You are absolutely wrong to assume broader online donations are an indicative of broad support.

For a family who earn less than $40,000, $30,000, do you believe they have the luxury to go online and hit to 'donation' button for an American idol type of candidate?

Polls after polls have shown Hillary is the overwhemling favourite among low-income democratic primary voters, which unfortunately are called 'low-information' voters by elitists on this site. These voters just do not donate to any candidate, period.

John Kerry had far more online donations than George W. Bush. Based on your logic, he should have beaten W. by a mile, unfortunately, George W. Bush has won not only general, but also among low-income voters

Dean is very savy in attracting online donations. They also claimed to attract new voters, indepdents despite polls showed the opposite.

The end result was that despite the money advantage, Dean crashed and burned. Most online donors are really in the 'elitists' category of primary voters. This alone will never help the candidate to win an election.

Please correct the headline. Thanks.

thank you.

I don't see how that quote refers to Edwards but that doesn't matter.  There needs to be some thought given to the different dynamics of this year's earlier Primary schedule.  With the fundraising gap becoming so enormous I don't see how someone will be able to capitalize on a surprising early showing as they have in years past.  For me the key quote of the Plouffe release is:

First, we are on a financial course that will allow us to both fully fund efforts in the early primary and caucus states, and also participate vigorously in all the February 5 contests, including large states like California, New Jersey, New York, Georgia and Missouri...

Secondly, because so many states are holding early contests that may have significant impact on deciding the ultimate Democratic nominee, a winning campaign will need deep organizations in dozens of states to prevail. Our more than 258,000 donors provide us the foundation of an unprecedented volunteer army in all 50 states. We also have thousands more who are not able to contribute but are already volunteering or who plan too. For example, early in June, more than 10,000 Americans took part in our "Walk for Change" -- canvassing neighborhoods in all 50 states, visiting more than 350,000 households.

Chuck Todd was stating that the Clinton Campaign was running at 70 mph, while Obama is running 50 mph.  I don't know what this means, but I think they are running the kind of campaign they want to, and everything is going along in segments.  I am telling you, this campaign does not seem to be worried.  That was the first instinct I got listening to that conference call, so these numbers are not shocking me.  They EXPECTED it.  Now they are going to ramp it up.  Watch.

in primary cash.

F'ing impressive.

The "quasi-incumbent" line is just weird.  It sounds like something that came out of a too long strategy meetings, and should have stayed there.

His point about electiability is just spin, Obama is doing less well than Edwards in most head to head polls, such as Rasmussen.  He does pull well against Democratic leaning indies in the primaries, but those are a whole different breed than the swing voters (more wealthy, socially liberal, but too 'intellectual' to admit they are Democrats).  

I need to be careful. I am praising MYDD too much today.

We don't know the Clinton numbers yet.  I had expected about $35 Million for Obama, so this is a bit lower than I had pegged.   I believe the "somewhere in the $27 Million range" is low balling it by the Clinton campaign, so I would not be surprised to actually see her outraise Obama by a tad in the final tally.   My hunch:  About $33 to $34 Million for the Clinton campaign.  We'll see.

As for the argument in the memo:  The fitting statement is "IF we prevail in the nomination fight.   That is a huge if.  Obama does not have the highest favorables amongst Democrats, usually he shows the lowest of all 3 top-tier candidates.  He has to change that dramatically to have a chance.  

There was an interesting article by Mary Mitchell in today's Chicago Sun-Times this morning on how Obama focusing on being the transcendental appears to hurt him with the people in the trenches, in this case the African-American community:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/45 0441,CST-NWS-mitch01.article

Obama can't take Blacks for granted

Quoting:

It's time for Sen. Barack Obama to define his message to African Americans if he hopes to tighten his grip on the black vote.

And trust me, he needs to tighten it.
.....
It is understandable that Obama doesn't want to be pigeonholed as the so-called black candidate, but he can't be so afraid of that label that he alienates the very base that could lift him in the primary election.

Frankly, his universalist strategy might work for white voters, but black voters have been taken for granted long enough. If Obama's handlers don't understand this, then he ought to be looking for some new strategists.

More important, Obama was in the perfect position to show that being pro-black doesn't mean someone has to be anti-white. I'm disappointed that he doesn't appear to know that real progress on the racial front ought to mean that political candidates who are embraced by white voters don't have to keep their distance from black ones.

End of quote

My question is how does the 32.5 million figure correlate into performance in Iowa?

The 32.5 Million Figure IS NUTS!!!!

It's going to take awhile to fully break it down and figure it what it al means.

What does it mean to "run the table?"

Also, I heard on CSpan a discussion that said the Democratic Party dumped tons of money and people into Iowa supporting Kerry.   I think we underestimate the ability of parties to get the job done for their choice of candidates.  In WA State, the party effectively keeps contenders pretty much muted in favor of the candidate that seems most viable or is the choice for whatever reason.

I'm hoping a third party threat or the increased number of independents will shake up our entrenched Dem and Repub parties and their candidates.  If Clinton is the candidate and she loses,  the Democratic Party will be considered null and void by me.

As an Edwards supporter I wish it weren't so, but I'm not sure Iowa and New Hampshire will be as determinative as they were in past years.

The amounts of money that candidates raises previously were so much smaller than now that most candidates basically blew everything they had on Iowa and New Hampshire.  If they broke through there, they could raise enough money in the following few weeks to keep going, otherwise they were forced out.  With the scale of this year's fundraising, top tier candidates won't be dependent on post-Iowa fundraising.

On the other hand, money is by no means the only reason Iowa and New Hampshire have been so important.  Perhaps an even bigger part of it has been that voters in other states just didn't focus until they saw the results from there.  We will just have to see.

I love the enthusiasm he is generating among Democratic voters, especially young voters. He's going to be a real asset to the party on the campaign trail next fall.

I don't see Plouffe attempting to make the case that the one with the most money would win, as you warn not to do.  And he seems pretty clear he understands that Iowa is a big factor, as you suggest:

We're pleased to be running as strongly as we are in the national polls, but they are beside the point in a process that will be shaped by a series of early contests that will begin in Iowa.

And it seemed the 'electability' argument was directed at Hillary; while I agree the tone of this memo is more assertive, I didn't note anything hostile toward Edwards at all.  Hmmm...

I am an obama supporter, and this is good news. However, the bit about independents are the pathway to the presidency may not tell the whole story. What about single women voters?

The same thing could be said for independents...

I am curious if SWV's might be making more of a difference than we might expect. HRC's lead in the polls has to be coming from somewhere.

I thought Obama was a black man with an immigrant name?

I'm sorry to have to point out the reality of Obama's candidacy, but somebody has to, because some of you live in freakin La La Land. I know some of you want to believe the best of our country and I like to be optomistic, but some here are borderline dillusional if you think this racist xenophobic country will elect Barack Obama in the general election. And you can pull out whatever poll you want! NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!That is the 800 lbs gorilla in the room that no one is talking about.

By the time the Repubs are finished with him, he will represent every negative stereotype and fear thought about African Americans, Muslims,and immigrants. This will all be done under the radar out of the public eye through 527s, swift boaters, secret mailings, phone calls, emails, and youtube videos by people who "have nothing to do with the campaign". It will be the Fox News madrassah story on a much grander scale. Then after all that...people will go to the polls and vote their fear because that is what we do. The exit polls will be way off, because people will lie about who they voted for.

It will be a sad day to be an American.

We'll, if what you say is true, then it's already a sad day to be an American.

You should have posted the whole release, rather than just the incumbent part - MSM looks for confrontation.  A lot of people here are Obama supporters and are interested in more than his critique of Hillary.

Less than six months ago, we began this campaign with a mission.

Thank you again for all you have done in the last five months.

Anyone else interested in the wording "At least..."  It seems to me something is up.  Last time Obama announced his totals he waited until well after the others had announced what they had raised.  This time Obama is first out of the gate to announce.  Either he is 100% sure his $32.5M is tops or they purposely put "At least..."  In case Hillary raised more, and they actually themselves raised well over $32.5M?  That may be a little too 24 for Fund raising numbers, but i just find it odd that he announced so much earlier this time.

Obamarama is in full swing!! Good for him.

Where does this idea come from that all Clinton supporters are poor and dumb and uneducated? WTF???
All of the supporters who I know are in college, grad school or already have jobs in tech or finance companies. Not everyone who supports Clinton is a woman or black for that matter either.

"Unlike Hillary Barack Obama has a personality that will shelter him from the inevitable smears that every Dem will have to face."

-- All the money in the world can't buy an election or experience. You don't elect someone based on their personality. Any Obama supporter is out of touch if he/she believes that the right wing will have a hard time attacking Obama or that he will easily win the general.

...the idea that Edwards can put southern states into play has barely any evidence behind it at all. Obama's argument while not promising nearly as much is far more reasonable.

This article has appeared in the NYT (emphasis added):

So far this year, the Obama campaign has raised $55.7 million to be spent on winning the party's nominating fight. In the last three months, an average of 1,500 donors a day contributed to the Obama campaign, many through the Web site or in response to more unusual appeals including a contest to have dinner with the candidate.

David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, said in an interview today that more than 90 percent of the contributors to Mr. Obama could contribute again. In addition to courting major Democratic donors, the campaign has had fund-raisers across the country for donors making small contributions, focusing particularly on early-voting states, and has built a database of supporters and volunteers from events that cost as little as $5 per person.

"This gives us a deep financial base that will continue to allow us to perform strongly throughout the course of the campaign," Mr. Plouffe said. "It also gives us a huge foundation of volunteers and organizational support."

After spending significant money on the opening contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, the campaign will rely on a grass-roots operation in the states where primaries or caucuses are scheduled Feb. 5, Mr. Plouffe said. While the campaign focused intently on raising money in those states, he said, almost no effort was directed toward raising money beyond the primary campaign.

"The general election money," Mr. Plouffe said, "is funny money."

For weeks, the Clinton campaign had been seeking to lower expectations for the second fund-raising period. A memorandum sent last week by Howard Wolfson, a top strategist for the senator, estimated that Mrs. Clinton would raise "in the range of $27 million." The campaign today had no comment on Mr. Obama's fund-raising numbers.

Jeff Zeleny NYT July 1, 2007

The quasi-incumbent thing.

I think this refers to a few things.

1. HRC campaign's "inevitability" meme that they had going on there.

2. Basically HRC is cashing in on both her and Bill Clinton's long-time connections within the party to win major Dem donors and endorsements.
   
3. HRC has near universal name ID. The rest of the Dem candidates do not.  Obama and Edwards are closer to 75%.

Second quarter fundraising figures from the John Edwards for President campaign include:
More than $9 million raised total.
More than $4.7 million raised from grassroots fundraising.
More than 100,000 contributors from across the country this year.(Q1 & 2)
About $3.5 million raised online.
93% of contributions were $100 and under (strength for the future).
More than 30% of contributions were from red states (interesting for south/north unity).

His fav/unfav stats remain good. His Q1 fundraising in the south was hugely better than that of other candidates. His national stats on beating each Republican remains tops. And, he attracts the most shark bumps from the smearbots. (The same marriage police that smeared Hillary earlier in the NYT just wrote x2 about Elizabeth the dominatrix). So, the campaign is going well and given a fair wind and following sea, should arrive in good shape in Iowa, NH, NV, and SC.

Edwards is still in the top tier.

It is not "weird" mister. I think it has a deep psychological impact considering HRC's tactic of cherry-picking all the goodies during their 8 years in the WH. Ah! What about other not-so-goodies like bodily fluid and an overly ambitious and secret but failed health care plan? People think she's experienced and ready to lead but they forgot that it's the other Clinton who was president. Kudos to the strategist who came up with this one, very important.

John Edwards will be the nominee.