I’m currently obsessed with this graphic over at the NYT, comparing all the fundraising by the candidates. It is no secret that I support Obama in this race, and I’m impressed by the comparison of the size of donations between Clinton and Obama - to recap (and, sorry for the disgusting presentation of data - to save my life I can't make blogger understand either (a) charts or (b) retention of tabs/spaces):
Donations
Under $200: (O)$5,384,178; (C) $1,159,011
$200-499: (O) $1,159,011; (C) $596,475
$500-1,499: (O) $4,230,389; (C) $2,643,173
$1,500-2,299: (O) $2,304,437; (C) $1,372,493
$2,300: (O) $12,628,038; (C) $19,173,040
TOTAL: (O) $25,706,053; (C) $24,944,192
It is, then, as some pundits predicted - Clinton has maxed out many of her core contributors during this first reporting period - the ‘well-is-dry’ portion of her intake is about 77% (in dollars) of her total intake, while Obama’s ‘well-is-dry’ portion of total intake is about 49%.
I am, of course, also particularly moved by Senator Obama's 'Under $200' number, of which I am one.
As the twins would say - instersting - very instersting.
3 comments:
I am becming less and less of an obama supporter - which surprises me.
I guess I fail to understand why maxing out ones' core contributors is such a huge issue. It seems to me that whoever wins the primary will get money from anyone who would support a democrat over a republican period. At that point, it won't matter who it is - just that that person is a democrat. So, I guess I wonder if this is quite the huge deal every news source is making it out to be.
I agree that at this point the max-out effect is fairly irrelevant as re the general election - I do think it is a benefit to have a large base of previous donors who have not maxed out their permitted primary donation. In my head, it is like those things one reads about renegotiating credit cards - that credit cards are motivated to deal because it costs more to go out and get a whole new mark - I have to think that to find someone willing to cough up initial money is the big expensive part of the donation hunt. Now if they want more from me, they can just send a 'thank's for your $10.00 - might we solicit $10 more from you?' e-mail.
What is causing you to lose Obama love? Clearly I'm still in the initial phases, but eventually reality will rush up and greet me, no doubt.
Oh, I have some good reasons, and some not so good reasons.
First, I felt frustrated that he snubbed me when we met. He was overly solicitous with the 18-22 set, and not very interested in people above that age (with a few exceptions). It's not that I felt like I wanted him to kiss my ass, I just wanted him to be polite and give me my one second with him, rather than looking to the next person. I am a potential vote, The votes of the 18-22-year-olds is no more (or less) important than mine. It pissed me off.
Second, he has not done much, that I can tell, for Illinois. We knew from the outset that Hillary was becoming a Sentator in order to do something bigger - there's never been any mystery about that. And at the same time, she has been able to do some good things for New York (largely how she has built up so much support from NY republicans). Maybe that too was just a means to an end, but it is something - and shows at least some investment in her state. I may have missed out on huge things that Obama has done, however, I have not really seen him do much for his state -- whereas Dick Durbin is all over the place - doing national stuff, doing local stuff - actually doing stuff, not just saying he is doing stuff- I seriously love that man, Charles Schumer too. I think I am getting a disengenuous hit from him, and maybe because I loved him in the beginning, it is a little bit of a betrayal?
Third, I am concerned about his ideas about poverty and welfare - very important issues to me. I'm too lazy to go look up what he has said, but he touts himself as this guy who worked in the South Side of Chicago, and thus is in touch with "the people" and knowedgeable and empathic about these issues. I don't want to spread false rumors, so I am going to be vauge - but when I heard his thoughts on these issues, I felt they were irresponsible. Another blogger noted he may be afraid to be completely honest about his true beliefs for fear it may count against him if he is too generous toward people on welfare and the poor. Maybe, but it seems to me that he could also risk alienating his main audience.
Fourth, Hillary sent out a great email after the idiotic supreme court decision.
Fifth, I cannot deny that the idea of a woman president makes me want to weep with joy.
So, I don't know - these may shift once they actually start doing debates and talking about issues (yeah right, like they ever actually talk about issues). I'm open to hearing more - and am particularly interested in Edwards and the New Mexico dude (what's his name? Richards?).
Post a Comment