MyDD :: Obama Raises $10.3 Million Online in Second Quarter

Obama Raises $10.3 Million Online in Second Quarter

by Jonathan Singer, Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:20:50 PM EST

You're reading these numbers first here at MyDD.

During the second quarter, Barack Obama brought in $10.3 million dollars online, or about a third of the $32.5 million he raised overall this quarter. This ups his total online haul for the year to $17.2 million. Both of these online fundraising numbers are very large and indeed are records for this point in the campaign.

Since the beginning of the campaign 110,000 people have given online to the Obama campaign, or more than 40 percent of his donors. For year year, 90 percent of the online donations to the Obama campaign have been in amounts of $100 dollars or less, and a half of the online donations have been in amounts of $25 or less.

We'll get you the numbers for other candidates as they're released, but if you're interested in reading a comparison between online fundraising numbers this cycle versus the previous one, Jerome has a very interesting take. Quickly, Howard Dean raised about $25 million online of the $50 million or so he raised over the course of 2003, so Obama appears to be on pace to top that online fundraising record by a fairly large margin (though Obama's offline contributions make up a larger proportion of his overall fundraising than did Dean's).

Tags: Barack Obama, Online Fundraising, Q2, Democratic Primaries, 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 45 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Obama Raises $10.3 Million Online in Second Qu (none / 0)

Damn that is impressive. He raised more online that Edwards did total for the quarter.

by juls on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:23:12 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $10.3 Million Online in Second Qu (none / 0)

Good catch.

by horizonr on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $10.3 Million Online (none / 0)

This data point is somewhat contradictory to what Jerome wrote.

Are the size of the online donations broken out?

For the pruposes of this discussion, it seems to me the large (say over $250) vs. small distinction is the more interesting one in terms of "movement" analysis, which is kind of a silly one anyway imo.

Movements in my view are about issues, not candidates.

I think Jerome always has a trump card in this debate, it is "you have the power."

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:24:38 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $10.3 Million Online (none / 0)

Movements in my view are about issues, not candidates.

Are they? I would agree that early on, Dean had the Iraq war issue as a rallying point. But by the fall, it strikes me that the Dean "movement" was much more about how the Deaniacs (myself included) felt about the campaign itself (people-powered, etc.) than any particular issue.

by rashomon on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:54:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

People powered was the issue (none / 0)

You make my point.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:23:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do these numbers include... (none / 0)

the ticket sales?

by citizen53 on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:26:27 PM EST

Re: Do these numbers include... (none / 0)

I doubt it, that is not online donations. I would put the ticket sales to his kickoffs in the direct mail group. Or personal fundraising group.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:41:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do these numbers include... (none / 0)

I bought my ticket online for the Phila event. I imagine most people did.

by Adam B on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yawn (2.66 / 3)

So Edwards got a higher percentage online, for what it's worth.

This money stuff bores me numb. If only changes things to the extent that people thinks it changes things. Of if Obama decides he can get enough $$$ from his smaller donors that he's willing to take stands that piss off his big donors. Till then it's just inside baseball. The vast majority of people don't care about fundraising totals. Really. Don't believe me? Go ask them.

by david mizner on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:29:23 PM EST

Re: Yawn (3.00 / 3)

I have asked, and I've found it does matter. Especially for Obama. If you haven't noticed, he's Black, and there is an impression in this country that a Black man can not be elected President. The money raised and the amount of donators is the fastest argument to dispel that impression. People in this country believe in the cliche "put your money where your mouth is".

by Doug Dilg on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:33:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right (none / 0)

It is surely no accident that the New York Times story about Obama's Q2 numbers is
accompanied by a photo of a smiling Obama reaching his arms across a low fence.

On the other side of the fence is a crush of people -- all of them white -- reaching back.

by horizonr on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:46:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama raised (none / 0)

as much as Hillary in the first Q and fell further behind. He raised twice as much as Edwards and didn't increase his lead over Edwards. This is not a new story, it's a continuation of an old one, and part of that story is, or should be, the challenge of converting $$$ into votes. Granted, Obama's only started running TV ads but in the states that matter, Edwards and Clinton will be able to go ad for ad with him, so, once again, Obama might want to try leading on an issue cause leading on $$$$ doesn't get your very far.

by david mizner on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:54:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

actually, no. (none / 0)

There's no way Edwards can compete ad-for-ad with Clinton and Obama at this point, but let's see what COH and burn rateslook like.

by Adam B on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:02:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not in all the states (none / 0)

but in IA and NH Edwards may well be able to match ad for ad with Obama and Clinton.

There are only so many political ads a candidate will buy in any given media market. Beyond that it's not going to help you much.

But I take your point. Edwards will probably not be able to match Obama and Clinton on tv in the big February 5 states.

We Iowans will have to roll up our sleeves and work that much harder. We're going to need to give Hillary a major setback.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:16:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not in all the states (none / 0)

The real question is how early one can start an ad campaign in IA/NH at saturation levels without getting to the point where people get turned off by the end. And, yes, 2/5 advertising will have to start well before IA/NH to be effective.

What this means is that Obama gets to control everyone's spending -- his ability to saturate the airs means that no one's going on-air until he does first.

by Adam B on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:20:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a questionable comment (none / 0)

if not downright incorrect.

Both Richardson and Edwards have advertised. No one waited for Obama on that.

Nut the unsubstantiated statement is when 2/5 pirmary state ads have to start. You say well before Iowa.

Iowa may go as early as 1/7 and no later than 1/20 right?

You think the ads in the 2/5 states have to come earlier than that?

What is the basis of that statement?

I actually have my own pet theory on ads - their main purpose now is to create media stories.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:28:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a questionable comment (none / 0)

The current advertising has been to raise name recognition and generate free media, as you well note. But it's not the advertising that wins elections (by itself) -- that's the saturation level stuff which comes later on. If Obama can go on-air in NH/IA on November 1 at a saturation level, will the others follow, or must they wait?

If you're not on-air as early as your rivals, they define the race, not you. And Clinton, in particular, knows that she needs to set up 2/5 as a firewall, which means advertising in the most expensive states early, and if she does, the others will have to match.

by Adam B on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I disagree (none / 0)

Only negative ads define races in ways that require response.

That chance of Obama going negative first seem extremely remote to me. Indeed, I think that is one of his hidden weaknesses - he now has boxed himself in against negative campaigning.

Obama is an extremely talented pol of course and can win wothout going negative but it sure narrows your options.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 03:04:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I disagree (none / 0)

If Obama can clearly define himself as "the one who's always been right on Iraq" and "someone who really cares about poverty" before Edwards can hit the airwaves hard, doesn't that force Edwards to go negative?

Obama doesn't have to go negative -- he'll let the others attack each other.

by Adam B on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 03:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nope (none / 0)

The NEW stanadard on Iraq is where do you stand on ENDING the Debacle.

Obama is quiote vulnerable in that regard.

Edwards will hit on the performance of SENATOR Obama. Not State legislator Obama.

The ground has shifted from under Obama's feet on that. I believe it is his biggest problem.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 07:30:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nah (none / 0)

There's no distinguishable difference between Obama's and Edwards' plan to leave Iraq, so there really isn't anything there for Edwards to attack.

Also, we saw in the SC debate how well Edwards' "failing to lead" meme went over: he was crushed by Obama's "you're 4 1/2 years late" response.

I don't see Edwards being able to expose any vulnerabilities on the Iraq front, really.

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

by Max Fletcher on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:00:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You miss the point (none / 0)

It is not about his plan, it is about ending the debacle and the performance of Congress, including Senator Obama.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:48:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You miss the point (none / 0)

And he will say that he put forward legislation to end the war by March 31, 2008. Which he did. Which he helped to get passed. And he will point to Russ Feingold, who called him more helpful than Edwards in the work to bring about an end to the war.

Would it have been nice for Senator Obama to have spoken out against the funding for the war after his bill for a responsible withdrawal failed instead of quietly casting the right vote? I guess. It wouldn't have made a whole lot of difference at the time, but maybe it could have added an extra kick to the can. Sadly, nothing good was going to come out of that. The votes to cut off funding weren't there after we barely mustered the votes for a phased withdrawal. It sucks, but it was the reality of the situation.

In any case, I doubt that whole scenario is going to play out in the minds of a majority of voters in the Iowa caucuses. Either they're going to buy "Obama failed to lead" or they aren't. Edwards hasn't been able to sell it at this point (the blogs being the possible exception, and it really hasn't stuck around as a talking point here, either). Notice how Edwards kind of gave up on that point since he got the smack-down in that debate?

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

by Max Fletcher on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:02:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nope (none / 0)

It is stunning that you believe Obama's biggest problem is the issue upon which you've disagreed with him the most. What a coincidence!

by Adam B on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:31:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is stunning (none / 0)

that you try to block the sun with your hand on this issue.

You remind me of no one more than myself when I was a Clark supporter.

Your fine mind abandons you when you discuss Obama.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 11:49:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a questionable comment (none / 0)

It is kinda funny that the campaigns get a couple free press cycles for even the smallest media buy in Iowa.

by enarjay on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:46:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not in all the states (none / 0)

Don't forget about the radio, newspaper, internet, and other media too. what will make it work is Barack's message and charisma. It's all about CONNECTION and people are connecting with him and his campaign. Check this out:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/#556 65
All the ever so touted experience don't mean a thing. Who's more experienced than Al Gore. Well, he did win though.

Not another Bush or Clinton.

by Barackulikahurricane on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pacing (none / 0)

Obama wants to peak twice -- once in early 2008 and again the following
November. From where I sit, the campaign has written -- and is following --
a carefully crafted narrative that will maximize their chances of doing that.

by horizonr on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 03:00:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pacing (none / 0)

Previous is a response to David Mizner ("Obama's raised").

by horizonr on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 03:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's an interesting theory (none / 0)

I don't buy it myself.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 03:05:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"stands that piss off big donors" (none / 0)

Wake me when Edwards supports something antithetical to the interests of the plaintiffs' bar or the hedge fund industry.

by Adam B on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:01:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "stands that piss off big donors" (none / 0)

I agree with the second one, but why would any remotely progressive Democrat antagonise trial lawyers? 'Tort reform' is like 'death tax', a nice piece of phrasing to stop anybody taxing the money of corporations and the rich.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 05:23:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "stands that piss off big donors" (none / 0)

Some minority of trial lawyer activity functions as productive, non-governmental punishment of business screwups.

Unfortunately, it's mainly a bullshit extortion racket.

by jforshaw on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:26:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $10.3 (none / 0)

they dont care about fundraising total until it's your candidate that's raising loads of cash...I'm sure if it was your candidate raising that kind of money, you'd be estatic too and point out how the people wants change and are showing it with their wallet.

by JaeHood on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:35:28 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $10.3 (none / 0)

and vice versa.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 02:29:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Online $ to be increasingly less important... (none / 0)

...indicator.

This is still news today, but in future elections and to some extent in this election, simply reporting what was collected over the internet is not going to be indicative of any type of movement support. Many people donate online now because it's easier. Campaigns are going to have event tickets for sale on line, or fund raisers could have laptops set up in the lobby, in lieu of written checks.

etc, etc.

by KickinIt on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 01:57:40 PM EST

Re: Online $ to be increasingly less important... (none / 0)

That is happening ALREADY...

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:25:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Raises $10.3 Million Online in Second Qu (none / 0)

Congrats on the exclusive!

by aiko on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 04:25:20 PM EST

Re: Obama Reaches Out To Netroots (3.00 / 1)

Isn't it interesting that the Obama campaign chose MyDD to release these figures?

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 04:28:23 PM EST

Re: Obama Reaches Out To Netroots (none / 0)

I'm not sure that would make much of a headline in the print media - they're much less concerned about online goings-on than blogs are. So I'd say the release to MyDD reflects the fact that this information is primarily of interest to the blogosphere, and the fact that MyDD leads the pack in election-related hackery on the Dem side of the field.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 05:25:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Reaches Out To Net roots (none / 0)

It came out in an e-mail, All of us received one. It's also listed on the website.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/e oq2wrap/

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

by BlueDiamond on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:21:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, well, well... (none / 0)

From AP this evening:

For months, Hillary Rodham Clinton has been running her presidential campaign as a front-runner, establishing an image of steady inevitability.

Barack Obama unsteadied her.

By raising a dazzling $32.5 million and outpacing Clinton by $10 million in primary election money, Obama succeeded in making his chief rival look mortal.

JIM KUHNHENN AP Jul 2, 5:53 PM EDT

The 'inevitabilty' perception is dead for Hillary, long live the 'incumbent' frame.

by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:12:07 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $10.3 Million Online in Second Qu (none / 0)

In order to take advantage of raising 50% more funds in Q2 than Hillary, he MUST make TV appearances to boast and boost his campaign. He has a 2-3 week period to narrow the polling race and further empower the campaign. Its also time to unveil Michelle on the major talk shows.

Does anyone know of any TV appearances by the Obama's??

by jerry25 on Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:17:05 PM EST

Less cheering, more thinking (none / 0)

Would anyone care or dare to think about this as conservative ideologues and the entrenched oligarchy spending money on the candidate they would most like to run an opponent against in '08?
I urge progressive Americans to start thinking more critically. If we fail to understand the true nature of our enemies, the lengths they will go to in order to protect their interests, the deceits they will practice to further their causes, and the unreflective folly of a perceived enemy which they surely rely upon to succeed at their aims... we will continue to be the unwitting participants in our own failure and continuing subjugation.
I suggest we do a lot less cheering and a great deal more thinking. Counterintuitive thinking, imaginative thinking and maybe, sadly, paranoid thinking...
What do you suppose the people who gave us 9/11, the promise of unending wars in central Asia and eight years of the Bush/Cheney assault on our constitution will NOT do to retain their power?
Perform an Einsteinian thought-experiment: Look at politics through the eyes of your opponent. What do you see? What would you want to see?
This election is a long way off and meanwhile innocents are dying in droves. I'm just asking that we all be a little more critical in our thinking. Maybe what you see is not always what is there...

by Slothrop on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:06:59 PM EST

Re: Obama Raises $10.3 Million Online (none / 0)

This is absolutely jawdropping!

There is no way that Hillary Clinton can still be considered the frontrunner with the widespread grassroots support that the Obama campaign is enjoying. Most of the polls have the gap between Clinton and Obama between 10-15 precentage points with margins of error in the 4 or 5 percent range (in national polling). Excuse me, but the last time I checked, that wasnt very much so far away from the primaries. If I were Hillary, I'd be pretty scared right now. Real people just arent interested in her the way people are about the Senator from Illinois.

by GeminiMoon on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 06:29:07 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.