MyDD :: Dems Hold Massive Lead in Just Q2 Primary Dollars Raised, Too

Dems Hold Massive Lead in Just Q2 Primary Dollars Raised, Too

by Jonathan Singer, Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:28:47 PM EST

Todd just put up a post noting that the three leading Democratic candidates for President outraised the three leading Republicans during the second quarter by well over a 50 percent margin. Taking a look at just primary dollars, the Democrats' lead is still remarkably large.

Democrat	Primary $	Republican	Primary $
Obama	31 million	Giuliani	15 million
Clinton	21 million	Romney	14 million
Edwards	9 million	McCain	11 million
Total DEM	61 million	Total GOP	40 million

One should note that these numbers come from preliminary media reports rather than from the actual campaign finance filings. What's more, these numbers do not include every Democratic and Republican candidate (there are uneven numbers and not every candidate has yet announced his or her haul). Additionally, Fred Thompson has not yet reported his fundraising, and his absence might -- and I do mean might -- account for the remarkably low numbers for the Republicans overall.

But Todd is completely correct. This is extremely remarkable and unheard of, that the Democratic candidates would have such a large fundraising advantage -- more than 3-to-2 in primary dollars this quarter, in fact -- over their Republican counterparts. We really may be entering a new era of politics, folks, so fasten your seatbelts.

Tags: Democrats, Republicans, 2008, Fundraising, Q2 (all tags)

Permalink :: 24 Comments :: Post a Comment

why does the media (none / 0)

let these guys and gals hide the important numbers

cash on hand

PRIMARY MONEY ONLY and

number of contributors..

those are the 3 most important metrics that tend to never be released what are the "journalists" asking.

anyone know HIllary's distinct contributor numbers?

Call it "Medicare Option" not public option

by TarHeel on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:30:50 PM EST

Question (none / 0)

Why are you writing Richardson, Biden, and even Dodd off so far ahead of the voting?

Ever heard of a Blue Moose Democrat?

by Nathan Empsall on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:31:17 PM EST

Re: Question (3.00 / 1)

I'm not intending to. But for the sake of comparisons, it's meaningless to compare different sized groups (10 GOP candidates versus 8 Democratic candidates) -- particularly when not all of the candidates have yet released their numbers. In due time we can have that comparison, and it will make the Democrats look even better, no doubt. But for now, the fairest comparison to make is among the top three highest fundraisers within both parties.

Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.

by Jonathan Singer on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:34:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question (none / 0)

That's fair, but I think you should at least mention the other candidates in a story. To focus only on the media's preordained three is one thing, to DISCUSS only them is another.

Thanks.

Ever heard of a Blue Moose Democrat?

by Nathan Empsall on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:15:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question (none / 0)

Speaking of Biden - has anyone heard anything about his numbers?

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question (none / 0)

A little over 2 Million.

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

by BlueDiamond on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:23:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question (none / 0)

Little less than 3 mil, ballpark with Dodd. He's been tied up with Foreign Relations hearings on Russia and Iraq and hasn't been able to focus on fundraising. But he also has a very small burn rate. (I had dinner with his sister and a few NH supporters tonight, and none of us are worried about $$ at this point.)

Ever heard of a Blue Moose Democrat?

by Nathan Empsall on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:14:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dems Hold Massive Lead (none / 0)

what happens to the money of the people who lose the primary?

by bruh21 on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:34:07 PM EST

dodd and biden (none / 0)

can transfer it back to the senate (if they don't spend it).

I think richardson could too cause he transferred governor money in

Call it "Medicare Option" not public option

by TarHeel on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dodd and biden (none / 0)

be interesting if they use the money towards issues advocacy that could help democrats in swing states. ie, the bowers approach from 2006 writ a different way.be a shame to not press this advantage in terms of money

by bruh21 on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dodd and biden (none / 0)

I thought McCain-Feingold didn't allow transfers from gubernatorial accounts?

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 07:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dems Hold Massive Lead in Just Q2 Primary Doll (none / 0)

I really don't think this is a "new era" in politics. It reflects that Clinton has access to the biggest fundraising machine ever assembled, and that Obama's team is very clever in finding new ways to raise money -- by charging admission to his speeches, which is where a very large portion of his money comes from. Eventually other politicians will learn these tricks and imitate them. It's a new era, but people havn't suddenly started hating Republicans. Sure Bush's approval ratings are low, but our Democrat congress' is even lower. Let's not indulge our hubris here. These fundraising numbers can be explained in some much more simple and realistic ways than by believing that there is a groundswell of support for our way of thinking.

by Pope Jeremy on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:48:57 PM EST

Wow (none / 0)

Obama beats Romney and Giuliani combined.

by jb1125 on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:00:22 PM EST

So what are the Dems going to do?? (none / 0)

So what are these Dem candidates going to do in the next 3 months to warrant any more money? Take on Bush? Investigate the Libby pardon? Come out against war with Iran? Put limits on Bush's war power? Something??Anything??

I gave quite a bit in the 2nd quarter, but won't do it again unless I see some serious pushback and backbone from these folks.

by Mimikatz on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:08:37 PM EST

off topic but... (none / 0)

Could we as Democrats PLEASE stop using the term Dems? This is what rush limpballs has been using for years and not in a positive way either.

Democrats and Democratic Party work just fine.

I recall seeing here and other places where people would be upset about repugs and the right wing noise machine referring to the Democratic Party as the democrat party.

Just some thoughts.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:10:15 PM EST

Re: off topic but... (3.00 / 1)

Democrat Party provokes complaints because it misses off the -ic bit, implying the party is not democratic. Dems is quite different. It's just a contraction, not worth getting irritated over. Certainly not similar to Repugs, which is designed to evoke the sense of being repugnant.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 07:04:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: off topic but... (none / 0)

Agree and disagree a little.

When I hear or see Dems, I hear and see limpball.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 08:11:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: off topic but... (none / 0)

One of the reason the righties started using democrat was because it ended with RAT. They did this on purpose and many times will emphasize the "rat" portion.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 08:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dems Hold Massive Lead in Just Q2 Primary Doll (none / 0)

Republic Party.

by danIA on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:38:31 PM EST

Re: Dems Hold Massive Lead in Just Q2 Primary Doll (none / 0)

Well, if they did "Democrats" 'cos it ends with "rat"; I'd go with Repubs, with a hard E sound, 'cos it sounds like a mental deficiency.

by Bush Bites on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:50:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dems Hold Massive Lead in Just Q2 Primary Doll (none / 0)

I just hope the democratic presidential contributions are not sucking money from congressional races. Where does this money leave us when the nominee is decided? Hopefully, the money will help the entire democratic "brand" and will be spent positively to the extent possible.

I much prefer making contributions to democrats who are running against republicans (although I contribute some to primary campaigns).

John McCain Opposed Expanded GI Bill

by hilltopper on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 06:17:58 PM EST

Re: Dems Hold Massive Lead in Just Q2 Primary Doll (none / 0)

Said this in the thread above (and I think a thread below too), but it bears repeating.

I always try to give to the Democratic Senate and Congressional Campaign Committees when I give to my Presidential candidate.

I suggest we all do that.

by Bush Bites on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 10:53:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Repubs in deep shiite (none / 0)

Guys like Rudy and McCain who had fantasies of raising 100 million this year have had cold water thrown in their face as they now see a bald has been pol turned 'B' actor steal their thunder.

I can't wait for '08.

by dpANDREWS on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 11:12:34 PM EST

The stakes for the party (none / 0)

These, as I see it are the stakes given these numbers: lifelong party identification and a secure hold on american government for the entire century.

And here's the ante up: the first party to recognize the massive fundraising power of the internet, and also respond to it as a constituency.

At present we've got just part of that equation.
And this money is just part of whats out there.

And also, imho , massive, massive fundraising really only seems to be there because of massive costs during election season. If it were cheaper for our candidates to get elected, it would help us all.

By that I am simply, that, TV is already a dead medium. Citizen journalism and the like - if the money raised weren't simply guaranteed to be dissipated into commercials but if the candidate could use the money as if he were already elected, to do things that give him or her a character that is unassailable - that wins elections.

remember, the hottest race of 06 was when a gop presidential hopeful got himself into deep macaca
- the citizen journalism aspect is a given.

what I'm saying is that imho people are no longer responding to advertisement in the tv classical sense. i think the new thing this year will be someone who gets something done thats really cool

i like bill richardsons diplomatic moves on north korea in this regard.

by Trey Rentz on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 07:56:49 AM 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.