The other upside of the drawn-out campaign

USA Today:

Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are increasingly funding their presidential campaigns through donations of $200 or less, a USA TODAY analysis shows, in a break from previous contests dominated by wealthier contributors.

More than half of the $194 million that Clinton and Obama collected from January through March for their primary fight came from small donations, according to the analysis of data compiled by the non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute. That's up from about 15% of the $43.5 million collected by both Democrats during the same period last year.

[...] Obama's small donation outreach is "staggering," said Jonathan Krasno, a political scientist at New York's Binghamton University. "He has done more to reach out to people and to get their donations than I thought was possible."

Krasno said Clinton has had to find "new donors to compete with his fundraising success and to pay for a race that has lasted longer than expected."

This is a direct consequence of the extended primary season. See, our politics historically has been dominated by big money -- but in this cycle, all the wealthy donors gave the $2300 limit way back in early 2007, and the campaigns planned their spending to pretty much end after Super Tuesday. So all the subsequent campaigning has had to be funded by ordinary small donors, simply by default, and the campaigns have been forced to use these new fundraising models! Which, conveniently, are engaging countless thousands of new people into the political process and doing more to wrest control of the system away from the rich than anything else this year. Think about THAT next time you complain about the Endless Campaign...

(via Taegan Goddard)

32 million???

The '08 presidential campaign has now been going on for exceptionally long time, but apparently the money hasn't dried up yet. While many campaigns have been strapped for cash (as Rudy was before he bowed out, along with other remaining Republicans not named Romney or Paul), Barack Obama's totals are surprisingly stronger than ever. While his campaign has been gaining energy while he narrows the gap in the national polls and picks up various endorsements, few could have expected that he would pull in a whopping 32 million in one month, as the New York Times political blog reports.

Even Hillary supporters must admit that Obama's campaign machine is incredibly fine tuned. By attracting 170,000 new donors (most of whom are donating in small chunks, and thus are able to give more), Obama has built an incredibly strong base with which to fund a possible general election campaign.

Either way, no matter who the democratic candidate is, it is increasingly clear that the Republican candidate will face an uphill fund-raising battle when the general election approaches. The gigantic figure raised by Obama is enough to tell Republicans that they should be very wary come November.

And on a final note, let me just say this:

damn, that's a lot of money.

Chris Dodd: victor

Chris Dodd announced today what amounts to the best fundraiser ever: $20.04 (the year the Red Sox last won the World Series) earns you a chance to hang out with Dodd during game six of the AL championship.

While I am in harsh financial straights, and willingly admit that my interest in baseball is entirely limited to what the Globe and my neighbors tell me to thing, I am nonetheless seriously considering donating money to a politican for the first time in my life.

Above: Motion, that Jeter ain't worth shit.

"Dodd Squad" beats "Straight Talk Express" in another category besides lamest slogan ever

Ari Berman at the Nation points out the various ways in which John McCain's campaign is rapidly imploding, (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=186404), most noticeably, he's behind CHRIS DODD in fundraising. 

Not to say Chris Dodd isn't an admirable guy, and a candidate worth noticing, but when you're one of the country's most high-profile senators, have run for president multiple times, and are being touted as the right-wing go-to-guy... this does not bode well.

News reports  say Dodd has about 6.4 million on hand for the primaries, while McCain has just 5.2. This of course dwarfed by the tens of millions Clinton and Obama pulled in during the first quarter.

Republicans Are Sexist

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (the Republican organization which is in charge of winning Senate seats), has been raising less money than her counterpart, Sen. Chuck Schumer, this election cycle. While this could partly be due to donors focusing on the more centralized Republican National Committee (RNC), Elizabeth Dole's ineptitude, or just the general feeling this year, I think there is a more shameful explanation.

Republicans don't trust or believe in the leadership of women. The RNC and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), which are both out-raising their Democratic counterparts, are both headed by men (Ken Mehlman and Rep. Tom Reynolds, respectively). While this may seem like a far-fetched, conspiracy-obsessed feminist theory, there is evidence which strongly supports it.

An article written by the teacher of Government 1300: The Politics of Congress, David C. King, cites a study which shows, among other things, that female Republican candidates can pick up about 10 percentage points among independents and Democrats in a general election. More interestingly, it also shows that voters who identify as strong Republicans tend to be skeptical about and not support female candidates.

This is important because strong republicans are the ones who donate money to campaigns. If donors do not view Elizabeth Dole as a strong leader, they are not going to donate money to the organization she is running. Therefore, she will raise less money than her Democratic counterpart (which is definitely a very odd thing since Republicans out-raise Democrats on the scale of about 3 to 2).

This situation is depressing for two reasons. First, it shows that sexism is alive and well (at least among Republicans- Democrats are willing to cross party lines just to vote for a woman!). Second, despite the fact that Elizabeth Dole and the NRSC are making less money than the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee), the RNC and the NRCC are both outpacing their Democratic counterparts, so the money which would have been donated to an otherwise male-headed NRSC is probably still being donated to Republicans, instead going to the other two of the national election organizations, and therefore, Democrats are yet again raising less money than Republicans.

WHICH MEANS WE ALL NEED TO GET OUT THERE AND KNOCK ON DOORS SO THAT SEXIST REPUBLICAN DOLLARS ARE COUNTERACTED BY DEMOCRATIC VOLUNTEERS!