Skip to main content

With the Q1 numbers all in, Republicans have to be feeling a bit queasy about their chances in 2008. (Totals include all receipts, including general election money. In millions.)


Romney $23
Giuliani $15
McCain $12.5
Huckabee $0.5


Clinton $26
Obama $25
Edwards $14
Richardson $6
Dodd $4
Biden $3
TOTAL: $78

Is there any doubt where the energy is this cycle? That's about $27 million more raised by the Democratic side. Sure, there are other Republicans in the race, none of which have apparently announced (and no one seems to care), but even if they collectively account for a few more million, the disparity is stark. Indeed, the top two Democrats outraised the top Republican.

Kerry outraised Bush in 2004. Democrats came close to achieving fiscal parity in 2006 (while the DSCC crushed the NRSC). At this rate, our financial prospects are looking fantastic for 2008. And when Republicans can't drown us with cash, they've got little else to work with.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:44 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The other message... (15+ / 0-)

    We need to fix public financing big-time.

    "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

    by PsiFighter37 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:42:34 AM PDT

    •  Don't Throw Good Money After Bad (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      phenry, CCSDem

      Methinks the big buck business Republicans know that old business slogan applies to Republican candidates in this election cycle.

      If you're likely to go down to defeat, then ignore your sunk costs.  

      They are the party of great wealth, and they didn't pony-up for their boys.  

      Gonzo, GonzoGate I like to read bout GonzoGate! (sung to Macho Macho Man)

      by deepsouthdoug on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:48:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Instead a lot of the big money boys are backing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peace voter

        Democrats.  That will cost us all in the long run.

        •  Obama didn't take money from lobbyists or PACS. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          baltimoremom, eartha, ShadowSD

          That's what CNN reported a few minutes ago.  They didn't say anything about the others.

          •  if he didn't (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            txdemfem, trinite

            Then he is a clear winner. Hillary can't brag about that one.

          •  He is getting money from these interests (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Hairy Legs

            Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is benefiting from the support of well-connected Washington lobbyists even though he has prohibited his campaign from accepting contributions from them and political action committees (PACs).

            Mike Williams, the director of government relations at Credit Suisse Securities, said of the network of lobbyists supporting Obama: "I would imagine that it’s as large as the Clinton list," in reference to rival presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is an entrenched favorite of the Washington Democratic establishment.

            Some of Obama’s K Street boosters keep their support a secret to uphold Obama’s image as a Washington outsider untainted by D.C.’s influence business.

            In a fundraising e-mail distributed yesterday, Obama emphasized his stance against taking money from lobbyists and PACs.
            Two lobbyists who are supporting another candidate and spoke to The Hill on condition of anonymity said that Obama’s campaign contacted them asking to be put in touch with their networks of business clients and acquaintances.

            One of the lobbyists, who supports Clinton, said that Shomik Dutta, a fundraiser for Obama’s campaign, called to ask if the lobbyist’s wife would be interested in making a political contribution.

            "I was quite taken aback," he said. "He was very direct in saying that you’re a lobbyist and we don’t want contributions from lobbyists. But your wife can contribute and we like your network."

            See the whole article from The Hill:

            I wish what you are saying were true.  But, unfortunately it looks like Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

            •  From the Chicago Tribune: (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ogre, baltimoremom, eartha, ShadowSD

              "People involved in Democratic fundraising have noted that many of Clinton's events required a contribution of $4,600 for access to the senator and other VIPs. That is the maximum amount allowed for an individual to donate by law, with half going for the primary and half for the general.

              Obama, on the other hand, has mostly sought donations of up to $2,300, which means the bulk of his take this quarter will be available for the primary campaign. Obama also made his fundraising task more difficult by refusing to accept money from lobbyists and political action committees, unlike Clinton.'

            •  I am a little (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ShadowSD, Mardish

              suspicious of unnamed sources who are supporting another candidate who then make potentially damaging remarks about the rival candidate who most threatens their candidate.

              They had fangs; they were biting people. They had this look in their eyes. Totally cold... animal. I think they were Young Republicans.

              by msstaley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:24:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why not use unnamed sources from... (0+ / 0-)

                The whitehouse?

                "Not only is Obama a wold, his wife is a CIA agent."  Also named sources say the Chicago Tribune endorsed George Bush in 2004.  The named source?  The Chicago Tribune.

            •  ...spoke to The Hill on condition of anonymity... (0+ / 0-)

              That Obama admitted he is the DEVIL!

              There you have it, not only is Obama a wolf, he is the devil.

    •  I came into the comments just to say that also. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ogre, polecat, eddersen, Akonitum

      Isn't it sad that we have to buy back responsible government for the people?  And won't it be sadder still when eight years down the road, an unimaginably larger amount may well be spent to buy it for corporate interests again?

      •  Agree (0+ / 0-)

        CNN just had someone speculate about this being the first $1 Billion election.
        I could easily find 100,000 poor families who could put $10,000 each to much better use.
        I KNOW we have to do it or else the bas***ds  get to keep running things but still ....

    •  George Will's brain just exploded n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fugue, txdemfem, Akonitum

      Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you. --- Thomas Jefferson

      by Wandering Hoo on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:01:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama and Clinton are the sole top tier Candidate (0+ / 0-)

      is the other message it sends. The message is that the Democrats donors have defined the top tiers as only Obama and Clinton, Second Tier Edwards and Richardson, Third tier, etc. Further, the fields will begin to narrow soon. Biden will drop off soon and back Obama. Dodd is in it for his ego.

      •  Too soon (7+ / 0-)

        I respectfully disagree.

        I think it's far too early to reach any such conclusion.  At a minimum I would wait until we have the Q2 numbers.

        Plus, even if voters had effectively done what you suggest, it would be meaningless this early.  There's plenty of time for a candidate to stink the joint out with a horrible public gaffe or break from the pack with a fantastic debate.  There's a lot of time for pendulums to swing.

        E.g. what's the most likely effect on the voters once they see and hear Richardson in a debate?  I'm guessing it will help him a lot and trim some support from the top tier (whoever that is by then).

        Lay in a few cases of popcorn, people, this show is just getting started.

        •  I don't know how much a debate (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SkiBumLee, eartha

          is going to help Richardson.  I was not impressed with him at the first Democratic forum (the one Obama skipped) and I was looking forward to hearing what he had to say.  Unless Richardson is very aggressive I believe the debates will probably most help Edwards and maybe Obama.  I think they will help kill the Hillary candidacy.

          They had fangs; they were biting people. They had this look in their eyes. Totally cold... animal. I think they were Young Republicans.

          by msstaley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:03:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  So, the person who leads in the polls in Iowa (6+ / 0-)

        and is second in New Hampshire polling is second tier because he only raised $14 million in the first quarter which is $6 million more than the previous fund raising record?

        The reality is that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all strong 1st tier because they all have enough money to compete and build on their bases.  They also have good poll numbers and will continue to be seen as viable candidates by the MSM.  Richardson is the dark horse in this race.  His $6 million is good enough to keep him in the race but either one of the top candidates will have to stumble badly or Richardson is going to have to do something big.  

        They had fangs; they were biting people. They had this look in their eyes. Totally cold... animal. I think they were Young Republicans.

        by msstaley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:00:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Chasing the $ (10+ / 0-)

    Very Distastful

    Very necessary

    •  Actually, I'm probably alone on this... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...but the money side of politics doesn't really bother me as a part of the process.  Just look at, oh, say a Kucinich or a Chris Bell in Texas.  Lousy money, lousy politicians.  Good politicians are automatically good fundraisers.  When I ran for office, a typical funraising call went like this:

      "Hi!  I'm Crazy Horse and I'm asking for your support!"

      "Well, I'm busy selling cars...what do you stand for?"

      "Ponies, bread, butter, and world peace."

      "Well, I don't like world peace..."

      "I respectfully disagree...let me mail you an American flag."

      "OK, I'll send you fifty dollars."  

      IMHO, fundraising viability and the skills of managing a good campaign go with the's almost a gauge of popularity.

      Here's what I'd like to see -

      Limit donations to very small amounts: $500 per person.

      Grant free designated TV time to all candidates during the peak election cycle.

      Provide greater public matching of campaign donations.  

      No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. - Edward R. Murrow

      by CrazyHorse on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:59:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My solution: (0+ / 0-)

        All donations go anonymously to an aggregated escrow account which then is distributed to candidates based on percentage of party registrations.

        Result? Donations would go to, like, zero, but all candidates would have the same chance. And our campaign season would get a lot more grassroots and people-powered. No more teevee blitzes. Only sneakers on the ground promoting positions.

      •  Can I be a candidate and get free air time? (0+ / 0-)

        Cool.  Is there a threshold to cross to become a "serious" candidate, or can anybody get free air time?

        Happy little moron, lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, my God, perhaps I am! -- Spike Milligan

        by polecat on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:14:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...we're talking primary winners, when the national media comes to the fore.

          But again, that's the Catch-22 of public financing that I DON'T helps determine viability.

          No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. - Edward R. Murrow

          by CrazyHorse on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:28:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Two prong solutions (0+ / 0-)
        1. Bring down cost of campaign. Empower people and grassroot organisation. Stop using coporate media and expensive, yet useless consultant.
        1. Money has to be tied to vote. (one man one vote, limited amount of money)

        The rest is transparency. PAC, corporations, etc can do all uncoordinated media buy they want. who cares. Less and less people trust TV or use it as source of information.

        But I still think, coorporation should be permanently banned from politics. Democracy is about a person/people, not abstract legal body.

  •  Are there numbers for the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Plays in Traffic, jj32

    lesser Republicans - Brownback, Hunter, Huckabee?

  •  It might not just be a question of intensity... (0+ / 0-)

    ...if the Pew poll is to be believed.

    "A triviality is a statement whose opposite is false; a great truth is one whose opposite is another great truth." -- Niels Bohr

    by Autarkh on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:44:13 AM PDT

  •  And the major sources ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iddybud, jct

    ...of all this cash?

  •  I'm psyched! (7+ / 0-)

    I'm such a politics geek - so I have to break in here to say that I see that this is going to be an exciting and historic campaign - and Democrats are pumped - with more than just cash, thanks to the greatly improved and educated grassroots on the Dem side - but the cash always helps!

  •  they still have the TV media (6+ / 0-)

    and Print Media.  We have done a decent job of tackling the print media, but I think we need a plan to deal with the nonsense that gets said on TV day after day.

  •  voting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    machines & surpressing the vote. just sayin'.

  •  I can't believe (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, Dave Montoya, Akonitum

    that Biden raised $3 million.

  •  Better Investment... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CCSDem, Akonitum

    That's great that the candidates raised so much money for their campaigns.  But based on experience, let's hope they use the money wisely, too.  Fewer TV ads and more grassroots staffers.  And while we're at it, hopefully, donors will also support the progressive infrastructure, including bloggers.

  •  Brownback (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jake Nelson, polecat, CCSDem

    Sam Brownback raised $1.9 million, though about $575k was from his Senate campaign.

    "But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country" -- Al Gore

    by PhiloTBG on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:48:02 AM PDT

  •  I just hope we are able to use (6+ / 0-)

    our cash to beat the republicans in 2008, not beat up on ourselves. I could easily see Hilary spending huge bucks trashing Obama and Edwards.

    I have my preferences among the Dems but I mostly care that neither Giuliani, McCain, Romney or Gingrich (or really any of the announced Repub candidates) becomes President.

    We must be in a position to undue the damage to our reputation and Constitution as quickly as possible.  

    •  Yeah, I'd hold my powder (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jake Nelson, SkiBumLee, jct, vivycakes

      on Edwards' chances. It's quite possible that after Hillary and Barack get through with each other, Edwards will slowly rise up in the polls. He's actually in a good position right now.

      •  If Hillary even attempts to go after (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eartha, Akonitum

        Obama with such a fury, she can kiss what's left of her African American support goodbye!

        •  It's already started (0+ / 0-)

          Barack is a serious threat to HRC, one she can't afford to ignore. He's shrinking her base of support. She has to go after him. Now I'm not talking necessarily about the kind of attack politics the Repubs seem to enjoy so much, but she will go after him about his lack of policy positions, try to play on his lack of experience, and poke at every weakness she can find. Obama has shown, at least IMO, a surpising bite when it comes to attacking back. In fact, I'm wondering if this may not turn out to be his Achilles heel. He's sharp-witted and sharp-tongued, and sometimes this doesn't play well in politics. Bob Dole comes to mind. I'm keeping my position open for now.

    •  Not likely (0+ / 0-)

      I could easily see Hilary spending huge bucks trashing Obama and Edwards.

      It's political idiocy for frontrunners to go negative.  Right now, Hillary is the frontrunner--that may (and probably will) change, but I think it's more likely at this point that Obama or Edwards will go negative on Hillary in an effort to get on top.  More likely, but not very.  I really see this playing out as a really positive, but competitive campaign.  

      (Also, all signs are pointing to a greater percentage of Hillary's money being earmarked for the general election, which means she can't use it trashing Obama and Edwards)

      "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

      by LiberalVirginian on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:42:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She will probably go positive negative. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LiberalVirginian, eartha

        Something like she has been doing i.e.  'Hillary Clinton has the experience other candidates lack'.  So she hits Obama and Edwards while pushing herself.

        They had fangs; they were biting people. They had this look in their eyes. Totally cold... animal. I think they were Young Republicans.

        by msstaley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:10:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep, that would be very Clintonesque. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Actually I believe Hillary will do whatever the high-priced advice team tells her to.  And that may be her undoing.  The Democratic Beltway insiders haven't done much right.

          Edwards and Obama do best when they go with their instincts.

          Other than Hillary on the Iraq War, I'm actually pretty close to the Clinton's on policy.  But I think they have the unfortunate tendency to try to be too smart for their own good.  The Republican meme that there is no moral substance there actually resonates with me (a little bit, anyway).

          For example, I don't care much about the blowjob, but Bill's insistence on lying about it showed alack of judgment about the downside of lying and about the likelihood of getting caught.

          Hillary's stance on the War and her inability to deal effectively with the responsibility for her vote show a political calculation which is wrong and   concerning.

          I'd love Bill to be Sec of State though.

  •  Edwards outriased McCain. (12+ / 0-)

    No wonder McCain's people are floating that skin cancer story on Drudge.

  •  a question and a comment. (0+ / 0-)

    We don't know cash-on-hand numbers though, do we?

    Also, when looking at those numbers figure in the $10 million Hilary transferred from her Senate campaign fund.

    Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

    by Joe Bob on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:49:51 AM PDT

  •  You're wrong Kos (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, eartha, vivycakes

    The GOP is a very disciplined party, sticking to core messages very very well.  We underestimate them at our own risk.

    We Dems are not nearly as disciplined, focused or organized as a whole.  Sure, right now they are in disarray. But when they have something -- or someone -- to unite against, they can be a terrifying force.  I guarantee you they will unite after the primaries.

    Also, they still have Faux News, Drudge and the entire noise machine at their disposal, not to mention all the think tanks and unlimited corporate funds.  

    So we need more than cash.  We need discipline.  We need messaging.  We need marketing.

    Check out for some awesome tips on how to better get our message out.

  •  $MONEY$ (0+ / 0-)

    And the GOP thought all those Halliburton profits would be returned to them.

    That's the true harbinger of spring, not crocuses or swallows returning to Capistrano, but the sound of a bat on a ball. ~Bill Veeck

    by MikeBaseball on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:50:09 AM PDT

  •  Very pleased with Obama's haul (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    berith, baltimoremom, eartha, jj32, ShadowSD

    and I hope that takes some of the luster off of HRC's "inevitable" claim.

  •  Obama and Romney's new donors (9+ / 0-)

    These two candidates are bringing new donors into play -- African-Americans and Mormons. I have been to a fundraising event for Obama and 75% of those in attendance were African-American and they said that they've voted in the past, but never got involved like this before. Where I live we have a lot of Mormons and like African-Americans they are ecstatic of the prospect of a Mormon president. New donors identifying with their candidate through culture and faith.

  •  The electorate is no longer (0+ / 0-)

    watching from the sidelines.

    We all see that everything we do adds up to beating the seemingly invincible republicans.

    These numbers show that we are still hungry and not yet complacent.

  •  does anybody have donor numbers? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That would also be an interesting match up.  I'm especially wondering what Romney's donor total is.  I saw kos' mention that Obama came in at 100k donors, but haven't seen the others (Hillary's seems to be about half that, extrapolating from kos' post below) or aggregates by party yet.

    Jorge's a renegade; there's blood on his hands, oil in his arteries and cyanide inside his glands...

    by nailbender on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:51:25 AM PDT

  •  Obama has just begun (5+ / 0-)

    I think, he's just starting to begin this campaign for America.

    I still hope Gore or Clark come in. =)

    "I have not yet begun to fight!" --John Paul Jones, Father of the United States Navy

    by Dave Montoya on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:51:57 AM PDT

  •  This puts Barack Obama in the Serious Level...... (8+ / 0-)

    I am not surprised he raised that kind of money.  I am surprised that he is on a par with Hillary.  Why, the Main Stream Media acts like she already got the nomination.  This tells us the people ARE looking for something different.

  •  dems have such an advantage this cycle (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    berith, eartha, NC Dem, txdemfem, ShadowSD, Mardish

    I'M a big Obama guy but I also think Edwards would do real well in  a general as well, the only possable way dems could screw this up is to nominate Hillary in which the whole 2008 race would inevatably come to be about her, whether she's too polarizing, whether dynasty's are good, whether Bill keeps his pants on, Hillary bakeing cookies comment will be rehashed and on and on, If 2008 is about the issues we'd kill em and either Obama or Edwards would be a great messager for our ideas.

    this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

    by nevadadem on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:55:31 AM PDT

  •  Now I am in awe (10+ / 0-)

    I hate to put a damper on anyone's wet dream of their favorites' candidacy, but is it only me who thinks this kind of money is obscene? We are 9 1/2 months away from the first primary vote cast, a year and a half away from the general election and already we have given as much money to less than 20 people than would take to feed a third world country or pay for all the seniors medical bills. I think it is a source of shame that our country elects their leaders this way.

  •  Kerry Didn't Outraise Bush in 2004 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kitebro, ameri, ShadowSD, Akonitum

    Let's not be too optimistic and dismissive of the big-money interests that control the GOP.

    2004 Fundraising Totals (From Open Secrets)
    George Bush: $367,228,801
    John Kerry: $328,479,245

    "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

    by LiberalVirginian on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:56:54 AM PDT

    •  Kos claimed Kerry Outraised Bush? (0+ / 0-)

      what a n00b.

    •  Actually, I find it even more encouraging (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      when I read reports about the Repubs panicking. Frank Lutz (Repub pollster) says the Republican brand is dead. Robert Novak says that they're panicked, now apparently Repub senators have said Bush has until August to show progress in Iraq, or they're going to bail on him. I love to read reports of how the Repub Party is sinking. Lutz says their brand is probably dead for at least a decade. To me, it's not a question of whether or not our next president will be a Dem, just who. We're gonna win, folks. (And then we need to work on the influence of cash and corporate lobbyists on our gov't, but I'm enjoying my minute of hubris too much to think about that now.)

  •  Visually (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peace voter

    Let's see if this works. We can see some clusters

    <font color=blue>Clinton - $26</font>
    <font color=blue>Obama - $25</font>

    <font color=red>Romney - $23</font>

    <font color=red>Giuliani - $15</font>
    <font color=blue>Edwards - $14</font>

    <font color=blue>Richardson - $6

    Dodd - $4
    Biden - $3</font>

    <font color=red>Huckabee - $.5</font>

    A fanatic is a man who does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the case.

    by nightsweat on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:58:32 AM PDT

  •  Good News ... but.... (0+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately, they still own the U.S. News Media and all those pundit TV & Radio shows that deliver and form the day-by-day perceptions of American politics.

    We need a nation-wide, progressive "USA Today" style Newspaper and progressive representation on the damn television itself.

    I don't how we do that when even "Air America Radio" has been largely taken off the airwaves by Clear Channel stations.

    Internet TV, if that catches on, may be the only refuge....

    •  They didn't do too well last year. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Do you kids like to use the World Wide Interweb?

      by kitebro on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:34:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Missed the point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kitebro, eartha

        With about 7 catastrophic disasters running side-by-side simultaneously, even the Media the way that it is could not prevent the GOP from losing seats.

        But they did still help keep Joe Lieberman in power and squelch any real public discussion about 18,000 lost Democratic votes that "decided" FL-13.

        We are still fighting an uphill fight, when the Media environment is stacked heavily against us.

        In a reality-based, objective Media environment, George W. Bush would have been at 29% in the polls back in 2003-2004 and never even gotten remotely close to re-election in 2004.

  •  Message Trumps Money (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Kerry outraised Bush in 2004. Democrats came close to achieving fiscal parity in 2006 (while the DSCC crushed the NRSC).

    Kerry lost in 2004 with more $, Democrats won in 2006 with more $ the DSCC gained only the slimmest majority in 2006 with a crushing $ advantage, and the underfunded DCCC crushed their Republicy rivals in the election.

    Of course the money is necessary, but not sufficient. And if the message is diluted in order to raise the money, it's not worth it. Because the message wins the race, even if the message is "I'm not as bad as the other guy".

    Reducing the costs of elections should be the #1 priority of Democratic election reform. In their interests, in the country's interest, even in the interest of Republicies and their party, if it is to become something other than a cancer on the body politic. In fact, that is a terrific message that shouldn't cost so much to promote.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 09:58:39 AM PDT

  •  The more important numbers (6+ / 0-)

    are the number of donors to each campaign.  When the number of donors is small, it means people are tapping out their maximum donations.  Smaller donations from a wider net of people can be translated into ongoing donations in the months ahead.  This is why Romney and Obama are ahead of the pack right now- despite Clinton's $1 million advantage in the first quarter.  
    Look for Obama to keep the momentum up going into Q2

  •  Kucinich? (0+ / 0-)

    Has anyone seen any numbers for Kucinich?

    I'd love to see numbers not only for dollar amounts, but also for numbers of contributors for ALL of the candidates.


  •  Question about the general election (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    There's all this talk about the money raised for the primary vs money raised for the general. If a candidate does not get the nomination, can they give their general election money to the nominee?

  •  $27 million more raised by the Democratic side = (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kitebro, meowmissy, Akonitum, Mardish


  •  My guess on 2nd quarter (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jake Nelson, SkiBumLee, eartha, Akonitum

    Obama will be on top.  He's got 100,000 donors and most of them can repeat.

    Edwards will improve, coming close to Hillary or possibly even edging her out.  He's got improving poll numbers and is increasing his base.

    Hillary will struggle to raise donations and do respectably but her base won't increase much.

    Richardson will surge in his donations and go into the 8 figs.  He hasn't even got the ball rolling yet.

    The rest either drop or drop out.  Not worth mentioning.

    •  I wonder how many of Hillary's maxed out. nt (0+ / 0-)

      Happy little moron, lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, my God, perhaps I am! -- Spike Milligan

      by polecat on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:11:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The thing about Richardson (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jake Nelson, phenry

      is that he started from scratch in January; all the money he raised for his race for governor did not transfer over to the Presidential race, as Hillary, Obama or Edwards could have.

    •  Totally disagree (0+ / 0-)

      Clinton will step it up with Bill out there 24-7, McAuliffe will be working 24-7 as fundraising Hoover, Richardson is totally toast. Edwards will probably remain a strong third. The first quarter spells the direction of the race, and the order of the front runners. Obama will probably remain a close second and give Hillary a real race. The others are toast.

    •  Totally disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hairy Legs

      Hillary will step it up in Q2 with Bill out there 24-7 with his new book, McCauliffe will be doing the Hoover Fundraising Machine 24-7, and Obama will remain a close 2nd giving her a real race - that she wasn't counting on initially.  Edwards will remain a close 3rd, and Richardson is toast.  The others are toast too. And I don't see other real players like Gore or Clark getting in at this point.

      •  "Remain a close third?" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        What the hell are you talking about? 14M is not a close third.

        I love this place. One day it's Obama just "lost the framing battle" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean), then his fundraising is "Democratic energy." Heads I win, tails you lose.

    •  2nd quarter? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The end of the second quarter is miles down the road and beyond our ability to predict anything of substance.  

      About all we know now about Q2 is when it will end.  (And the Rethugs don't even know that--it's too close to all that icky science and math stuff for them.)

      •  I predict that for the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kaos Klerik

        second quarter Hillary will raise $50 million, Edwards will raise $30 million, and Barack will raise $100 million.  Rudy will raise $25 million, Romney will raise $15 million, and McCain will drop out and endorse Fred Thompson.

        They had fangs; they were biting people. They had this look in their eyes. Totally cold... animal. I think they were Young Republicans.

        by msstaley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:35:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fred Thompson (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I don't know how many of you check out conservative blogs but basically the reason Republicans aren't thrilled with this seasons crop of candidates is they are too liberal.  There are no real sparks being generated on the Republican side becuase the conservatives feel Romney, Rudy or McCain will knuckle under to the Democrats.  Romney seems to have shifted his position on abortion just in time to run [incidently Gore did the same thing in reverse many years ago], Rudy is a social liberal and McCain has stabbed his own party in the back too often.

          If Thompson turns out to be the candidate I think he could be then he'd clobber Hillary, Obama, or Edwards.

          How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could get welfare?

          by Kaos Klerik on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:38:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think that any (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kaos Klerik

            Republican is doomed for 2008, but Thompson is probably the one who could make it a real race.

            They had fangs; they were biting people. They had this look in their eyes. Totally cold... animal. I think they were Young Republicans.

            by msstaley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 03:40:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If only... (0+ / 0-)

              ...Republicans had 3 major TV networks (like ABC, CBS or NBC), and the major papers (like the NYTimes, WasPost, LAtimes, CHicSunTimes, etc.) which would run 5-6 negative stories about Democrats for every one they run about Republicans during the '08 campaign instead of the 5-6 negative Republican stories for every negative Democrat story as they did in the '06 campaign.  

              The Washington Post didn't even try to disguise their pogrom against Allen...

              By Election Day, 112 Post news stories and editorials had used the word "macaca." But that wasn’t enough. Then came the truly shaky allegations that Allen used the "N-word" during his college days in the 1970s. Still that wasn’t enough. Stories that young Allen stuffed deer heads into the mailboxes of black folks for laughs were deemed as newsworthy history and not merely as hearsay. Reporters like Shear acknowledged that the accusers were Democratic partisans, but that didn’t stop them from spreading them around. Rumors were king; and the "defensive crouch" was established.

              ...Then Allen gave an interview and complained about the treatment of "his people," the Scotch-Irish rednecks: "Towel-heads and rednecks became the easy villains in so many movies out there." Towel-heads? Clearly this was another Macaca moment, more evidence of Allen’s racist proclivities.

              But wait a moment. It wasn’t Allen. The man who made those comments was his opponent, Jim Webb. So how did our objective, fair-minded Washington Post react? Reporter Libby Copeland quickly related that Webb called later to lament, "I used the words that are used to stereotype them...I’m really upset if this is going to end up being the guppy that eats the whale here." And that was that. The Post’s treatment of Jim Webb was so favorable you wondered how the reporters could finish their articles on time after all the fainting spells of awe.

              ...but they sure acted surprised when he lost

              With a shockingly false faux-objective voice, the Post printed a headline on Nov. 10 declaring it was a "stunning breakdown," as if it was uninvolved. Reporter Michael Shear declared that Allen's jovial farewells were odd, since "the relentlessly cheery politician who was an up-and-comer in the national GOP spent most of the fall during his campaign against challenger James Webb in a defensive crouch, trying to deflect accusations that, down deep, he is a bully or a racist."

              What Shear failed to mention was that it was a defensive crouch against relentless bullying by the Post. They beat him up, stole his lunch money and now are pretending they were little angels who had nothing to do with the assault.
              ~ Source

              Hell, I'd be happy if it was just even.

              How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could get welfare?

              by Kaos Klerik on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 02:17:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Please... (0+ / 0-)

      80% of Hillary's donators gave $100 or less. They can very well donate again too! I was one of those donators, and I will probably donate about 3 more times in the primary!

      Plus, when you factor Bill in... I think this is a VERY bad prediction.

      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of the truth than lies." - Nietzsche

      by Hairy Legs on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:32:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Primary vs. General breakdown? (0+ / 0-)

    I know that of Edwards' $14M, $13M is for the primary.  What about Hillary?  Obama?  Romney, Giuliani, McCain?

    That should speak a lot to the breadth of appeal especially if certain [ultra-rich] people contributed twice -- maxed out Primary and then maxed out General.  

    Happy little moron, lucky little man. I wish I was a moron, my God, perhaps I am! -- Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:10:44 AM PDT

  •  Wow look at the post toasties... (0+ / 0-)

    Biden is sooo toast, but we knew that.  This race is called so  

  •  Republicans don't need as much money (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kitebro, Akonitum

    as Democrats in the general election.   You wrote:

    And when Republicans can't drown us with cash, they've got little else to work with.

    The Republicans still have:

    • their Lies,
    • the parrots in corporate media who repeat their Lies for free,
    • a loyal following of lemmings who love tax cuts, no matter what the future cost of those cuts will be,
    • and the Christianist churches (many of them are simply businesses with ministers who have figured out how to get rich preaching a particular brand of religion)
  •  And we represent the bottom two thirds . . . (0+ / 0-)

    of the economic scale.  They can't even get Paris and The Donald-types to fund them anymore.

    •  The tech and financial industries have (0+ / 0-)

      created a new group of Democrats that actually have money.  For example, the Microsoft millionaires here in WA.  Of course, there is always the growing gap between Democrats and Publicans among the rich in Hollywood.  I think the lack of Publican concern for AIDS and the environment did them in over the years there.

      They had fangs; they were biting people. They had this look in their eyes. Totally cold... animal. I think they were Young Republicans.

      by msstaley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:38:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The other side of the coin (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eartha, Akonitum

    We know now how much money was raised, but how the money is spent is much more important.  If the Democrats spend the money bashing each other, then we have a diminishing asset (it would be better if the donations were lower).  If the Democrats spend it promoting themselves (hey, they aren't running because their wallflowers) or promoting Democratic goals, it is an appreciating asset.

    I have my favorite (Obama), but I realy hope that all the candidates resist the temptation to attack their opponants. I understand that it is really too much to ask, but I can hope.

    •  It's a contest after all.. (0+ / 0-)

      Of course the frontrunners are going to attack each other...they are in it to win. They aren't going to sit around the camp fire singing kumbaya together. I don't really consider it attacking - it's called contrasting...i think everyone needs to grow a little tougher skin here.

      •  I am reminded of the Kennedy ads on Carter (0+ / 0-)

        Ted Kennedy, when he ran in the primary against Jimmy Carter had a compelling speech: "NO MORE INFLATION.  NO MORE GAS LINES; NO MORE JIMMY CARTER!!!" (I can't vouch for the exact words)

        I never actually saw the speech, but it was displayed prominently in Reagan ads during the general election campaign.  

        If we spend the $78 million on attacks like this, it makes the job so much tougher in November.  I know that campaigns are going to compete vigorously against each other.  I'm just saying...the campaigns are going to be tactical (its the nature of the game).  We need to be strategic and keep our eye on the ultimate goal.

  •  Just for the heck of it (0+ / 0-)

    I want to note that the people of Illinois "contribute" two billion a year to the coffers of gaming entities.

  •  Factually incorrect, according to Open Secrets. (6+ / 0-)

    Kos, what are you basing this statement on?

    Kerry outraised Bush in 2004.

    Kerry did NOT outraise Bush in '04.

    Bush: $271 million raised.

    Kerry: $227 million raised.

    That's nearly a $50 million dollar difference in individual contributions.  It isn't even close.  And PAC money had little to no effect.


    I'm not ready to make nice.

    by wmtriallawyer on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:20:31 AM PDT

  •  NPR had a Gingrich comment (0+ / 0-)

    He said that money seems to only fund consultants and consultants are very cautious.  He talked about the costs of focus groups led by the consultants and how hard it was to just develop a message using consultants.  (And of course I am paraphrasing.)  Now while Gingrich is not my favorite person, I was interested in what he had to say.  We know that beltway consultants are NOT our friends.  How much of that funding will go to Carville and how much to grass roots building?  Dean showed us that it is the latter that will take us to the winners' circle!!!

  •  Hillary raised $10M in the last 10 days of Q1 (4+ / 0-)

    ...after she realized how well Obama was doing, and decided to send Bill Clinton out to do full-time fundraising.  Now that Bill's new book is done, the plan is for him to devote almost all his efforts to fundraising.

    Obama's numbers are mind-blowing.  I'm a die-hard Hillary supporter, but I'm glad the Dems have such a strong field of candidates this year.  The Force is strong in this young Jedi, Obama!

    Putting People First // Hillary 2008

    by Timothy McIntyre on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:22:59 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't Hillary's total include transfers (0+ / 0-)

    from her senatorial campaign?

    •  No. (0+ / 0-)

      $10M transferred.

      $26M raised, Q1.  Probably broken down:
        $5-7M for general election ONLY.
        $19-21M for primaries.

      $36M total

      $29M-$31M for primary race.

      "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

      by ogre on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:10:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's not just money: these are the first votes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ogre, ShadowSD, Akonitum

    And here's another tasty morsel: With the presumptions all running against the GOP, it takes more money to change minds than reinforce minds made up.

    Early signs, and a slowing economy, and a turgid Iraq policy,and scandals continuing and expanding, all point to a very rough 19 months for Republicans between now and November 2008.

    I do not want the destruction of the Republican Party, but that's sure the Hell what Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay helped to engineer.

    "With great power comes great responsibility." -- Stan Lee

    by N0MAN1968 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:29:53 AM PDT

    •  Momentum is in our direction (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      N0MAN1968, Akonitum

      I agree with NOMAN - all these points indicate a Dem win. It's not just an event, it's a trend with momentum continually pointing to the Democrats.  It will take a lot for the Repugs to turn this around, and they don't even have a strong candidate.  Any of our front runners look a heck of a lot better.  PLUS things don't look good for the R's through the election.  Waxman will have a constant barrage of investigations, there's so much to investigate.  Now maybe FDA, that nothing positive on the Repugs will be present.  My biggest concern is the media, I am noticing CNN lately really bashing the Dems and directing the spin in favor of the Repugs.  Especially on Anderson Cooper.  I am wondering why seems really blatant right now.  

      •  Thanks -- I think numbers support a trend (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Especially in the "right track/wrong track" and "approve/disapprove" polls. Both sides of the spectrum tend to total up into the 90s, percentile-wise. That means there is very little indecision about where this country is after so much Republican hard-liner rule, and the weight of the majority, in fact, a super-majority, is that it's time to give the keys to the D's. And the 2006 successes at the state level just reinforces it; I saw it coming back when the R's were winning locally, mainly on the tax issue and little else.

        All that GOP money, and even the media slant, is a waste. I don't see what the GOP can do in 19 months (18 3/4's!) to turn it around. They can't move legislation, they can't win in Iraq, they can't hand out tax rebates, they can't squelch investigations,  they are going to lose a governorship (KY) and might not gain one to offset (LA) in 2007, and 2006 showed they can't even fix elections enough even with the Justice Department as their captive "strike force" to offset this massive wave of public opinion.

        Eventually, even the media is going to start playing for ratings and recognizing they are going to have to deal with Democrats everywhere. If (when?) that happens, book it: The 2008 election is over.

        I'm not trying to be overly optimistic. I think of myself as a realist. I knew when Bush "won" in 2001, and by the way he won, we were in for eight years of Hell. But I just can't make a case, try as I might, for a GOP turnaround. It's a political eternity until 2008's election but for the GOP, it looks like an eternity in the Seventh Level of Hell. Something massive has to happen to change that and I don't see where it comes from. Anything attempted that is "worse case" like an attack on Iran, only backfires on Rove et al.

        At this early stage, three things are possible: (a) Democratic super-majorities (veto- and filibuster-proof) in both chambers; (b) a Democratic president with an eight-year mandate; (c) both (a) and (b).

        "With great power comes great responsibility." -- Stan Lee

        by N0MAN1968 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:14:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agree with everything but the last sentence. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jake Nelson, N0MAN1968

      I want the GOP flushed.  A new party's needed.  Time for the GOP to go, as the Whigs went.

      "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

      by ogre on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:11:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We have to recognize the possibility of a split (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Something like what the Dems when through in 1968 with the "Wallace Democrats" who then became core to the GOP's "southern strategy" which is looking about as successful now as Dunkirk was for the Brits in WW II. As severe a drubbing in 2008 as in 2006 might bring about irrevocable differences between what I like to call "Eisenhower Republicans" (i.e., sane and sober) and the leaping screamers in the Deep South and their redoubts in the Northern Rockies, parts of the Great Plains and Alaska. Each pole with drift away from the other. If so, take it to the bank that the corporatocracy will see which way the wind is blowing.

        That's no way to remain a viable party.

        "With great power comes great responsibility." -- Stan Lee

        by N0MAN1968 on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:24:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Winning the Tour de President (5+ / 0-)

    I think Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all better off staying with the Peloton. Anyone who breaks away this year will likely crack. Let the smear machine and the breathless pundits split their attention so we won't be tired of our candidate before the primaries begin. I hope all 3 stay viable all year.

    P.S. does using an analogy to a race in France make me against the War on Terror? Just asking.

  •  Romney only raised $20.65 million. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hairy Legs, Akonitum

    His $23 million includes a personal loan of $2.35 million.  If his loan is going to be included in the total amount raised, then Hillary's $10 million rollover from her Senate campaign ought to be included in her total.  

    They had fangs; they were biting people. They had this look in their eyes. Totally cold... animal. I think they were Young Republicans.

    by msstaley on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:53:22 AM PDT

    •  Romney also not under fed campaign laws at start! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      msstaley, ShadowSD, Akonitum

      I posted at Captain Plaid on how Mitt Romney was able to use Alabama, Michigan, and Iowa's lax campaign funding laws to let some fat cats and others show him significant love well beyond the normal limits.  He banked big bucks this way.  I suppose he's added these funds to what he reported.  Here's the quote:

      Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, raised $7 million in several states, including Alabama, through political action committees before starting his presidential exploratory committee. Forming that committee then subjected him to federal election laws, which limit the amount individuals can donate to presidential candidates.

      from the Mobile Register reporting that further discusses Mitt's manipulations.

      "The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart." Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirans of Titan, 1959

      by Captain Plaid on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:11:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My god! You ignored Duncan Hunter! (0+ / 0-)

    Dis him again!

    "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

    by ogre on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 10:53:39 AM PDT

  •  Leftover cash? (0+ / 0-)

    Suppose that a candidate does not win the primary, what would happen with their campaign cash that was allocated to the general election?  Does it go back to donors?  To charity?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site