Big Bucks

Ambinder can't copyright the facts so I'll steal the fundraising numbers from him -- $31 million for Obama, $9 million for Edwards, $7 million for Richardson, and an estimate of "about $20M in primary funds" for Clinton (who's also raising general election funds). Read Marc for analysis. He says the results "imposes an obligaton on all of us who cover the race: we need to figure out why the 'national' frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, isn't generating as much excitement as her chief competitior."

To me this isn't all that puzzling. Obama's supporters, though numerically fewer than Clinton's, are more drawn from the "high information" segment of the electorate that has both more money to donate and more inclination to do so. Donations would be a great proxy for intensity of support of you were looking at two demographically similar groups of people, but that's not the case here.

Comments

Two points:

First, low info voters are the least likely to vote in a primary. Certainly the national primary polls and even most of the state primary polls at this stage aren't only of likely primary voters -- a notoriously difficult group to discern in any case.

Second, low info voters are the most likely to change their preferences as the elections grow closer. The national primaries with Lieberman holding a sizable lead at this stage in 2003 should worry Clinton supporters. Clinton is different than Lieberman obviously. She actually has a real and sizeable constituency in the Dem party, plus she is an immensely superior politician. However, the fact remains that low info voters are likely to peel away as they learn more about the alternatives. On the filp side, it is difficult to imagine any significant gains for Clinton among those that do not now support her.

Clinton is in a tough position -- a front runner who doesn't have much room to go up. It'll be an endurance battle for her. Can she make it to the early primaries without losing too much support?

Posted by Brian | July 1, 2007 2:57 PM

Obama's supporters, though numerically fewer than Clinton's, are more drawn from the "high information" segment of the electorate that has both more money to donate and more inclination to do so.

That's probably true for what it's worth, but you make it sound like Clinton is drawing her contributions from regular working Joes, while Obama is taking from a small clique of elites. That's the opposite of reality. Clinton has so far been heavily dependent on $2300 and $4600 contributors (74% of last quarter's take, which is why a sizeable chunk of her fundraising has to be tagged for the general election). Obama, on the other hand, has breadth, drawing small contributions from more contributors. It may be true that, on average, Obama supporters have more disposable money than Clinton supporters, but Clinton contributors pretty clearly tend to be loaded, while Obama's supporters, in general, are not.

Posted by JB | July 1, 2007 3:07 PM

The most recent CBS News poll of Democratic primary voters shows Clinton 48%, Obama 24%, and Edwards 11%. Further, when asked if there is any candidate that you feel enthusiastic about, Clinton leads with 28%, Obama 22%, Edwards 2%.

In consideration of this, as well as her overwhelming dominance in the national polls, state polls, general election matchups, debate performances, and her $27.5 M, the real obligation of the press is to figure out why the press still clings to the belief that she is in trouble, at all?

Posted by JoeCHI | July 1, 2007 3:19 PM

I would be most interested to know how many of Obama's supporters are basing that support on his race. Among those, how many are blacks that will vote for black and how many are self-loathing whites that will vote black?

The question to be asked is if Obama were not half white and half black, would he have the same support?

Posted by Fred Jones | July 1, 2007 3:20 PM

JB,

I believe Matt means "Clinton supporters" as in that 30 some percent of the Democratic electorate that according to the polls supports her. Many of those seem to be low info voters, including those that do not have the interest or income to donate to a political campaign. Therefore she raises less total money and has less total contributors than Obama.

Matt apparently does not think that Obama's fundraising advantage is necessary as meaningful as Ambinder does for that reason. I think Matt is wrong though because number of donors at this stage is a decent proxy for voter intensity.

I'd be curious to see any evidence that low info voters actually have some sort of intensity for Clinton's campaign event though they can't afford to donate to it. The anecdotal evidence I am aware of certainly doesn't support that. And it only takes a brief look at historic polls this far out to show that Clinton's poll numbers don't necessarily reflect some high level of intensity of support for her campaign.

Posted by Brian | July 1, 2007 3:24 PM

Further, when asked if there is any candidate that you feel enthusiastic about, Clinton leads with 28%, Obama 22%, Edwards 2%.

I posted before reading this. Interesting. I haven't seen the poll.

This is at least some evidence of intensity of support for Clinton. I really don't think it can be overstated though that with how well Clinton is known her potential to move up is small to nil, while her potential to go down is substantial.

I think it is fairly obvious that Hillary is the frontrunner at this point. But those that see her as the inevitable nominee don't really understand the dynamics at this point.

Posted by Brian | July 1, 2007 3:27 PM

And Fred wonders why people complain about him?

"how many are blacks that will vote for black and how many are self-loathing whites that will vote black?"

Yeah, nobody could think of any reason to support Obama other than his race or because they loath themselves.

Posted by SteveH | July 1, 2007 3:36 PM

"overwhelming dominance in...general election matchups."

Um, what?

Posted by Scott Lemieux | July 1, 2007 4:06 PM

Warren Buffett recently told an interviewer that he would be happy with either Hillary or Obama as President. I wonder how many wealthy donors feel the same, or are leaning toward Hillary, but are funding Obama to gain some leverage over Hillary's platform? After all, Obama is the only viable threat to Hillary now (barring a late netroots challenger like Gore), and if Hillary doesn't hear any hooves pounding behind her, she might be less solicitous of the opinions of big money Dem donors.

Posted by Fred | July 1, 2007 5:07 PM

"Um, what?"

Low information Dems love Hillary.

Posted by Petey | July 1, 2007 6:22 PM

Clinton has so far been heavily dependent on $2300 and $4600 contributors (74% of last quarter's take, which is why a sizeable chunk of her fundraising has to be tagged for the general election).

Right. Clinton combines a broad base among downscale voters with a long-term devoted following among big-dollar political donors. Obama's base is the broad class of prosperous people. One assumes that were the cap at $5k, Clinton might have outraised Obama.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 1, 2007 6:31 PM

I know it's a holiday Sunday, but folks everywhere seem to be missing the news here.

It's not Obama's impressive total. We knew he was going to raise $30m. And it's been clear since early this year that he was going to be a fundraising colossus.

It's not Edward's expected total. We've known for a long time that he wasn't going to raise the kind of dollars the celebrity two were going to raise during all of 2007, and we've known that he'd still have his shot in the early states.

And it's not even that Hillary is in any structural trouble in the race. If she raises $20m a quarter to Obama's $30m a quarter, she'll be just fine come January and February. Dollars aren't votes.

It Is that Team Hillary isn't running on all cylinders as the well oiled, highly professional machine we've all been expecting.

Don't be surprised if Terry McAuliffe turns up dead in an alley somewhere.

I heard some rumblings that Team Hillary had been recently regretting that they hadn't made better efforts at picking up small donations, and while I didn't that seriously at the time - figured it was just lowering expectations - I guess it was entirely true.

There are problems in staffing in the Death Star. They've got enough low, medium, and high hanging fruit to pick from that they shouldn't be getting beat in fundraising in any quarter. They're the fucking Clintons and the Clintonistas.

Posted by Petey | July 1, 2007 6:39 PM

"I would be most interested to know how many of Obama's supporters are basing that support on his race. Among those, how many are blacks that will vote for black and how many are self-loathing whites that will vote black?"

When was the last time that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson ran this close to the frontrunner or generated this much hype?

Posted by Reality Man | July 1, 2007 6:41 PM

"One assumes that were the cap at $5k, Clinton might have outraised Obama."

Yup.

Stats from Q1:

Candidate Total Receipts Net Indiv Contribs % From Large Contribs $2,300 or more.

Dem
Clinton 68%
Obama 46%
Edwards 38%

------

If the primary cap were 5k, Clinton would indeed be doing better.

But as stated above, the thing I find remarkable is that Team Hillary isn't running a bundling operation capable of maximizing their donor network better.

Despite Barack's fundraising ease, they still shouldn't be getting beat. They just have to aggressively bundle. And the fact that they aren't should be a clue that the well oiled machine isn't.

Posted by Petey | July 1, 2007 6:51 PM

And I'd be remiss if I didn't note that the donation that put Edwards over the top of his $9m target was a $10 donation.

Gotta love that.

It's always better to have more money than less, but I'll take 100,000 individual donors at this point of the campaign and be pretty damn happy.

Posted by Petey | July 1, 2007 6:55 PM

Finally, I'll note that I'm pleased with the overall news.

This means that HRC will be too busy with Obama to focus attention on smothering Edwards in the crib.

And if Edwards can make it to February as a viable candidate, he's going to win the race.

Posted by Petey | July 1, 2007 7:03 PM

To me this isn't all that puzzling.

Me neither. Obama does very well indeed among affluent liberals. Much of Hilary's support comes from paycheck to paycheck types who can't afford to make campaign donations, period. This is nonetheless an extremely impressive accomplishment by Obama.

Posted by Jasper | July 1, 2007 7:07 PM

Donations of $50 or less made up 80 percent of Edwards' second- quarter total. Yowza!

Posted by Petey | July 1, 2007 7:10 PM

"Right. Clinton combines a broad base among downscale voters with a long-term devoted following among big-dollar political donors. Obama's base is the broad class of prosperous people."

A nicely succinct description of the dynamic at play.

Posted by Petey | July 1, 2007 7:20 PM

"When was the last time that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson ran this close to the frontrunner or generated this much hype?"

1988.

Posted by Petey | July 1, 2007 7:30 PM

It just occurred to me that I bet HRC's camp is now regretting spending $40m out of their $50m Senate re-election kitty.

They figured they could reward people because they'd be able to outraise their Presidential competition easily.

But I'd bet that right now they wish they'd kept $30m in reserve to xfer rather than $10m.

Posted by Petey | July 1, 2007 7:33 PM

"When was the last time that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson ran this close to the frontrunner or generated this much hype?"

"1988."

Considering how Sharpton has attempted to run since then, a 20-year gap isn't exactly indicative of supporting any random black politician. Sharpton ran in 2004 and was considered a joke.

Posted by Reality Man | July 1, 2007 8:30 PM

"Considering how Sharpton has attempted to run since then, a 20-year gap isn't exactly indicative of supporting any random black politician. Sharpton ran in 2004 and was considered a joke."

But Sharpton was never a serious candidate for the President.

-----

Moving back to Big Bucks, I think that as the first upscale African-American to run for President, Obama is obviously benefitting from an extreme fundraising response from the AA middle class.

Similarly, Romeny is getting an extreme fundraising response from the LDS community.

And since we mentioned 1988, Dukakis was able to establish himself as the consensus candidate due to an extreme fundraising response from the Greek-American community.

There are obviously other things going on. Obama's fundraising success is not only due to a response from the AA middle class. But in terms of fundraising, excitement around Obama's ethnicity is a huge part of what's helping him.

Posted by Petey | July 1, 2007 8:44 PM

“Among those, how many are blacks that will vote for black and how many are self-loathing whites that will vote black?”

You've just outed yourself as a genuine racist, possibly a white-supremacist, Fred. The only folks I know of who assume that, naturally, the only reason a white person would vote for a black person qua black person are strong racists. I mean this seriously, not as a rhetorical attack. You have some soul-searching to do—though, as in Yglesias's case, the effort might not produce very much...alas.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | July 1, 2007 8:48 PM

It occurs to me that both those who do understand my usage of qua and those who do not might misunderstand me, the former because they might assume it's a misuse.

I mean to refer to a white person who would vote for a black person because he's black, all other things being equal—which was crucial to Fred's argument.

I don't think that there's anything at all wrong with a white male voting for certain underprivileged-class candidates because they're underprivileged-class candidates, all things being close to equal—I certainly don't think it's a sign of "self-hate".

Our civil society will benefit strongly from having an underprivileged-class President.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | July 1, 2007 8:56 PM

When was the last time that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson ran this close to the frontrunner or generated this much hype?

Those BOZO professional race hustlers were largely uneducated.... especially Sharpton....and the time was not right. Now, there are segments , both black and white, that will back Obama, even though he has little experience, simply because of race......and I think it's a big, big issue especially amongst the 'progressives'. Race is absolutely the most important issue to them. They wish to 'Change the World' and will put him in office not because he is the best candidate, but to break a barrier. The well being of the US is secondary.
Obama didn't get all that money because he is that brilliant nor experienced. Name one thing, just ONE BIG THING that he has accomplished......

Thought so....

Posted by Fred Jones | July 1, 2007 10:24 PM

I think the low-information factor you identify is a huge element of this-- and that the strongest element of it is when you throw Al Gore (who can compete on name recognition) into the polling. He gets tons of support, but takes most of it from erstwhile Hillary backers. Whatever the merits of a Gore candidacy, I think it points to the idea that we're still at a point in the cycle defined by prior name recognition.

I've failed to find anyone who can explain to me just why a Clinton campaign ought to be "exciting" in any way shape or form. The excitement polling numbers surprise me.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | July 1, 2007 10:28 PM

Liberals were complaining heavily about Bush not having much military experience and Cheney having none. So, who running on the Dem ticket has that desperately needed experience that you so adamently complained that Bush didn't have?

It's a dangerous world and it's a big issue with a lot of voters.

Posted by Fred Jones | July 1, 2007 10:38 PM

Obama didn't get all that money because he is that brilliant nor experienced. Name one thing, just ONE BIG THING that he has accomplished......

A fucking Bush voter just said this..

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 1, 2007 10:38 PM

^^ Fred Jones: Obama did a lot of impressive work in the Illinois State Legislature, including passing landmark bills on ethics reform, death penalty reform, and health care. Though it's true he's never ran a business or government.

The thing is, though, voters don't really care about records. If they did, Richardson would be topping the primary polls right now, Obama would have very little support, and Edwards would have dropped out of the race. Voters mostly want a candidate that "shares their values" and "seems presidential." Competence and experience are disqualifers of support, not active producers of it.

Anyways, your assertion that "race is absolutely the most important issue" to progressives is pretty obviously wrong. Black support is about evenly divided between Obama and Hillary Clinton, who last I checked is a middle-aged white woman. As for non-black voters, race clearly does not matter very much. I will grant that Obama's blackness is a big advantage in terms of media coverage, but clueless journalists are not exactly the same thing as "progressives" or "voters."

"But in terms of fundraising, excitement around Obama's ethnicity is a huge part of what's helping him."
Is there any data backing this up? I'm curious, because it sounds plausible but it could also be wrong. Maybe the vast majority of his small donors are non-black.

Also, I'm not sure why you think the Clinton campaign is doing poorly fundraising-wise. They did raise $20 million for the primary in Q2, an objectively impressive number. It's not clear to me how they would have managed to raise $10 million more than that, which is what would be needed to match Obama's take. Again: that's $10 fucking million dollars in 3 months, more than Edwards's entire Q2 fundraising. Maybe Clinton could have done 4 or 5 million better, ideally.

The real problem, as I see it, is that small donors don't really want to donate to Clinton. I'm sure she's sent out all sorts of emails and letters. At the end of the day there's just not a lot of enthusiasm for her candidacy.

They're the fucking Clintons and Clintonistas, for sure. But it looks like Obama has become a powerful five-letter epithet as well.

Posted by Korha | July 1, 2007 11:00 PM

"So, who running on the Dem ticket has that desperately needed experience that you so adamantly complained that Bush didn't have? It's a dangerous world and it's a big issue with a lot of voters."

No one currently running on the Democratic side has executive experience except Richardson, who is unfortunately a loser. I'd love to support a charismatic governor with a military background, myself, but I can't since this fantasy candidate doesn't actually exist.

I'm an Obama supporter not because I think he's super experienced--he's not, and I worry he may not be ready. I am one because I don't like any of the other candidates, and because Obama has shown consistently good judgment and has the qualities I think a good president should have. It's pretty simple, there's not secret conspiracy here.

Posted by Korha | July 1, 2007 11:08 PM

"Also, I'm not sure why you think the Clinton campaign is doing poorly fundraising-wise. "

Because the Clinton's wholly owned the Democratic Party's fundraising apparatus for 15 years. They should be able to leverage that into outraising Jesus.

-----

"Is there any data backing this up? I'm curious, because it sounds plausible but it could also be wrong. "

I haven't seen any race breakdown of donors, and I'm pretty sure that isn't part of the FEC reports.

But my intuition is that AA middle-class donations are a huge part of this story. Seriously, if you're a 35yo AA lawyer, what are the chances you haven't thrown a few bucks Obama's way?

As with the Romney and Dukakis stories, being the first member of an identity group to make a respectable bid for the Presidency is a treasure trove for fundraising. And I'd bet there are more upscale AA's than upscale Greek-Americans.

But, as stated previously, that's not all that's going on. Obama is also tapping into the traditional wine-track donors as well. If you gave to the Bill Bradley campaign, you may well be giving to the Obama campaign. And that, obviously, has nothing to do with race.

Posted by Petey | July 1, 2007 11:31 PM

I would guess that plenty of Clinton supporters see that she's leading by double digits and don't feel the need to send her money at the moment. Whereas Obama supporters who believe in his charisma and new-kind-of-politics stuff think it will carry him past Clinton, if only he can raise enough money - that or they think HRC is the Antichrist and want to be a part of opposing armageddon.

I don't understand Petey's wheels-coming-off claim, given the recent problems in the other campaigns (D-Punjab, the narrative retooling from Edwards) and the reasonable arguments (such as the above) that the fundraising #s are simply structural.

Posted by rilkefan | July 2, 2007 12:16 AM

Time to recap (once again) the 5 most important issues facing America: fundraising tallies, focus groups, polling data, political consultant hirings/firings, and campaign strategies.

Posted by kafka | July 2, 2007 12:18 AM

"I don't understand Petey's wheels-coming-off claim"

Not my claim at all. I specifically claim the opposite.

Just saying that an organizational weakness has been revealed in Team Clinton. There's no 'structural' reason she should be getting outraised.

And that organizational weakness is interesting, considering that one of her perceived strengths has always been that she's got the Pros From Dover all working for her.

Posted by Petey | July 2, 2007 12:32 AM

Oops, wrong car metaphor - "isn't running on all cylinders".

"There's no 'structural' reason she should be getting outraised."

Begs the question.

Posted by rilkefan | July 2, 2007 12:38 AM

"Oops, wrong car metaphor - "isn't running on all cylinders"

I thought that when I wrote the following upthread, it would have been clear enough that I thought the actual money differential between Clinton and Obama wasn't a problem for the Clinton campaign:

If she raises $20m a quarter to Obama's $30m a quarter, she'll be just fine come January and February. Dollars aren't votes.

My point isn't that the HRC effort is falling apart. It's that one pillar of Hillary's nomination strategy is her quasi-incumbent status, and if she keeps letting herself get outraised, that pillar will fall.

As stated, there's no fundamental reason she should be getting outraised. It points to an organizational weakness, and it makes one wonder about the soundness of the rest of the organization.

Posted by Petey | July 2, 2007 12:53 AM

"it would have been clear enough"

Sure, I was just disagreeing with the specific claim - that is, the question you keep begging. It's not helpful to HRC for Obama to outraise her - that's nearly a tautology. If her campaign continues to run better than Obama's in most ways (setting aside this issue), "There are problems in staffing in the Death Star" followed by "had been recently regretting that they hadn't made better efforts at picking up small donations" will seem even more contradictory and beside the point.

"As stated, there's no fundamental reason she should be getting outraised."

So if I e.g. state repeatedly that Edwards is done, you'll believe it?

Posted by rilkefan | July 2, 2007 1:15 AM

"It's not helpful to HRC for Obama to outraise her - that's nearly a tautology"

Given your style of writing, I frankly don't have a clue what it is I'm writing that you're objecting to.

It seems obvious to me that Team Hillary hasn't been taking primary money as seriously as they needed to, going all the way back to way they pissed away the Senate re-election warchest.

This may not seem obvious to you, but whatever.

"So if I e.g. state repeatedly that Edwards is done, you'll believe it?"

You don't seem to have a particularly good clue about other political mechanisms, so why would I give your political assertions any credence? My authority comes from always being right, not from repetition.

Posted by Petey | July 2, 2007 1:26 AM

Petey - If Edwards doesn't win Iowa can you get him to return my $100?

Posted by Pat | July 2, 2007 1:50 AM

"Petey - If Edwards doesn't win Iowa can you get him to return my $100?"

Ya' buys yer ticket. Ya' takes yer chances.

Plus, I'd say you've still got $2,200 worth of headroom left to contribute before you get to complain about the results.

I'd suggest celebrating Meatless Tuesdays to save up pennies to send in.

Posted by Petey | July 2, 2007 1:57 AM

Matt,

How do you reconcile your recent post on independents (calling them low information) with this post calling Obama's supporters "high information", given that Obama draws most of his support from independents?

Posted by tib | July 2, 2007 9:13 AM

Methinks Petey doesn't know a lot of black people. They don't tend to be big political (or charitable) donors. They don't like parting with money generally, which is why anyone in the service business knows they tend to be lousy tippers. Obama's bucks aren't coming from middle class blacks, but from young affluent white liberals, who suffer from the delusion that electing a well-spoken, well-behaved black President will magically make average blacks well-spoken and well-behaved.

My guess is that liberals who are old enough to have voted for black mayors or governors aren't donating to Obama's campaign.

Posted by Harry | July 2, 2007 12:11 PM

Wow, Harry. You did a great job of being racist, condescending, and wrong all at once.

I happen to be a young, affluent, white liberal and have put my time and money behind the Obama campaign. My guess is that people that are old enough to remember the sixties and happen to be racist couldn't possibly hope to understand my motivations. Have you ever tried talking to someone that's in the demographic you are attempting to describe? I think they might surprise you.

Posted by Bobby Wallace | July 2, 2007 3:16 PM

Me: "Obama's bucks aren't coming from middle class blacks, but from young affluent white liberals..."

Bobby Walace: "Wow, Harry. You did a great job of being racist, condescending, and wrong all at once."

"I happen to be a young, affluent, white liberal and have put my time and money behind the Obama campaign."

Touché

Posted by Harry | July 3, 2007 12:58 AM