's lead, but i sincerily think that the national polls eventualy caught up to Edwards....You see,you have to give those big donors a reason to donate to your campaign, and once they see declining national numbers, they get real nervous about giving Edwards money.

Yes,Edwards could still show them his Iowa lead, but the problem with this lead is, it's been declining, not trending up, so a donor may look at it as a bad sign and not donate...Edwards leads in Iowa is within the margin of error,according to realclearpolitics.com and this is bad sign for a man that had a sizable lead at the start of the year.


by JaeHood on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:54:26 PM EST

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

riiiight. I don't discount any polls. Neither the one's that support Edwards or the one's that do not. I also don't do that for HRC or Obama either. Which is why both worry me for the general- which is where it counts if you are a Democrat.


by bruh21 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:05:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (3.00 / 1)

I know nothing of the sort.

John Kerry won Iowa after a DISASTROUS fundrasing quarter and after being declared dead.

the evidence is that Iowa does NOT pay attention to those things you are paying attention too.

And THEN Iowa rolls EVERYTHING.

I think you exemplify the mistaken approach, in my opinion of course, this blog has taken on the horse race. It is like none of us lived through 2004.

I won't be fooled again.  


by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:05:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are making a huge mistake (none / 0)

You are of course making a huge mistake by comparing the 2004 democratic hopeful field with the current field.....

First of all,everyone was an unknown in 2004...Howard Dean did caught fiire because he had the grassroots behind him, but lots of people were unsure about him..

The fact that Dean's rivals were also not well known, really helped him

In the current field, you have 2 strong fruntrunners that would have definately blow away the 2004 field...You have to admit to that.....

2004 polls that included Hillary showed her leading big, and im 100% sure that if she had entered the race at the time, she would have won the nomination hands down.

So, like ive said,you can't compare Howard Dean with the current frontrunners because, not only are they raising twice the amount Dean raised, but they are getting more media attention.

Obama is a novice that could be the first black president in U.S history...No one in the 2004 field had this kind of hype....Edwards is pretty much locked out of the black vote in South Carolina because of Obama...This is a state that Edwards won.

Edwards will find it very difficult to contend with a more powerful field that include a very popular first lady who's husband is a powerhouse h=inside the democratic party...then you have a very attractive african americans that could make history and shake this country like never before....

Name me the Hillary clinton of the 2004 field??

Name me the Brrack Obama of the 2004 field??

Edwards didnt have to go against this kind of opposition...so to compare 2004 to 2008 is ridiculous.


by JaeHood on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:41:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Two frontrunners (none / 0)

No htere is one frontrunner, Hillary Clinton. Peole need to get off the idea that Obama is the co-frontrunner.

But your comment makes it sound like Iowa and New Hampshire did not decide every race. That simply is not correct.

You write:

So, like ive said,you can't compare Howard Dean with the current frontrunners because, not only are they raising twice the amount Dean raised, but they are getting more media attention.

I;m not sure what your point is here. Big frontrunners like Reagan, Bush, and others have been beaten in Iowa and NH. It is the onloy chance to stop them.

If you are predicting that because Clinton (AND ONLY Clinton) is the big frontrunner therefore Edwards can;t win Iowa, then this is not true. Edwards will have a chance to do it as will Obama.

Do you REALLY believe 2nd qtr fundraising numbers will keep Edwards from doing this? Do you have some evidence to back up this view? Do you have a campaiogn where the 2nd qtr numbers were considered the turning point in a campaign? You have to admit that there was no such race and no such turning point.

The turning point in these races is the night of the Iowa Caucus.

What happens then is the single most important moment in the race.

What shapes the result of that caucus? Campaigning in Iowa. National polls don't.

Fundraising doesn't.

Obama is a novice that could be the first black president in U.S history...No one in the 2004 field had this kind of hype....Edwards is pretty much locked out of the black vote in South Carolina because of Obama...This is a state that Edwards won.

Clinton


by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:21:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two frontrunners (none / 0)

The loast two lines was inadvertently included. They come from the comment I am responding to.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:43:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two frontrunners (none / 0)

The "Clinton" brand is the only thing Hillary has that Obama doesnt....I think that as Obama raises his profile which currently stands at about 75%,the numbers between the 2 will tighten.

The problem is not that Edwards is not keeping up with Obama and Clinton, but it is the fact that,there's a strong chain-reaction that looks horrible for him.

1.It started with him not being able to raise as much money as Hillary and Obama who both doubled their earning in compare to Edwards...Edwardians disregarded that and pounted to "sizable" Iowa leads at the time and warned critics that Edwards doesnt need a lot of cash to compete in the early states.

2. After $400 haircut,edge funds problems,and his  huge catle-like house which cut away at Edwards's message suggesting he understands the life of the poors,it gives the media a huge opportunity to really go after him very hard and pretty much swift boat him while late night comedians poke fun of his expensive haircuts.

His critics again suggested whether those slip up would come back to hunt Edwards, but the Edwardians blamed the media for not liking Edwards and conpiring to bring him down.

3.After all those slip ups by Edwards,his National polls started trending down heavily...To make it worst,Al Gore, a man that is not even in the race as of yet,outpolled Edwards in the majority of those polls...This was shocking that all those polls that included Gore showed him leading Edwards.

Critics stated that once a candidate takes such a huge fall in national polls, it will only be a matter of time before those bad numbers starts leaking inside those early states, but again, the Edwardians refused to believe that and althought Edwards sizable lead had been heavily cut,the Edwardians continued to drum the beat of the "inavitable Edwards's Iowa win".

4.Now,RealClearPolitics.com are showing a very tight race in Iowa with Edwards loosing his strong grips while Obama and Hillary are picking up steam and opening up offices throughout the states.

5)Bill Richardson as now stated he'll outraise Edwards, but again, the Edwardians says it's no big deal, but this time, they cant point out to siazable lead for Edwards...Edwards is pushing his donors hard, so i guess he thinks it's important to not allow any second tier candidate to raise more then he has.

If Richardson raises more money then him, i will predict that his campaign will falter because donors will write him off + Edwards doesnt have a huge amount of small donors to make it the absence of big donors...Obama will probably have as much as 200k donors then Edwards...

Edwards doesnt have the kind of grassroots that could stop him from faltering...

The Union will not jump in to save him since this would be a very dangerous to endorse a guy thatis faltering before their eyes...If they didnt jump on Edwards ship earlier on when he looked stronger, why would they jump in now when Edwards looks weaker??...Makes no sense at all.

All and all, this is not 2004...edwards was able to surprise everyone because his opposition were all unknown...Now, he's running alongdside an establisment candidate that is 10 fold as powerful as Howard Dean + Obama, who has huge grassroots supports + more money then Hillary to compete everywhere.

Obama appeal is much more diverse then Howard Dean..While Howard only excited liberals,Obama is able to appeal to everyone..His supports is much broader then Dean's.


by JaeHood on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 09:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two frontrunners (none / 0)

Why do people always forget that there's nothing America loves more than an comeback underdog story, which is what Edwards will have at his current standing.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 10:02:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Two frontrunners (none / 0)

I agree with a lot of your analysis on Edwards.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 11:34:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are making a huge mistake (none / 0)

The mistake would seem to be the idea that nothing is going to happen between now and labor day, let alone when the voting begins, that would shake up the campaign. 3 months is a long time in politics. If Edwards comes in 4th this quarter, he will get more bad press to be sure, but as noted above, 2nd quarter fundraising is meaningless.


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:59:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong (none / 0)

His lead in Iowa has been fluctuating, but just over a week ago there was a poll that showed his lead nearly double Hillary/Obama's. Just recently there have been a few tighter polls, but there were a few before the one where he expanded his lead. It goes back and forth, so I would disagree with you that he's trending down in IA.


Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley
by Sarah Lane on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:19:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Too many people take one poll compared ... (none / 0)

... to the most recent. The only sane way to track is to look at the trends of the same pollster. That's how I noticed that ARG on its own has the large majority of all IA polls showing a Clinton lead, because I was looking at polls by pollster rather than in chronological order.

That's also why a four week wide moving average is is so much more stable than a two week moving average ... it tends to rotate polls from the same high frequency pollsters, while a two week moving average will show Clinton bumping up when it includes the latest ARG result and Clinton dropping back when the latest ARG result falls out of the mix.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 10:07:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (3.00 / 1)

     I doubt that Richardson will make much headway with the presidential race. If he doesn't I hope that he will consider running for the NM Senate seat in 2008. I think that if he were in the Senate race that Domenici would retire rather than go through a tough  race against Richardson. Gov. Richardson would likely win the Senate seat and we would be that much closer to the 60 Senators needed to get much done in the U S Senate.


by Zack from the SFV on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 06:55:52 PM EST

Amen! n/t (none / 0)


by lobo charlie on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:50:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Haha (none / 0)

speak of the devil, look what landed in my email inbox this afternoon:

With 7 days left until the end of the quarter, we are closing in on $7 million and everyone is doing their part. Small change for big change is working.

But while thousands of people are building up this campaign, the Washington establishment is trying to write us out of the race. And their reason? They say it's MONEY - they don't think we are raising an obscene enough amount. But the truth is, they don't want people to hear what John Edwards is saying, because it will mean the end of big money's stranglehold over our government.

Our plan calls for raising $9 million this quarter and if we do - no matter what the chatter boxes say - we will be ahead of pace to have the resources we need to compete and win in the early primary states. That's when the Edwards campaign will have our day in the sun, but we need your help to get there.

We have 7 days to reach $9 million and every dollar counts. Please give what you can


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:12:56 PM EST

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

I'd expect Richardson to do well in fundraising. He's a corporate Democrat and a pretty terrible candidate, his stance on Iraq aside if he fleshes it out a little more. His rise in Iowa and NH is due mostly to going on the air and appealing to those who believe governors are always better candidates.

If he does beat Edwards in fundraising, that'll be a bad sign for the Edwards campaign (although not the kiss of death) but I don't see Richardson as being likely to move up any further than he has already.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:46:41 PM EST

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (3.00 / 2)

I am quite bothered by your first sentence as it lends credence to the idea that the candidates that raise the most money are our top tier. Richardson is light years away from Edwards when it comes to solid proposals and enunciation of them. Richardson sports a nice portfolio but otherwise is dull and boring.


by DoIT on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 07:59:43 PM EST

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

I think Edwards has a much higher profile than Richardson.  Even if Richardson raises as much or more money than Edwards, he will still need to spend more than Edwards to see movement in the polls.  IMO, the media is mostly interested in whether Obama will out raise Hillary, and Richardson out raising Edwards will be one of those under the radar stories.  They may include it in a story about Q2 fundraising overall, but it will definitely not be the lead. I do think a lack of funds will prove problematic for Edwards in that it puts him in a must win situation in Iowa, with the hopes for momentum going into NH, giving him a 1st or 2nd.  Without the free publicity for  a win or place in Iowa and NH, he won't have the funds to effectively compete in Super Tuesday or even SC and NV which I believe is prior to the Super Tuesday.


by Kingstongirl on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:33:14 PM EST

Re: Richardson to Outraise Edwards in 2nd Quarter? (none / 0)

One part of the story no one has mentioned is that Edwards does have a huge pool of trial lawyers he should be able to raise money from. There are a lot of trial lawyers and nearly every one of them has the ability to donate the maximum (along with their family members). If the speculation is true and he falls behind Richardson that would definitely appear to be a sign they are losing confidence in his chances.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:40:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You assume all trial lawyers are rich (none / 0)

Democrats. I can assure you that is not correct, though I will concede most are Democrats.


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 09:02:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You assume all trial lawyers are rich (none / 0)

I did not say they are all rich but most would be classified high income.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 11:35:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Iowa a must win (none / 0)

I do think a lack of funds will prove problematic for Edwards in that it puts him in a must win situation in Iowa . . .

Iowa has always been must win for Edwards.

It is his only chance.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 08:45:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa a must win (3.00 / 1)

this I agree with. However I would add that Obama must do well early on too. HRC's sole strategy is inevitability for the nomation. That's becoming more and more clear, if nothing else is. She certainly isn't talking policy. She's not talking electability. Her acolytes online aren't either. So what's left? Inevitability. I expect every poll that shows her ahead to be tauted again and again because the strategy is demoralization of anyone else running. that can only work if neither Obama or Edwards gains any early traction. if they do, her electability numbers start to bring a lot of people back to reality of what she represents for the democrats.


by bruh21 on Sat Jun 23, 2007 at 10:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MyDD joins the MSM (none / 0)

thanks for feeding the mania about money.

Edwards has a crapload of money.  THey all do.

Can we talk about which one has better ideas please?


by DrFrankLives on Sun Jun 24, 2007 at 09:17:06 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.