MyDD :: Obama's 250,000 Donors

Obama's 250,000 Donors

by Jonathan Singer, Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:17:11 AM EST

If the reports pan out, this news from the AP is pretty insane as far as these things come.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has improved on his stunning support in the race for campaign cash, raising his total number of donors to nearly 250,000 people in the first six months of the year.

The freshman Illinois senator impressed rivals in the first quarter when he reported 104,000 donors, but he surpassed the mark in the second quarter with 138,000 more opening their wallets, the campaign told The Associated Press.

[...]

The campaign said it collected 335,953 contributions -- meaning that many individuals made repeat donations -- and its goal will be to reach 350,000 by the deadline.

[...]

The Obama campaign said it believes the number of donors is a record for six months of fundraising. Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean built a reputation for unprecedented grass-roots support when 70,000 people contributed about $10.5 million in the first two quarters of 2003.

Obviously, the comparison to Dean isn't a perfect one. Voters overall are significantly more engaged in the presidential race at this point than they were at the same point last cycle, and Obama already has a much higher profile within the media, and thus the primary electorate, than did Dean. That said, 250,000 people is a lot people, and you can't underscore that fact.

In terms of the expectations game, this news will likely bring up once again the notion in the minds of many that Obama will outraise Clinton this quarter -- an expectation that the campaign seemed to work hard to tamp down on earlier in this month. In fact, both Clinton and Obama seem to be pointing at one another, if not literally than at least implicitly through their campaigns in a back channel sort of way, as to who should raise more money this quarter. I think that all of this is a bit overdone, frankly. The difference between, say, $29 million and $28 million or $26 million and $27 million isn't sufficient to reshuffle the order of the campaign. We'll have to wait with bated breath for another week or two until we can find out where the dollars went this quarter, however.

Tags: Barack Obama, 2008, Democratic Primaries (all tags)

Permalink :: 133 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

Is a 3rd place Hillary finish possible at this point in the entire primary process?

Looks like it more and more every moment. Please Edwards and Obama just crush her to pieces in the Iowa Caucus.

by Djneedle83 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:23:33 AM EST

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

A 1st place finish is more likely at this point. Sorry.

by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:48:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

You just better hope that Gore doesn't jump in.

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:59:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

I would absolutely LOVE it if Gore were to jump in. I worked for him more than for any other presidential candidate in my lifetime in 2000, partly because I was particularly disgusted with Democratic purity voters and Naderites who did their best to throw the election to Bush. If Gore comes into play I would happily work for him if he makes it in. To me Clinton and Gore meet my personal requirements for what a credible presidential candidate should bring to the table.

I think his entry would make this an instant two-way race between two excellent candidates. Why would I "dread" that or "better hope" that not to be the case?

I rather doubt that Gore comes in, but if he does, I welcome that with open arms. I still have all the paraphenalia from 2000 and all I would have to do is dust that off a bit. :-)

by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:13:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

Gore seems to unite all democrats. As you know I donot support Hillary, but would jump to Gore in a minute.

by BDM on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

That is not guranteed and you know it. It is up to PEOPLE that will decide that.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:03:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

Of course it is not guaranteed. That is why I said "more likely." Absolutely the people will decide.

Look what I had to work with:

"Is a 3rd place Hillary finish possible at this point in the entire primary process?

Looks like it more and more every moment. Please Edwards and Obama just crush her to pieces in the Iowa Caucus."

by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:06:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

I'd like to see that happen as well, but we're no where near that point yet. It's going to take a lot more hard work by people like you and me. Don't pat yourself on the back yet.

by maddogg on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:52:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (3.00 / 4)

I love how the Obama Campaign places the focus on where it really matters as opposed to just the money. At this point, I don't care about the debate on whether or not it's a movement. The Obama Campaign has added new registered voters to the Democratic Party, caused people who were not engaged to start paying attention to the issues facing our nation and it just continues to grow. Call it whatever. It's working and I love it.

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:26:44 AM EST

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (3.00 / 2)

Very well said. No matter how you slice and dice the word "movement," there are young, enthusiastic people getting involved in politics for the first time - on our side - because of Obama.

by dansac on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:39:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (3.00 / 1)

I just made my first contribution to a political campaign...to Obama. I will make another one in the next quarter as well. We are in this together.

by kekuta on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:13:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (3.00 / 0)

I made my second (for $5) to Obama a couple weeks back. My first was to Tim Walz last cycle, and I'll probably give more to Obama and Walz before this one's done.

I totally agree with the comment about young people getting involved for the first time. In every state, there is a large network of student groups with field organizers, communication directors, etc. College students and young people are excited about the Obama campaign

Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)

by Max Fletcher on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:18:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

from political wire -

One week before Q1 ended, the Obama campaign predicted he'd raise $7 million to $12 million: The Washington Post reported, "Senator Barack Obama has similarly played down his goals, with aides saying they would be thrilled to take $7 million to $12 million this quarter." However, the Obama campaign actually brought in $25.7 million.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:31:51 AM EST

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

I was talking to an influential friend in New York politics, trying to work with him on a netroots project. And he told me that the rap on Obama is that despite his internet savvy and his blog-awesomeness, he's not moving in the polls. So my friend can't convince other insiders that the internet is relevant, because Obama's not moving in the polls despite his apparently amazing internet campaign.

I explained that Obama isn't working with the netroots, and that seemed to make sense. But I thought this was an interesting narrative that Obama is unwittingly creating.

by Matt Stoller on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:37:15 AM EST

Not moving in the polls... (none / 0)

I really mean no offense, but: Isn't that the narrative that you yourself have been pushing? With the buzz on its deathbed talk?
We all slip into punditry and start calling shots on the horse race, and then an event like today's happens to show that there is still incredible enegry in this race. Polling weekly six months out leads to this mountain of data that pretends to be meaningful.
It'll be interesting to see how many of his donors come off the internet.

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:49:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not moving in the polls... (none / 0)

Did you read his post?

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:57:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not moving in the polls... (3.00 / 1)

I'm just saying, by downplaying Obama's accomplishments thus far (the number of donors, the high poll numbers for the new guy on the block, the huge rallies), the 'netroots' are themselves furthering the storyline that the internet doesn't matter.
Second, the arguments about Obama buzz are self-contradictory. On the one hand, they claim that Obama can't generate national poll numbers. On the other hand, they claim that national energy doesn't matter and all that matters is Iowa. These arguments seem to be running against each other.
Obama's poll strengths are in the early states, where he's basically in a three-way tie.

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:36:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not moving in the polls... (none / 0)

Isn't that the narrative that you yourself have been pushing?

Well, I do think Obama's buzz is dying, which is what my friend reflected back at me. But I don't see Obama as the internet candidate who is working well with the internet political space. Insiders do tend to see him this way.

It's just one data point, and it's not meant to suggest anything about Obama. It's more about the establishment people and what they think.

by Matt Stoller on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:02:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not moving in the polls... (3.00 / 1)

Can we just add that there is still plenty of time for him to build up his buzz?

by dansac on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:08:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not moving in the polls... (3.00 / 1)

I have said this before, Obama and Clinton is not the netroots candidates, they are NOT.

They do not court the netroots, nor many bloggers, and that angers many that run these websites. They want "inside" tidbits, that are not given to them, as John Edwards. Edwards has been courting the netroots, bloggers since he lost in 2004, that is a fact.

Though Obama is NOT courting the netroots, he is courting the rest of American, obviously. Who gives to a dying campaign? Not many.

I think he is running this campaign, his way. And Clinton and Obama are bashed, on the regular on many blogs, just for the netroot factor. But most Americans don't read blogs, they don't care about that. For a candidate to have thousands of folk show up for a 30 min rally and PAY $25 is saying something. Who want to pay, yet waste time on a politician when you can be doing something else.

Now, Obama has to up his game. Debates, tighter run campaign, communication. If he moves forward on this during Q3, and their is indication that movement in the communication part is being done, he should move up in the polling.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:10:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is an independent (3.00 / 1)

person, and has been since forever. Not beholden to either corporations or the partisan red meat-craving base. It makes him all the more impressive, I think. You know what you get when voting for Obama: policies based on an independent mind and progressive values.

He has not turned 180 degrees like other candidates. He has taken controversial stances, brave stances like being anti-Iraq war in a time where 80% supported it. Or pushing for a resonsible withdrawal even though it would cost him politically with the anti war-base. The most pandering position is to be pro-war in 2002 and pro-immediate withdrawal in 2006.

For Obama principles comes first and expedience second. I am sorry I can't say that about the other candidates even though I think Edwards' "WOT = bumber sticker" was very brave (almost to the point of being foolish).

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:39:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is an independent (none / 0)

How remarkably brave of him to be vocally opposed to a policy debate in which he had no place because he was only a state senator in Springfield and also was not important enough to be briefed. Pandering is when you promote something regardless of whether you believe in it. I suggest you read people's remarks before you claim to know who is pandering and why.

While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama

by bowiegeek on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:17:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is an independent (none / 0)

He was a prominent figure in state politics with a very bright future. Taking a stance like that was definitely risky, there's no way to spin it otherwise. If more people in smaller positions of influence like his would have similarly spoken out, the media would have had to treat the anti-war movement with much more credibility, and public opinion may have massed against Bush and Co.

Also, how is "not being important enough to be briefed" a strike against him? It doesn't matter how "important" you are, it matters how you use what importance you do have. Hillary Clinton was important enough to have been given access to the NIE, but chose not to read it and voted to authorize the war.

Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)

by Max Fletcher on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is an independent (none / 0)

He was a prominent figure in state politics with a very bright future.

Yes, and still no role in the policy debate in Congress and no intelligence briefings via NIE or in person.

Taking a stance like that was definitely risky, there's no way to spin it otherwise.

Yeah talk about spin. Think of all of the prominent city mayors who also spoke out against the AUMF having equally scant access to the discussion at the time. I suppose it was bold of them to contribute their opinions too knowing that they have no say and that that's not in their job description.

Also, how is "not being important enough to be briefed" a strike against him? It doesn't matter how "important" you are, it matters how you use what importance you do have. Hillary Clinton was important enough to have been given access to the NIE, but chose not to read it and voted to authorize the war.

Hillary Clinton had a say in the national security interests in this country and voted as such (since that was the debate at the time). She was privately briefed by cabinet officials in person. Barack Obama had no such access and therefore very little authority to back up what he said when he spoke out at his friend's political rally.

This goes to the larger point that's incredibly specious of his campaign to claim that he was right from the start. Even if he proved right because Bush turned out to be a corrupt liar, he wasn't right for any specific reason or unique insight he had at the time. He's just milking people's regret over the whole matter to a great deal of success.

While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama

by bowiegeek on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:02:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is an independent (none / 0)

If I knew then what I knew now...who said that again? I can see repugs running a TV ad with that kind of semantics

by kekuta on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:59:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is an independent (none / 0)

Yes, and still no role in the policy debate in Congress and no intelligence briefings via NIE or in person.

Neither did 299 million other people, yet surely you are not saying they should be discouraged from forming opinions and voicing their beliefs?

Obama spoke as a citizen whose nation was going to war for terrible reasons. He had a "role in the policy debate" because Congress represents the people, and he is, in fact, a person.

by Baldrick on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 04:34:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is an independent (none / 0)

That's a stretch at best and in truth a flawed argument. Barack Obama was not a member of Congress and as such had no actual role whatsoever in Congress members' deliberations. He gave his speech for his friend's political rally, and he did some posturing, and he got his Illinois district base fired up. Explain what direct and visible impact that made on any member of the U.S. Congress who was actually responsible for national security and had been briefed in person or by the NIE.

I'll agree with you that constituents play an important role in setting the tone for a debate and possibly even persuading legislators to change a previously held opinion from the outside, but to suggest that Barack Obama had actively played a role in United States Congressional deliberations on what to do about Saddam Hussein is ludicrous. I have to wonder if his outsider status on the Iraq debate informs people's admiration of him as a so-called independent thinker. I don't have anything against the guy running for president except that he's a newbie and I'm skeptical of his rhetoric. He's just not really in a position to convince me, knowing that he was a nobody in 2002, that by virtue of his anti-war speech replete with vague foreboding about the "impulses of the Arab world," he has a unique insight with which to lead America abroad.

While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama

by bowiegeek on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 05:57:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is an independent (none / 0)

strangely, given all that access, she still made an immoral decision that proved her assumptions wrong.

barack, otoh, without all of hillary's access, made the right choice. i suppose you can call hillary's poor judgment something to be proud of, but i don't think the repeated demonstration of poor judgment is a characteristic i want in a president.

i have that right now...

peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...

by bored now on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 12:30:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is an independent (none / 0)

strangely, given all that access, she still made an immoral decision that proved her assumptions wrong.

No, she made the best decision she could with the information at the time. We now know with the information we have now that she shouldn't have trusted Bush, which is why she says "I knew then what I know now, I never would have voted to give him authority." That's an admission of remorse. It's not a grandstanding John Edwards statement that calls into question on what principle he voted before that he can disavow now.

barack, otoh, without all of hillary's access, made the right choice.

Barack, otoh, was in no position to choose. He was a nobody and as far as I'm concerned that doesn't matter. Let's hear plans about what to do now.

i suppose you can call hillary's poor judgment something to be proud of, but i don't think the repeated demonstration of poor judgment is a characteristic i want in a president.

The only one repeating it is people like you. Everyone tries to make the best decisions they can at the time. She was personally presented with information that said there was a threat to the American people. I wonder if you were saying the same thing about John Kerry in 2004.

While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama

by bowiegeek on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 03:47:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is an independent (none / 0)

no, hillary did not make the best decision that she could have with the information she had at the time. you are looking at only one side of the argument. hillary was also presented with information that invading iraq on this pretext failed to meet the qualifications of a just war even if saddam was the threat bush imagined. the united methodist church asked her to help it meet with the administration to present it's findings that invading iraq failed these tests.

so hillary knew that she was making an immoral decision. hillary knew that we could not act unilaterally -- and no, i'm not going to buy the argument that working with britain and spain and the micro-nations of the world that meant we had built a coalition that had right authority. the information she claims to have had, or didn't read, or whatever never obviated her choice to follow an immoral course.

this all goes to trust. how can we trust her at the helm of the only real superpower when we know that she is prone to poor judgment? this is no minor thing, that you get to laugh off, as hillary is prone to do. invading another country is serious business, and she didn't take it seriously, at least not seriously enough for me. she trusted bush. she didn't ask questions. she was quick to dismiss opponents.

barack, otoh, understood instinctively that this was wrong. he made an unpopular decision (yes, hillary followed public opinion -- again), took a moral stand and stuck by it, even in the face of fierce opposition. chicago was by no means an anti-war sanctuary at the time, even among his main contributors.

you are correct, barack did not have hillary's position or her influence to effect the war. but we know from their decisions that one of them makes good decisions (barack) and another makes bad decisions (hillary). even without all the information at hand, and even though it was against conventional wisdom at the time, barack reached the moral decision. we can trust obama to make good decisions that we can be proud of.

you are absolutely right in thinking that the only ones contrasting the two's decision-making process are people like me. what did pew (iirc) call hillary's voters? obviously, i am not a low info kind of guy.

and, as a national security voter, i take decisions about going to war very seriously. hillary didn't...

peace. love. equality. still waiting after 40 years...

by bored now on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 07:40:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is an independent (none / 0)

I don't give a crap what Pew called Hillary's voters. And I frankly dislike the implication you're making.

Barack made a speech, not a decision, to a crowd of the supporters of his friend. That's fine. Hillary and many others had been assured time and again that the AUMF did not mean unilateral war (which Hillary spoke out against): it instead meant coercive diplomacy via the UN to disarm Saddam Hussein. Equating the President's lies about diplomacy and the President's subsequent actions with either a lack of judgment or stupidity in Hillary is fallacious in the extreme. For a national security voter you seem criminally incapable of drawing elementary distinctions.

While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama

by bowiegeek on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 01:58:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Curious? (none / 0)

Why do you say this? Because he does not come and blog on MyDD or DailyKos? Is it because he does try the netroots approach to politics?

His buzz is not dying and I would argue that other candidates who have a better relationship with the "netroots" are not doing that good. Furthermore, Obama's only shortcoming is differiating himself with Hillary during the debates. Most of his lowered polling numbers came from the debate and I suspect that his campaign intends to correct this.

Obama Citizen Ad Videos

by lovingj on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:13:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

I'd really like to know what is this "netroots"? You say he is internet saavy and blog-awesome. His website gets more traffic than this site. He is setting massive donation records and unprecedented active participation in a campaign so far in advance of a primary, all coordinated and promoted by his website and on other blogs, so what is this "netroots" he's missing?

by Doug Dilg on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:53:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (3.00 / 1)

Well, I would say that he is using a very different rhetorical strategy and is pushing much less radical ideas than we are. He doesn't listen to blogs, he doesn't care what we write, and he is responsive to other audiences. Is that good or bad? Well, he's certainly bringing in massive amounts of money and energy, so I can see the argument that he has made the right choices. I don't agree that he is running a winning strategy, but I could be wrong. Listening to blogs may not be particularly important, as we are a small percentage of the populace. There are other power centers that beat us regularly.

by Matt Stoller on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:06:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

And for this, and Clinton too, they do get negative stories written about them. Now if Obama or Clinton, let you bloggers/owners of websites interview THEM on the regular, the perspective and blogs, would be different. It would.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:13:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

I would like to see him outreach to blogger more - he is right on our issues...and it is a large untapped marked for him. I think he has been hesitant to be get the label netroots canidate, because he wants to be beyond Dean.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:15:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (3.00 / 3)

You didn't answer the question which was who exactly is this "we". I guess the people participating here does not qualify for the we, it is must be the people who started this site, fair enough. But considering his internet site gets more hits than this one, what exactly does "netroots" mean. I sense a resentment that ownership of the netsroots has gotten away from you. I saw this on the DKos piece on the Obama donations: "To put that in perspective (his 250,000 contributors), that is roughly twice as many people opening up their wallets and donating their hard-earned money as have registered at Daily Kos since the site was founded (including sockpuppets)."

But I think you are very wrong about him not caring what your group writes. I thought the piece he wrote on DKos during the attacks on Feingold for his support of Justice Roberts was one of the most thoughtful pieces I've ever read on DD or Kos. He clearly didn't agree with what was going on and the tone, but he also clearly was listening, thought it important, and was responsive. If you don't know what I'm referring to, here's the link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/ 102745/165

by Doug Dilg on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:18:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, Now I Remember....... (3.00 / 1)

Thank you for posting that link. It just reminded me why he is treated the way he is treated by a "small" and I do mean "small" part of the net roots. It also reminded me why I am drawn to Obama's character and personality. He is , indeed, a wise and competent leader. He was right to post what he posted and he demonstrated a great deal of wisdom and courage. His message was powerful and strait forward. He clearly pointed out what was right and what was wrong.

While he admitted that he was more in agreement with the democratic activists position in opposing the Roberts Nomination, and stated that as the reason for opposing Roberts, which he did, he was correct to chasten the democratic activists for slandering Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin and other strong Progressive Democrats for not complying with their wishes on this specific issue and immediately writing them off as traitors and conformists to the radical right.

Now, I understand fully, why there is an undeniable hatred of Sen. Barack Obama coming from certain owners of a few websites. Now, I understand the viciousness in the attacks against his presidency. Now, I realize that Barack Obama had enemies in the net roots before he announced his candidacy and now, I know who not to take seriously when they offer their pseudo-analysis of the Obama Campaign.

It all makes perfect sense to me now.

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:39:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who is "we"? (3.00 / 1)

Not Hillary and Obama supporters obviously.

The gatekeepers?

The uncritical attitude towards Edwards' obvious pandering to the netroots is also annoying, although I cannot say that you (Stoller) have bought into that. Edwards panders to the netroots because he has nowhere else to go. It's a strategy not a conviction. He tried DLC and the establishment in 2004, now he tries the netroots when being shut out of other possibilities. Every press release, every statement is designed to impress the netroots. And unfortunately a lot of people falls for it.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:52:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

Blogs are just one of numerous outlets/activist centers. Any successful candidate, especially on the national level, will have to be responsive to many of them.

I think Obama is a tremendously talented politician but I sense he is still a little green on the national level. To use a sports analogy, he reminds be of Jose Reyes circa 2003-05 (I am big Mets fan). He hasn't put it all together yet but if he does could be a great candidate.

by John Mills on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:55:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

Oops. Meant to say reminds me of .....

by John Mills on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:56:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Hiding (none / 0)

What does "doesn't listen to the blogs" mean? You and some others are not clear about what your beef with Obama is- spell it out. He has reached out to the netroots but he has not embraced them. He is not defined by them nor limited by them. Is that it?

Can you lay out the way or strategy that a fire breather pushing the farthest left views can get 65 million votes and govern a divided country?

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:01:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop Hiding (none / 0)

That implies that listening to the blogs is always a good thing too. Guess what. If they upped hte MPG requirement on the energy bill in the senate, the Republicans would have stalled the bill and nothing would happen again. I was being told that Obama was too weak in his attempts to push America green... It was kind of a ridiculous blog.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:20:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am the Netroots... (3.00 / 0)

... and I support Barack Obama.

The campaign is definitely working with thousands of other self-described members of the Netroots.

What's the Point?

by Vermonter on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:09:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

He is stuck in the polls because Obama and Edwards are splitting the anti-HRC vote & Obama and Hillary are splitting the African American vote. This scenario won't last forever.

This isn't news. Everyone is concerned about the polls. We all want to see him do better. However, 250,000 donors ain't chicken feed.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics /2007/06/edwards_crumbling_campaign_is.h tml

by aiko on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:15:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

Interesting. Because on DKos over the months, the Edwards/Obama folk got along, but lately they have ramped it up against Obama. Interesting.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:42:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

Here's why.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/6/28/1 01711/779/97#97

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:46:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (3.00 / 2)

Are you really suggesting that the Obama campaign is "unwittingly" harming the netroots now?

The truth is that the internet is not everything or most things, not yet. John Edwards is also not moving in the polls despite his netroots outreach and his aggressive internet camapign. That's just how it is, and I don't see how Obama's internet success could be anything, in the long run, but a very good thing for progressive politics and the netroots. If nothing else he's vacuuming up money and volunteers, which are critical to any campaign.

by Korha on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:24:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

Are you really suggesting that the Obama campaign is "unwittingly" harming the netroots now?

No, I'm just recounting a conversation. I'm leaving value judgments out of it.

by Matt Stoller on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:52:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Frustration with Obama (none / 0)

I'm on a hate swing of my love/hate views of Obama. Someone remind me why this guy is good enough to be president? His health care proposal is a mess. I wasn't wowed by his foreign policy speech. I've never found him particularly inspiring. The best thing he has going for himself is that he's younger than everyone else, i.e. not a Boomer.

So, two questions:
Is there any substance to his candidacy that would make him a viable president, or is all fluff organized around his personality?

Given that Hillary has been consolidating her lead in the polls, does Obama have a chance?

by Reece on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:37:26 AM EST

Re: Frustration with Obama (3.00 / 2)

is there even an original thought in your little diatribe here?

I guess we'll all just pack it in and call it a campaign, given how the polls are currently there is just no point in trying anymore.

by mihan on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:39:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frustration with Obama (none / 0)

not claiming that there was. /shrug.

by Reece on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:55:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frustration with Obama (none / 0)

I only mention it because you could have just copied and pasted your post from hundreds of posts by the people who represent the Clinton supporters here. What is it down to now, 5% of MyDD readers?

by mihan on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:38:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frustration with Obama (none / 0)

I'm not a Clinton supporter, genius.

by Reece on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:29:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frustration with Obama (none / 0)

I didn't say you were, genius. Reading is fundamental, young'n.

by mihan on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:32:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frustration with Obama (none / 0)

Really? Young'n? That's it?

OK.

Let me update my list of internet insults . . .

by Reece on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:59:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frustration with Obama (none / 0)

Who said it was an insult? I've no need to insult you...while your postings are basically carbon copies of previous posts by other users, nothing you say is worthy of a personal insult.

You're making too many assumptions, me thinks. Is this is how low you're willing to go to keep this thread going. If I weren't REALLY freakin' bored here at work I'd have given this up a long time ago.

by mihan on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:29:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frustration with Obama (none / 0)

Nah, dude, I'm willing to go much lower. This is pretty light. But let me get this straight. You wrote:

"Reading is fundamental, young'n."

And now you suggest that "young'n" wasn't an insult. So, what you did, then, was attempt to question my ability to read through the use of an elementary school reading program slogan, but then you complimented me on my youthfulness by ending it with "young'n."

Hey, I'm beginning to like you.

by Reece on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:38:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frustration with Obama (none / 0)

I'll give you that I questioned your ability to read when you interpreted from my statement that I thought you were a Clinton supporter...not the worst thing in the world; though I'd understand if you found that offensive.

Here is where you skew horribly wrong:

but then you complimented me on my youthfulness by ending it with "young'n

Your assumption here is that have said that I complimented you on your youthfulness rather than hurling an insult, as though I believe you possess a certain juvenile quality.

This is not so. When engaging in word battles I'll customarily take playful jabs with inappropriate(often obtusely so) slang, the same way I would with friends. I don't consider you a friend, though the lighthearted(as I saw it)nature of the conversation led me to think that I would not offend you, as you had(I choose to believe) playfully questioned my intelligence by throwing in the word 'genius' before.

So, the correct answer is: don't worry about it.

by mihan on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:04:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HRC concern troll v 2.0 (none / 0)

by jforshaw on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:39:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC concern troll v 2.0 (none / 0)

Obama supporters lets give $1 for every comment by a Hillary troll - then they will be working against themselves.

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:46:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC concern troll v 2.0 (none / 0)

It's worth a try, and would be a nice little earner, too.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:51:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC concern troll v 2.0 (none / 0)

No way!

That would actually REDUCE his Funding.

ROFLMAO!

In other words, there's not enough Hillary Trolls out there to equal one donation to the Obama Campaign.

Ha Ha !

Or- Maybe we should call it. "Tips"

Whatever we donate, add a dollar just to spite the trolls? Naw, we don't want to look like some other desparate supporters out there.

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:52:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC concern troll v 2.0 (none / 0)

I don't support Clinto either. sorry. I'm bothered by the fact that she seems to have a large lead in the polls.

by Reece on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:57:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC concern troll v 2.0 (none / 0)

So what? Did you see the Suffolk poll? Does that tell you that her support is rock solid? Things will change. Just wait and see what happens after Labor Day.

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:02:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frustration with Obama (3.00 / 1)

I would guess that tens, if not hundreds, of diaries have been posted on this site making the case for Obama. Take a look at one. This is the most recent:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/26/2233 46/769

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:54:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (3.00 / 1)

There is a good chance that Obama's campaign just hasn't 'gotten around to' counting some of the later donations...in reality they may already be over 350,000 donations and are just purposely putting a reachable goal out there.

Which is fine with me. These are awesome numbers. Awesome.

by mihan on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:38:09 AM EST

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (3.00 / 3)

Can we all agree on one thing here? This is great, great news. Some of you don't like Obama - some of your point are valid, some of them are memes that don't hold water. But either way, he's one of us, and his positions are essentially progressive. The fact that so many people are motivated and passionate about one of our candidates cannot be a bad thing.

by dansac on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:43:19 AM EST

Amazing DailyKos thread (3.00 / 3)

Here's a running discussion thread over at DailyKos where people are giddily donating and clicking the refresh button to watch the numbers skyrocket. It's an amazing thing to watch.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/28/ 83815/5859

This really is huge. There are tons of people posting on the thread saying it is their first or second political contribution ever.
Regardless of what you think of Obama, this is a great thing for the party.

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:45:02 AM EST

Re: Amazing DailyKos thread (3.00 / 2)

Agreed.

by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:52:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Amazing DailyKos thread (none / 0)

I was one of those first time donors posting at Dkos...Do I count in the "netroots"?

by kekuta on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:21:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Amazing DailyKos thread (none / 0)

Probably.

by georgep on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:54:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

HUge? (none / 0)

giggling here. Reminds me of those hazy Dean days, the only difference is that the bubble is even bigger this time around.

Another investment with no return. How much has Kerry raised from internet in his general election? He still lost.

Buzz candidate.

by kostner on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:52:56 AM EST

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

Do you really have no soul and couldn't care less about the Democratic party or are you just pretending?
The Dean campaign had an extraordinary impact on the Democratic party. It absolutely did. You need look no farther than at the new DNC chair. Arguably all of the campaigns are trying to follow his model this time around.
You're arguing yourself into a hole if you claim that the explosion of energy for Democrats on the internet is mere buzz. This is the opposite of buzz. This isn't a matter of poll numbers or pundits' chatter or insider baseball: These are hundreds of thousands of people willing to step up and own this campaign and commit to it.

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:00:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

When you have all the buzz but can not translate it into real votes, it won't matter much in the long run.

The most important impact of internet buzz is the money. That's great.

Don't tell me all those donors are politicially inactive people who are inspired. No, I don't believe for a minute. That's why you see the money, but not much in real votes.

Obama will get a temporary bump in the poll because of this buzz, but it will soon die down just as what happened in Q1.

by kostner on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:08:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1$ (none / 0)

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:11:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1$ (none / 0)

I'm gonna' give that one $5.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:20:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

When you have all the buzz but can not translate it into real votes, it won't matter much in the long run.

This is very true, but it applies to every candidate, not just Obama.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:16:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

We can all agree it's a good way to raise money, that's for sure.

by kostner on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:18:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

I donot believe any votes have been cast yet.

by BDM on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:30:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

Polls don't change at all. Obama is going to lose. Just look at Dean... He sailed right through to the nom... What? You mean after weeks if not months of polling the number 1 spot Dean fell apart with a gigantic shift towards Kerry? IMPOSSIBLE! Early polling is never wrong!

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:22:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

The different campaigns are definitely using internet fundraising a la Howard Dean, but not many of them are really using the "Dean Model" overall.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:10:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

The 'Dean model.' You mean leading in polls and fundraising then suddenly tanking.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:22:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

I mean empowering regular people to act in politics beyond going to the polls.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:23:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

Sorry, I agree, just hoping we do something differently this time. I drove around with a Dean flyer in the back window of my pickup for months and donated for the first time to a campaign. It all ended so suddenly, though. Still a bit shell-shocked from that one.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:53:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

I was sick to the pit of my stomach. I spent the late fall/early winter canvassing in small towns in Oklahoma. It actually seemed like I was making a difference, too, until it all came crashing down in Iowa.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:58:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

You were making a difference. Now we can do this.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:04:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

Really?

Then what the hell was WALK FOR CHANGE Day all over the United States of America?

Oh, I'm sorry. They weren't wearing big ugly orange hats so I guess it doesn't count.

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

What are you talking about?

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:41:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

Do you happen to be interested in figure skating?

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:14:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

hahah! (none / 0)

by jforshaw on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:22:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HUge? (none / 0)

Nice.

by Korha on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:30:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's nominate another (none / 0)

unlikable bore. Buzz is overrated.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:57:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (3.00 / 1)

This is all great news for Democrats.

Good for Obama. Good for Clinton. Good for Richardson. Good for Edwards.

by BigBoyBlue on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:11:15 AM EST

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

Dean's campaign may not have won Iowa, but it helped to radically change how campaigns raise money and organize supporters.

Dean founded Democracy for America, which I believe is the second largest political e-advocacy organization in the country (behind MoveOn).

These forces helped elect Dean to become Chair of the Democratic Party -- where Dean's 50 State Strategy helped win a landslide election in 2006.

Still say the Dean campaign didn't matter much?

What's the Point?

by Vermonter on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:14:14 AM EST

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

I agree with you. I was a fervent Dean supporter. Dean has really had a lasting impact on how democrats can use internet, raise money in order to be competitive.

by kostner on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:16:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (3.00 / 1)

Dean's impact was much greater than internet fundraising.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:17:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

Maybe. But the most visible impact is still fundraising up until today.

by kostner on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:18:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

The 50 state strategy?

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:15:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

I'm still waiting for the breakdown on the exit polling from the 2006 Elections. I want to know which states we picked up in the South and in what districts. If there was a mass turnover from RED to BLUE, then I would say, yeah, it's pretty effective. But if all it's done was bring Jim Crow back into the Party, and even worse, into Congress, then no. I'd say it's a failure. I'm still waiting for those stats before I can state my opinion, though.

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:07:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

It is a very sensible approach and ties in neatly with a grass-roots insurgency like Obama's, in fact invites one to energise, or at least publicise, the unlikely down ticket races. It is a long-term strategy. Never conceding an electorate spreads one thin and requires bottom-up organisation, fits the Dean style to a tee.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:39:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

Don't agree with you on how effective his 50 states strategy is. There's no evidence the last election was won by his 50-state strategy.

by kostner on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:17:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (3.00 / 2)

The 50-State Strategy wasn't designed to win in 2006. It's designed to win over the next 20 years. Besides, it helped in 2006.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:22:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

If this is any evidence, the Republican incumbents have been starting out with smaller bank accounts going into 2008 fundraising. Less money to keep as a freebie. We drained them out man. Another batch of Repubs are ripe for the picking.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:24:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Meant as a response... (none / 0)

...to Kostner above...

What's the Point?

by Vermonter on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:18:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (3.00 / 1)

I wasn't a Dean supporter but I agree with you 100%. I find it interesting it appears much of Dean's support has lined up behind Edwards, and yet it is Obama who best understood the true potential of the internet in fundraising and organization that Dean's campaign displayed.

by Doug Dilg on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:24:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

I like Obama to win 47 states or so, that is almosts a 50 state stategy.

Honestly though, I will say the 50 vote strategy will/is making quite a differince in Texas

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:28:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

LOL. Delusion has no boundry.

by kostner on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:41:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

for real, let's get to ONE caucus, ONE primary at a time...

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:43:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

I do think any Dem has a chance at a sweep - if the R's nom the right person.

But, 50 sate is no delusion it is helped us a lot in 2006

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:46:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

We picked up two US House seats in 2006 and (22 and 23 if I remember correctly) and we are charging right for Texas District 10. Our candidate was highly outspent and he garnered 40% of the vote.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

Immigration Bill just died - for a long time - it is gone

"I'm LeBron, baby. I can play on this level. I got some game." Barack Obama

by gb1437a on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:28:47 AM EST

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

I just want to point something out. Matt says this above:

Voters overall are significantly more engaged in the presidential race at this point than they were at the same point last cycle,

Yet we consistently hear that the polls don't mean anything because voters aren't paying attention. How can they be more engaged and yet not paying attention? Wouldn't the fact that they are more engaged lend more credibility to what the polls say?

by Conquest on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:28:57 AM EST

I think it's that... (none / 0)

... even political junkies weren't tuned into the primary campaign all that much until the 3rd quarter, really.

Where now, we junkies are all tuned in -- and got tuned in early. Even before the 1st quarter.

And then a large portion of the country has already moved on from the Bush presidency and is looking for what's coming next.

So, the junkies? Very engaged.

Your average citizen? More engaged than last time, but still not that many folks really tuned in yet.

What's the Point?

by Vermonter on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:34:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think it's that... (none / 0)

where is the proof of this other than speculation here?

by bruh21 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:50:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What is the proof in anything (3.00 / 1)

about this issue? We are left to speculate.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:00:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is the proof in anything (none / 0)

about whether people are more interested or not- that's a matter of polling data.

by bruh21 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:12:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I said "I think" (none / 0)

I don't have proof except for the huge amount of donations every single major candidate is pulling in...

Which I think is fairly decent fodder for making this "speculation."

What's the Point?

by Vermonter on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I said "I think" (none / 0)

not really

by bruh21 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:38:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

I'm going to reiterate the fact that when we were pickin' guesses on donors earlier this quarter... We were thinking 200,000-210,000 total. They've well exceeded our expectations.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:34:50 AM EST

It's "bated breath" (none / 0)

not "baited breath".
You say that often.

Invest in nature

by NCDem on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:50:09 AM EST

Re: It's "bated breath" (none / 0)

Thanks. Though to be fair it appears this is the first time I made that particular typo...

Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.

by Jonathan Singer on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:14:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The front-pagers are all a blur to me... (none / 0)

Take heart... The blogfather has the worst grammar of you all, yet I still like him.

Invest in nature

by NCDem on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:50:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's "bated breath" (none / 0)

Don't worry. You're still miles ahead of Matthew Yglesias.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:50:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow! (none / 0)

The total has gone up by 2600+ donations since 5AM EST.

by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 11:59:59 AM EST

Edwards Fundraising (none / 0)

I do think that Edwards has been doing a good job managing expectations, but how much do you think it will hurt him that to have nearly 200,000 fewer donors than Obama?

Don't tell me I'm a concern troll, I much prefer Edwards to Hillary and was hoping it would be Obama and Edwards fighting for the nomination in February. Will this total significantly damage his chances?

(I feel stupid asking that question, because he will have plenty of money to run a campaign in Iowa, but will Iowa voters take his fundraising deficit as a lack of electability?)

by Obama08 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 12:50:00 PM EST

Re: Edwards Fundraising (none / 0)

Shhh,

You'll wake the attack dogs. You don't want to wake the attack dogs. They whine , bark , howl and bite all at the same time.

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:11:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well... (none / 0)

150-200k, but yeah.

I think the prediction markets had mostly priced in a poor Edwards total, and Obama's trajectory of crowding him out. However, now that HRC has announced her comparatively puny $27 million ($20-21m in primary money) it's pretty foregone that Obama will annihilate her.

by jforshaw on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:20:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Fundraising (none / 0)

I don't think Iowa voters care about how much money anybody raises. Dean did poorly despite winning the money race. Kerry won Iowa even though he had practically no money in the bank going in.

Edwards will do fine as long as he has enough money to pay his organization and get his message out in the early states, which he is well on track to do.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 03:53:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

Obama numbers are very impressive..over at the Edwards site they have more than 54,000 and a little more than 8 mil...
Clinton leads mainly because of name recognition
..(You can trust your car to the man who wears the star..the big bright Texico star..kind of thing)
As time goes on Obama, Edwards and Richardson become more known all will be taking her supporters.

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud" ...Arlo Guthrie

by DenverD on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:12:41 PM EST

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

at some point here even the most vociferous Edwards people have to worry about the huge money gap between the top 2 and him, in addition HRC has the insiders, Obama will have hundreds of thousands of energetic volunteers do do battle with the Hillary machine, Edwards is being marginalized and his supporters may start atleast looking at Obama as the only credible HRC alternitive.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:16:38 PM EST

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

I like how you manage to paint a primary election as some type of epic battle of good versus evil. (Although it is much more fun to think of it that way I suppose).

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:28:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's 250,000 Donors (none / 0)

sort of like the transformers -----more than meets the eye!

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 01:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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.