|
By The Hill Editors
|
|
Posted: 07/03/07 07:09 PM [ET] |
Bill Clinton is still the most prolific money-raiser in Democratic history, as The Washington Post pointed out yesterday. But the mantle seems to be slipping swiftly from the former president’s shoulders.
If present trends continue — a dangerous phrase, for sure — it looks likely to be picked up by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who hauled in a stunning $32.5 million in second-quarter presidential fundraising.
The numbers get more impressive beneath the surface. All but $1.5 million was raised for the primary, which means the headline figure is not flattered by big donors maxing out with $2,300 for the primary and another $2,300 for the general election with no option to give more.
Many of Obama’s 154,000 donors gave small amounts — the average was just $202 — so they can almost certainly be tapped again and again.
There is an old saying in the financial world that bad numbers take longer to add up than good ones. Obama used this to his advantage in the first quarter, delaying the announcement of his tally and thus lowering expectations. When his first-quarter tally came out at $25 million (again with just $1.5 million allocated to the general election) everyone was wowed. There was no delay this time, as expectations were high, and the candidate met or bettered them.
So where are Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) numbers? Well, they’re the ones taking a little longer to add up.
They’re expected to come in at around $28 million, with $21 million for the primaries — a huge sum historically but fully $10 million behind Obama.
Which is one reason why President Clinton is joining his wife campaigning this week. The money primary is a proxy for popularity. It does not necessarily translate into caucus and primary votes, but there is a strong correlation.
There is a long way to go before Iowa, New Hampshire and Super Duper Tuesday, and Clinton must still be regarded as the favorite to get the nomination; as Obama’s camp slyly points out, “one of [its] opponents is also the quasi-incumbent.”
Who would have thought a year ago that a second Democratic candidate could emerge and create a higher-performance money machine than Clinton’s? If Obama were not in the race it would already be over. Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) made $9 million in the second quarter from 100,000 donors, but it is difficult to see him as a threat to Clinton.
Ditto New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), who raised $7 million.
It is Obama who has added excitement and turned what might have been a procession into a genuinely competitive race.
His various rookie errors and eyebrow-raising attempts to distance himself from the less-admirable actions of his campaign have not dented his ability to garner support in that most concrete of ways — hard cash down.
Money is supposed to be fungible, and candidate Obama will have to prove that this is true. For his challenge now is to exchange all his moola for poll numbers and momentum in the third quarter.
|
