U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) David Seligman

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis
50%

40%

30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 04, 2007 06:36 PM UTC

Obama Raises $25 Million

  • 51 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols


From The Washington Post

Democrat Barack Obama raked in $25 million for his presidential bid in the first three months of 2007, placing him on a par with front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and dashing her image as the party’s inevitable nominee.


The donations came from an eye-popping 100,000 donors, the campaign said in a statement.


The figure was the latest evidence that Obama, a political newcomer who has served just two years in the Senate, has emerged as the most powerful new force in presidential politics this year. It also reinforced his status as a significant threat to Clinton, who’d hoped her own $26 million first quarter fundraising total would begin to squeeze her rivals out of contention.


The campaign reported that the figure included at least $23.5 million that he can spend on the highly competitive primary race. The Clinton campaign has yet to disclose how much they can use for the primary verses money that is designated for the general election.

Jason Bane, Kevin McCasky, Kevin McCaskey

Tweet
Share

Comments

51 thoughts on “Obama Raises $25 Million”

  1. He’s not my fav, but I’ll admit that is impressive.  He has done a good job so far.  I doubt he’ll be able to keep it up though.  I remember Howard Dean raised a record breaking 40 million over the the Internet in 03 and we all remember how much good that did him.  Seems Obama is working off the same play book.

    1. from Dean’s mistakes. I think he’s already making the right connections with the power players (remember, he delivered a key speech at the 2004 convention which is a good sign that he’s on their good graces). I believe Dean was something of an outsider which is why he didn’t have the support to go on and truly contend.

      1. I think Dean’s real problem wasn’t that he was an outsider (dems will go with outsiders-Carter, Clinton etc.), his problem was that he ran an incompetant campaign in Iowa and was never able to regain momentum.

        1. There won’t be a Primal Scream out of Obama, and he will be measured and thoughtful in his statements. He’s a tough, serious candidate and will be in the mold of John or Robert Kennedy in the upcoming presidential campaign.

          Meanwhile, the Republicans are just pathetic: they make Bob Dole in 1996 look pretty good by comparison.

          1. Dean had already blown a substaintal lead in IA and came in 3rd when the scream happened.  Dean lost because he couldn’t keep his story straight much the way Obama has been doing over his war funding comments.

                1. …..eventually it adds up to some real money.  Wasn’t it the late Republican Everett Dirkson (who may, or may not, have held the Senate seat currently occupied by Obama) who coined that phrase?

                  1. a quip something like that, but according to the Dirksen Center, they have not been able to actually find that quote or any variation any where in the archives.

                    I too had always thought he had said it, but your posting prompted me to try to track it down, and was surprised by what I found.

                    http://www.dirksence…

                    By the way, what I wouldn’t give to have a set of pipes like he had.

            2. she transfered 10 from her senate campaign and raised another 26 million this quarter.  She is probably spending a lot more then Obama and I’m sure a good chunck of her 26 million is for the general and the primary, but we’ll find out on the 15th.

        2. My measly donation is in there somewhere !  Mountain man, you are right about the whole potential for a Dean-like fizzle, but you have to admit its a very good start.

          1. He is off to an amazing start, but I’ve noticed the press loves to play this game where they build some up to an inhuman level only so they can spend the next several months or years tearing them apart.  Dean is only one of many examples here, in a lot of ways John Edwards got the same kind of treatment from the media in 03 as Obama is now, but it seems like the old saying is true “easy come easy go.”

            1. deny that.  The problem these days is that these campaigns are getting so long that all the candidates have an enormous challenge not to screw up in some way in front of a bunch of people.

              And for the record I do give Hillary credit for her record breaking numbers.  That is the genius of Terry MacAuliffe.

            2. He’s an extraordinarily gifted speaker, stays on an even keel, and has a lot of appealing characteristics. Whereas it was Dean’s emotional expressiveness that both won him and lost him popularity, Obama manages to combine the ability to make emotional appeals with the ability to appear completely grounded while doing so. That combination is powerful stuff.

      2. Because, from what I’ve read, his $25M came from 100,000 supporters, while her $26M came from 50,000 supporters. In the end, votes, not dollars, win races. Let’s hope it forever remains so.

        1. of likely voters Obama was in third.  Odds are most of his donors may be voters but they are probably voters in the bluest of blue states so I wouldn’t count on them pushing him over the top.

            1. Hillary raised more then Obama so by your logic she is winning???  I think John McCain & Howard Dean would disagree with your theroy seeing how they were the big money winners before and it didn’t do them any good.

    2. Obama could well be in first place for contributions for the primary. We don’t know how much of Hillary’s money is for the general.  Also he got his in the form of twice as many contributions, many of them smaller.  That means he has more room to get more money from more of his donors where many of Hillary’s donors are already maxed out.

      Also, Hillary’s money machine was supposed to be unrivaled.  That makes this quarter much better news for Obama than for Hillary.  Not that this means Obama is unstoppable but it DOES mean that Hillart is NOT inevitable and inevitability was her strongest point. 

      This race is far from over, and not just for Clinton and Obama.  Edwards got all but about 1 million of his 14+ for the primary and also has a lot of small donors and very good position for Iowa and New Hampshire.  There’s room for many more ups, downs and surprises for both Ds and Rs for some time to come. 

      1. I won’t go down the whole list of what makes HRC and Obama exceptional presidential candidates but they ain’t middle aged white men.  Fund raising:  HRC did what was expected.  Her money probably came from normal D contributors big and small.  They have contributed in the past and will contribute in the future.  Obama did better than anyone expected.  His funds probably came from younger folks who are most likely making their first political contribution.  My experience is that those folks are hard sells to make additional future contributions unless their candidate absolutely catches fire in a bottle (burns bright and hot).

        HRC’s campaign is established and in place.  They will have the ad game and the ground game.  Obama will rely on exactly what got contributions…excitement over the new guy.  Can he sustain excitement for 8 months?  It’s tough.  Of course, neither of them can afford to make a big mistake. 

        I like well thought out, prepared and contemplative over ” hey, kids, let’s put on a show!!!!!” excitement. 

        First quarter fund raising won’t separate the field this year. Second quarter now becomes the the new first quarter.

        It’s going to be a long slog with many twists and turns.

  3. They both have such high expectations on both of them that really the only place they can both go is down.  The real question will be who gets there first.

    1. Can Romney catch either of them?

      When will Rudy fall from his perch?

      If the Dems are raising the vast majority of their funds from the grassroots, are the Republicans going to raise their funds from W’s base (the elitist), and will that message go over well in middle america?

      I think we have lots of questions to ask over the next 10 months.

        1. well, Mitt hasn’t caught on with the public like Obama, Clinton, Rudy and (somewhat) McCain.

          He did raise some eyebrows with his campaign coffers this quater. It will be interesting to see.

          I wonder what will happen with the Thompsons and Hagel?

    2. Collectively, the Dems outraised the Rs by $27 million  – $78 million to $51 million. Hillary and Obama just spanked a full array of middle to old-aged white men vying for the Republican nomination. I do believe the nation has turned a corner.

      The only people right now more scare that Hillary’s folks are the GOP operatives.

      Grab the popcorn, this is going to be fun.

      2.   Speaking of which, has anyone seen Gecko post on here since Hillary was crowned as the “$26 million Woman”? (or is it the “$36 Million Woman”?)
          He should be afraid…….very afraid!

  5. Always initeresting…that state.

    I know, it’s early and everything is “fluid”…could be milk or could be like my Dad would say, “Why are you pissing down my neck trying to convince me it’s rain?!”

    Al Gore has the highest approval rating in California. He’s not running, and someone should let the left coasters know that. Edwards is second with an 83% approval, and the lowest disapproval at 6%, but 11% have no opinion of him. Hillary isn’t hated there as much as she is nationwide where she’s in the mid forties (including GOPers) disapproval. Among CA Dems, only 19% are sick and tired of her, and 76% approve, 5% no opinion. 16% don’t know about Obama there, while he has a 73% to 11% approval/disapproval ratio.

    Here’s the problem with California right now, however. Not only is Gore “winning” there even though he hasn’t raised a dime for a run, nor done anything in the state but collect an Oscar, but the large hispanic vote just doesn’t seem to be polling anywhere near reality. Richardson, the nation’s first legitimate hispanic candidate is polling statewide at only 4% (and that leads all the other “second tier” candidates).

    The biggest blowout for Clinton is in California’s Latino voters where she racks up the numbers by a margin of 59% to 18% over Obama in second place.
    That just ain’t gonna hold. The only thing I can make out of the California numbers is that Californians aren’t taking this primary thingy too seriously, yet.

    Right now, the polls mean nothing when it comes to predicting who will “win.” But they are very important in influencing who can win, who’s moving in the right direction, and who is viable/electable — and who isn’t.
    Okay, now that the disclaimer is out of the way, Check This OUT!

    John Edwards has received a surge of support in North Carolina in the last month:
    • Edwards 39%
    • Clinton 25%
    • Obama 20%

    Clinton slips, Edwards climbs in New Hampshire poll
    • 27% of likely Dem voters choose Clinton, down from 35%
    • Edwards is the choice of 21%, up from 16%
    • Obama slips into third, but in statistical tie with Edwards

    The New Hampshire shift is serious news. That is, if you believe that when journalists put out polls for the purpose of reporting on them, instead of reporting on, you know …. actual events, you can call it news. But I’ll take it. This is the first time Edwards comes in second in New Hampshire, and the first time Hillary isn’t leading the state by double digits.

    1. It really does seem like a three way race.  And I would be happy with any of the three.  I’ve never been in such a happy situation before.  🙂

      I would be amazed if Californians *were* concentrating on the primary yet.  I think only us obsessive sorts are thinking about this much now.  Why do you think latinos won’t support Hillary?

    2. Money will never hide triangulation – which everyone thinks of with HRC, Hopefully Obama will recognize this sooner than later. I am glad he has taken the wind out of HRC’s fundraising advantage, however, funds don’t equate into votes – polls are showing Edwards is going up while Clinton drops and Obama stays the same. More importantly is the favorability vs unfavorability rating…

      The April 2, 2007 edition of the Rasmussen Reports has some good news for John Edwards.

      According to the report, of the eight Democrats in the report, John Edwards has the highest favorable rating.

      Favorable Ratings:

      John Edwards 57%
      Obama 54%
      Clinton 50%
      Clark 39%
      Biden 33%
      Richardson 32%
      Dodd 26%
      Kucinich 23%

      Unfavorable Ratings:

      Clinton 48%
      Obama 36%
      Biden 35%
      Edwards 35%
      Kucinich 33%
      Dodd 32%
      Clark 28%
      Richardson 27%

      This is alarming mostly for Clinton, she has 50% favorable and 48% unfavorable – no where to go but down.

    3. we have 4 very strong candidates any one of which also makes me proud to be a Democrat. It’s a good primary for us.

      Meanwhile, I think what really has the Repub’s scrambling is that they realize every candidate they have will lose in the general election. Forget the polls – they know when it gets to campaign season and Iraq is an even bigger mess, any one of those bozos loses.

  6. …that if you were to research WHO gave HRC and Obama their respective 25 million you would see a significant number who have maxxed to both candidates. It’s part of the political game… the significant groups and individuals on both sides are contributing heavily to more than one candidate.

    Rich people who can afford to do this consider it a “win-win” proposition.  🙂

    1. from the updated WashPost article:

      Obama surpassed Clinton in several areas that could be critical to their competition: He reported donations from 100,000 individuals, double the 50,000 people who gave to the former first lady. More than half of those donors, largely giving in small increments, sent money over the Internet. He raised $6.9 million online, compared with Clinton’s $4.2 million.

      The fact that many Obama donors contributed relatively small amounts also means that he will be able to appeal to those donors for additional contributions later in the campaign.

    2. All over the media yesterday; reports that 90% of Obama’s money came in contributions under $100.  Maybe it was $100 or less, but close enough.  He is definitely not maxed out.  The really big story is that so much can now be raised from small donors and that Ds so far surpassed Rs in fund-raising, a historic turn-around.

  7. This isn’t directed at Osama, the headline candidate, but at the media.

    I care far less about the $$$ foot race so much as I want to know where the money is coming from.  Hillary’s is from The Establishment, K Street, the DLC.  Yes, Obama is getting a lot of grass roots support, that’s much better.  Edwards is virtually all grass roots.

    Here is an excellent article on not just sources, but the philosophies of those three:  http://www.workingfo…

    David Sirota identified what has been bugging me about Obama: he has no platform.  It’s all about him.  And, apparently, that is his campaign strategy! 

    Of course I’ll vote for whomever the Dems select, but Hillary and Obama are not going to change much of anything.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

223 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols