Perspective on Obama's donor numbers

Posted: Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:43 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Democrats

From NBC's Mark Murray and Carly Zakin

As we mentioned earlier today, the Obama camp announced that 138,000 new donors have contributed to the campaign in this second fundraising quarter, up from the 104,000 donors who contributed in the first. And by the time the second quarter comes to an end on Saturday, Team Obama is expecting that a total of 250,000 donors will have given to the campaign in the first six months of this year.

To put those numbers in perspective, the Obama folks handed First Read a research document of past newspaper clippings showing that Howard Dean -- Mr. Grassroots/Netroots of the 2003-4 cycle -- had about 59,000 donors in the second quarter of 2003 and approximately 70,000 donors in the first six months of that year.

And for the entire year of 2003, it was reported that about 280,000 people donated to his campaign -- a figure which Obama will seem to almost equal in just half a year.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

surely Obama have the people on his side this is a story the media is not given enough coverage...it is great news to see he breaking the record on the number of donors making contribution to him..keep the good work going guys by supporting him in cash and kind.

Stan (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:31 PM)

I am one of the Obama donors who sends the campaign money every month. I began donating before Barack announced his bid for the White House and I will continue to knock on doors, email my friends and volunteer for his campaign.

Why? Because I met Barack in 2005 when he came to Arizona to speak at a dinner for Democrats and to meet with ASU students. He has kept his promise to work on bringing people together to change how Washington works. He is serious about ethics reform. He is adressing the health care issue and he has the will to work across the aisle to solve real problems of real people.

The government doesn't work for average people when the lobbyist wield all the power. Barack invites ordinary people to give small amounts each month to keep the big money interests out of his decisions.

At a time when Congress divides along party lines,elected officials worry more about getting re-elected, it is refreshing to support a talented, smart, new viewpoint of what our future can be.

I do not want to go backward to the Clinton years. Bill did not do enough to unite the country. Hillary is running a good campaign but she represents old political interests and divisions. It is time for new thinking, new direction and new voices in Washington.

Michaele Camp (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:40 PM)

Call me a cynic, but I find this pretty implausible. In 2004, only about 1.5 million people voted for the Democratic candidate. Not gave money, just voted. And that was the general election. We are talking about people giving money in primary season, when upwards of 90% of people don't pay any attention. Either the electorate has suddenly tuned into politics or something very strange is going on.

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:40 PM)

Strange is my guess Carrie. Well as a boss I had used to say get creative, LIE!

H P Boston (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:52 PM)

A question arises. What will happen to any money left over after the campaign? When, as we all know Mr. Obama becomes the second banana to Ms. Clinton in the Presidential race where will that money go? Can Mr. Obama use any of this money for himself? His running is a sham to make himself known to join and help Ms. Clinton who would have a problem running on her own name.

Norman Grossman (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:53 PM)

I amy be wrong, but I believe that the candidates can use the money for future races.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:11 PM)

To Carrie and H P, first of all lying about number of donors would be the end of the campaign as the publicly available records would show the fraud.

Secondly this campaign has started much earlier, the fear mongering after 9/11 has diluted, Katrina showed the corruption of this government, ethics reform is a primary concern and the reason people booted repugs in Montana, Virginia and Missouri. People have had enough of the lobbyists.

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:12 PM)

Carrie, think you might want to check your facts. I believe Kerry got nearly a million votes in my red state alone.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:14 PM)

The numbers will be made public and official in the next few weeks. The great thing about the internet is that we have sites like opensecrets.org to either verify or disprove the candidate's claims.

Dave, Atlanta, GA (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:18 PM)

The numbers will be made public and official in the next few weeks. The great thing about the internet is that we have sites like opensecrets.org to either verify or disprove the candidate's claims.

Dave, Atlanta, GA (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:18 PM)

The numbers will be made public and official in the next few weeks. The great thing about the internet is that we have sites like opensecrets.org to either verify or disprove the candidate's claims.

Dave, Atlanta, GA (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:18 PM)

Um, not sure where you got your statistics Carrie, but in 2004 123 million people turned out to vote- and about half of them voted democratic giving roughly 61.5 million people voting- a far cry from the 1.5 million you claim....

Eric (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:18 PM)

Norman,
'As we all know' Obama will become second banana to Clinton? Who says? And unless you have some sort of magic test for how the electorate will feel on any given election date some 5 months in the future (impossible, not strange is my guess for how you would do that one) than NO ONE knows. NO ONE. Dont be so arrogant as to think your opinion is right just because it is your opinion. And not that I like Hillary, but clearly she's not doing too bad of a job running on her own name. P.S. Highly doubtful that Obama will become the VP candidate since hes running to WIN, not lose. Also, use the money on himself? Have you even heard of campaign laws?

Tatyana Vinogradsky (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:31 PM)

A lot of these polls don't make sense. I like Richardson but does he really make sense? Nationally Obama leads overwhelmingly with the 29 and under crowd. He leads significantly with educated and higher incomes in polls. The independents and the republicans prefer him to the other choices. The polls say Obama would handle military crisis better that Hillary. Yet nationally, this group of, over 30 undereducated and lower income groups seem to think they can get Hillary elected? What an odd, odd country. She is barely on the charts in Iowa.

Adam Schifter (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:34 PM)

Go Obama! This should make some waves in the press. These numbers are astounding, and show a strong campaign with deep support.

Mark Morris (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:35 PM)

And to clarify the earlier comment. 59 million americans voted for Kerry last time. That was 48% of the votes. I don't know where you got 1.9 million from. However this is an unbelievable number in that it is unprecedented and shows the true ground support for Obama. Obama/Richardson 08!!

Adam Schifter (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:47 PM)

Carrie, I think you just made a typo. No Problem.

Ollie frenchburg ky (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:03 PM)

Carrie meant 91.9..I knew that! One must be creative.

H P Boston (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:11 PM)

Carrie meant 91.9..I knew that! One must be creative.

H P Boston (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:11 PM)

Well you can say what you will, but remember this country is run by the Democratic and Republican "big dogs". So buck up and no matter how much bull is slung between now and next November "they" will decide who you can vote for in the election. As for myself they should do away with the Primaries it's a total waste of time, money, and stacking the deck. Let's keep it honest and straight forward put all the candidates on the ballot, let the voters decide and the winner in each state take all electorates. I know I'm just dreaming here because when I walk into the voting booth I will either have to vote Clinton and Obama or (Fred)Thompson and Guiliani.

Paw Paw, NC (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:24 PM)

I'm not sure why any of you even bother responding to Carrie or H P. Let them wallow in their own ignorance.

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:47 PM)

Lewis why don't you wallow in a little sense of humor.
These posts are not brain surgery. As you can see many of lack brains, but why should that deter us!

H P Boston (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 4:12 PM)

First, you can give money to any candidate at this part of the process; obviously Obama has stirred some interest across the red/blue divide. You may even have Republicans donating to derail the Hillary juggernaut because they feel Obama is more easily defeated...(?)
as far the the stakes of the election, folks ARE involved earlier; I was at the flagship Nordstrom store in downtown Seattle (really royal blue) and the bank of TV's usually reserved for rock videos were showing reruns of the Republican debate. You'd have to be brain-dead to NOT know that this election was important. And this from a state that has NO influence on the primary selection process!

rodeo, ellensburg, wa (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 4:22 PM)

Ha. Where did I get that number anyway? Yeah, I was totally and completely wrong. Sorry about that!

However, Lewis? I am far from ignorant. I merely misplaced my knowledge for a moment.

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 4:46 PM)

I generally donate once a month to the Obama campaign, in $100.00 increments. Why? Because he is a leader, has excercised good judgement throughout and personal and professional life, and he is a uniter. Obama's successful fundraising to date is a direct result of the grassroots within the Democratic Party rising up and saying that Obama is the person who can win and who can lead - and we are putting our money where our mouths are.

Robert, Pasadena, CA (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:03 PM)

I doubt the republicans would give to Obama because they believe he can be more easily defeated since all polls at this point indicate Obama is much more of a threat in a general election than Hillary. Before you make these wild accusations, it would be good if you did some research. Actually, Obama has more support among independents and Republicans THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT. So take that to the bank.

Katie, St. Paul, MN (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:06 PM)

Katie: donating ( and voting) across party lines is a long-standing primary tradition in Washington State and elsewhere--not a wild accusation at all, sorry. The Democratic slate of candidates is truly groundbreaking in every sense, and who knows what jujitsu that will inspire? I didn't say I did not like Obama--or Hillary either--just that it's bloodsport at the presidential level and the money torques the logic of almost all it touches. Didn't your state elect a pro rassler sometime in the past?

rodeo, ellensburg, wa (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:52 PM)

I too am one of the repeat Obama donaters, and although I have only been able to afford to give my senator $100 this year, I will continue to give more because I believe he can return Respect and Integrity to the White House and to us as Americans. Wouldn't you like to see that as well?

Charles Kushner, Chicago, IL (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:56 PM)

Robert, great names think alike!(ha!)
These contribution numbers are truly the only ones that count at this point. (eg, USA Today noted that 45% of Latino voters had no idea who Obama even is.) The contribution dollars and especially the number of donors show the broad, grassroots support for Obama. Game on!

Robert, Denver (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:57 PM)

The more recent polls show Hillary stronger in the general election than Obama--see Newsweek's earlier this week. And even if all 250,000 of these contributors vote for Obama, he'd still be roughly 49,750,000 short of what he needs come election day. The point is, this number of donors BS is a non-factor. But hey, when things have been going the way they've been going for the Obama campaign, you gotta find something to keep the totally-media-created buzz going.

DC Joe (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:17 PM)

Charles, that is what is so exciting about this campaign. We are all giving what we can afford each month, and collectively, our contributions are off-setting the limousine liberals who are supporting Hillary. It's people power - and it feels so good!!

Robert, Pasadena, CA (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 7:37 PM)

DC Joe, you got it all backwards. 250,000 donors who actually opened their wallets giving all they can to a candidate and 10,000 supporters going door to door on a Saturday sacrificing their personal times for a presidential candidate this early in a campaign is a much better measurement of supports than any polls showing out there. The polls can say whatever they want, they obviously didn't cover all Barack Obama's supporters. Just watch and be amazed..

Vee, San Diego, CA (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:47 PM)

Folks I think Obama represent a new kind of politics, but the question is is America ready.

eNews Reference (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:59 PM)

eNews: Are YOU ready?
I am ready.

Valerie (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:15 PM)

Folks,

America is ready for Obama and please don't get fool by this skewed poll numbers. As far as i am concern the pollster don't know what they're talking about.

Bee, Indiana (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:35 PM)

I am ready too.

GIS (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 2:45 AM)

Trust me... the republicans want the clinton political machine to go up against instead of obama... no doubt. barack is far more electable that hilary... anyone thinking otherwise is blind and without common sense.

BIG franky (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 10:16 AM)

I don't understand why people want to interpret what is going on here. Just look at what is happening. Ignore the press. Ignore the pollsters. Look at the "actual support" being demonstrated in objective figures! Obama win hands down. Look at the feedback links on any national news website and see how the people reply… In Obama's favor every time. Look at the number of people getting off the couch and doing something in the way of supporting a candidate like volunteering and donating $$$$. Again, Obama wins.
It's really simple unless some corrupt, money leveraging, under the table activity comes into play to cause an outcome that doesn't meet the reality. I know we've all grown accustomed to tainted politics and almost expect the unexpected, have become callused and disillusioned at the process of government, or dropped out of the participatory process of democracy, but this man named Obama just may be the one to wake us up and make our country the best example of what can be possible and how democratic government should operate.
I don't expect Obama to be the one man to raise us up or save us. We are not voting for a King here. Barack Obama is the one man to lead us to lead ourselves. PERIOD!

Ron, Kansas Ciy (Sent Friday, June 29, 2007 12:18 PM)

I'm also continually baffled by the poll numbers among the Dems, Obama gets thousands of people showing up at his events all over the country, won't take corporate or P.A.C. money, out earns Clinton, yet every poll has Hillary ahead by double digits??
I try to tell myself that it's still real early, and that time will prove me right in backing Obama. I send $20 or $30 every so often, and I encourage all of you who are inspired by his candidacy to do the same. Be sure to vote in the primaries, tell your friends, (republicans too) It's so important that we win this time, let's pick an inspiring candidate to go toe to toe with whoever gets the Republican nod, I respect Hillary, but it'd be like tossing red meat to the Ailes/Rove machine, they've already got slimebags lined up to demonize her. They can't run "he's got one of those terrorist names!" or "he was at a madrassa!" by Obama for long, but they have years of material for Hillary. Obama knows that change has to come from the people, and he's asking that if you want to change the direction of this country don't expect the govt. to do it alone, that real change is always a "grassroots"afair. I believe him, and pray that he wins in a landslide.

Fred Lorrain port aransas tx. (Sent Saturday, June 30, 2007 5:54 PM)

""When, as we all know Mr. Obama becomes the second banana to Ms. Clinton in the Presidential race where will that money go? Can Mr. Obama use any of this money for himself? His running is a sham to make himself known to join and help Ms. Clinton who would have a problem running on her own name. ""
Norman Grossman (Sent Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:53 PM) Um, I think all of the donations are for either the primaries, or the general, money for the primaries gets given back to the donors if he loses the primaries, as for the general election funds, I'm not sure what happens with those, or how much he's earned. A Sham?, I think not. He's in it to win.

Fred Lorrain port aransas tx. (Sent Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:05 PM)

There is no other way to put it: not only did Sen. Barack Obama set a record for single quarter donations by a Democratic candidate, but his fundraising total -- $31M from 154,000 new donors -- imposes an obligaton on those who measure national polls are performance indicator: we need to figure out why the "national" frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, isn't generating as much excitement as her chief competitor.

National Polls in the US at this stage of the campaign do not mean much. The other factor that may show you why Obama is doing much better than Hillary is the number of donors. 258,000 is simply unprecedented. If Hillary and Bill Clinton combined can not beat the unknown Sen. Obama, it tells you that Obama is ahead of the game one million times. It is important to note that most people use their cell phones and not the land-line phones these polls are based on.

I am in agreement with David Plouffe, "national polls at this stage are meaningless.” Donors are meaningful!

Amos Ajo, Atlant (Sent Sunday, July 01, 2007 7:23 PM)

Amos, Atlanta (Sent Sunday, July 01, 2007 7:28 PM)

I agree that Obama is the frontrunner now. And I don't think Clinton has the ability to surge back. Slowly, as people one by one start paying more attention to the race, the realization will grow that Obama is out in front. I think the pollsters now are hitting an electorate that isn't fully paying attention, and for good reason (we just entered July, a timeframe when traditionally many candidates hadn't even announced yet), and those polls are as much a reflection of name awareness as support. But the money points to where the support is among those who are paying attention. Its absolutely astonishing that 1) Clinton could get one-upped in fundraising, and 2) the guy who beat her did it with 258,000 donors before the end of June the year before! That second point is unprecedented, in any campaign cycle, for either party.

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Monday, July 02, 2007 9:06 AM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=247388