What Fundraising Matters?
[Posted by Karl]
If the establishment media is reporting on campaign fundraising, it’s a fair bet they will be misreporting or burying the lede. For example, the WaPo:
Even with low approval ratings and an uncertain path to reelection, President Obama is exceeding expectations in one area: His campaign is doing far better at attracting grass-roots financial support this year than his Republican rivals or his own historic effort in 2008, according to new contribution data.
***
A Washington Post analysis shows that nearly half of his campaign contributions, and a quarter of the money he has raised for the Democratic Party, has come from donors giving less than $200. That’s much higher than it was in 2008 and far beyond what the best-funded Republicans have managed.
***
But relying on donors of modest means could limit the fundraising ability of the president, whose campaign is already showing signs that it is struggling to bring in big donations. Fewer than 6,000 contributors had given Obama $2,500 or more through September.
Stories like this perpetuate the myth that Obama’s 2008 campaign was fueled by small donors, when his percentage from small donors was about the same as Bush in 2004. Obama’s percentage in 2007 was about the same; non-incumbents generally rely on large donors until later in the cycle, when they are more visible and voters have a better sense of their electability.
The WaPo is at least more accurate than the New York Times and other outlets claiming Obama was having problems with small donors by improperly comparing those who have donated to Obama’s 2012 campaign so far with those who donated through the entirety of the 2008 campaign.
But the WaPo theme about problems with big donors is a misfire. The Associated Press has similarly claimed Obama has lost early support from major donors, but as Stanford University political scientist Adam Bonica notes, “large contributions signal more about how much time and effort Obama is putting into big-ticket fundraising events.”
Conversely, Obama’s showing with small donors reflects his campaign’s intensive efforts to enlist them, as well as its social pressure on those who gave in 2008 to kick in before the Q3 deadline. Was this done simply to advance a campaign narrative of support from the little people? Probably not.
First, small donors can be solicited repeatedly and become mid-size or large donors. This is more likely the sooner they start donating. The WaPo quotes Katherine Hahn, a self-described “mom and artist” from Colorado who gives Obama $25 a month. If she continues donating each month, she will end up a mid-size donor.
Second, consider this quote from Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, buried in the middle of the WaPo piece: “Our experience is that people who give become volunteers, and people who volunteer become donors. We want to build a relationship with them.” The first clause is the key — donors become volunteers. In the key state of Colorado, the 2008 vote may have depended on taking the Starbucks approach to the campaign. In eleven battleground states political scientist Seth Masket examined, Obama established field offices in 43% of the counties; McCain did so in only 18% — with apparent dividends for Obama not only in Colorado, but also Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina, for a total of 53 electoral votes. Obama is investing early and often in his ground operations; his campaign’s early focus on recruiting small donors — and potential volunteers — feeds that effort.
–Karl
Ding!
Karl (0e810f) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:00 amI was just wondering – in 2008 there were questions about the campaign accepting gift cards and other irregularities. Have they enabled the verification system this time? Does anyone know whether the “small” donations are actually legit?
Sue (40062f) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:06 amI know the political pros think it worthwhile, but I fail to see how having lots of branch offices does any good.
What do they accomplish and why is it thought that people who would otherwise not have voted for the candidate are going to change their mind? Granted, nobody is really sure how/why the non-hard core voters end up deciding who to vote for, but I have trouble thinking it is because of the number of lawn signs.
steve (254463) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:20 amSue–my questions exactly. Anonymous single time contributions from single use cc, gift card redemptions, foreign contributions. I don’t trust any of this “small donor” business. Looking at the polls, who would these people even be?
elissa (087640) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:38 amI get at least half a dozen emails from OFA a week, sometimes more, asking me to volunteer for something or donate money.
It’s nonstop.
I put myself on their list during the last campaign just to get in the traffic. I’ve never volunteered for anything, attended an event or sent any money, but the barrage continues.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 10:14 amI’ve been wondering the same thing. Should be easy to check; Get a $5 prepaid Visa, and make a donation in Mickey Mouse’s name.
Brett Bellmore (6652c2) — 11/20/2011 @ 10:18 amBrett – They had a donation from a great name that DRJ wrote about the last campaign. Can’t recall it off the top of my head.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/20/2011 @ 10:29 amOT – is Mickey Mouse part of the 1%? After all, he’s got a couple of mansions in Florida and California and around the world… 😀
Sue (40062f) — 11/20/2011 @ 10:31 am😆
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 10:37 amVolunteers in 2008 were more important to Obama than they are now – very much more important. He needed them then in the race for the nomination, and they were valuable especially in caucus states, which he paid attention to, but Hillary Clinton;s campaign did not. And it is not that donors became volunteers, they also became voters, (maybe voters who tended to get other voter to come with them too even if they didn’t officially volunteer, but still mainly voters) which was very important in relatively low turnout situations.
Obama was counting his status not just in dollars but in number of different individual donors. He said this was a movement. But this was during the race for the nomination.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/20/2011 @ 10:55 amAnd the list could be used for all kinds of things.
Although names of campaign donors over $200 (I think) are made public, it is not legal for other campaigns to solicit them.
Unless the candidate to whom they gave sells them names but then he’s using his own list.
I’m sure Obama likes getting names for help in Congressional races etc. Or even to lobby Congress.
Obama may have differed from other candidates in that he thought low Dollar amount donors, were really really valuable.
Sammy Finkelman (2d0c86) — 11/20/2011 @ 11:00 am“If it’s not close, they can’t cheat!”
It is imperative to win the ’12 election outside the margin of cheat – and that means watching those cc campaign donations, and tracking the donors.
AD-RtR/OS! (7e20b9) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:20 pmme I’d never donate over $100 to a candidate cause I don’t want to be in that stupid fascist database Meghan’s coward daddy invented
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:24 pmOr he may have differed from them in thinking that laundering large dollar donations through small amounts in different fake names was really valuable. We’ll never really know, it’s a sure thing his justice department will never get interested in the question.
Brett Bellmore (6652c2) — 11/20/2011 @ 1:37 pmGood analysis. The Post can be reliably counted upon to always put a positive spin on an Obama story. Even when it seems a certain appointee of his might possibly be frogmarched from his post … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt
ombdz (2a81ef) — 11/20/2011 @ 3:14 pmSammy,
You’re right that organization, especially in caucus states (esp red caucus states) was key for Obama to get the nomination in 2008. I wrote about Obama using the McGovern strategy — and former McGovern worker Hillary not noticing — at another blog at the time.
That said, be sure to check out the “Starbucks approach” link. Obama’s extensive field organization likely netted him 53 electoral votes in the general election.
Karl (0e810f) — 11/20/2011 @ 4:26 pmNot all canadians are bad.
I’m sure They hope for obamas dethronement.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:08 pmJFK’s assassination was an inside job?
For christ’s sake these conspiracy theorist wackos need to shut up.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:09 pmDoh, it might have been an “inside the Kremlin” job, via Havana.
AD-RtR/OS! (7e20b9) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:32 pmFor real?
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:32 pmMo the left say it was Israel and the ultraright kahaneists who did it.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:34 pmNo*
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:35 pmDoh, it has long been thought that Oswald was being “run” by agents connected to Havana, and that the whole thing was payback against JFK for the efforts of Bobby to enlist the Mob to assassinate Castro.
AD-RtR/OS! (7e20b9) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:47 pmOk but to stay on topic the WAPO are libs.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 6:53 pmYes I recall four year ago, another such homemaker;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1970690/posts
However the fact that the ;better half, of that couple, was a Re Insurer whose products had helped
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 7:01 pmsavage AIG, back in 2005, was left out of the picture
Barack Obama is a piece of work.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 7:01 pmShe’s been quite busy since then,
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=NY&last=GLUCKSTERN
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 7:06 pmJudith Guckstern is scum.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 7:09 pmWell I wouldn’t go so far, but I would say there’s the ‘rest of the story’
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 7:23 pmWell Judith Gluckstern is an useful idiot like all the others who vote dem.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 7:50 pmWhat passes for logic;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/20/what-occupy-harvard-should-tell-liberal-elite-parents-on-thanksgiving.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29
narciso (ef1619) — 11/20/2011 @ 8:19 pm32. Caddell and Schoen say its time for Obama to pull the ripcord and leave the party in Hill’s oversight.
He needs to wear kevlar, water wings and asbestos 24/7 as well. Taste but don’t swallow.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 11/20/2011 @ 9:19 pmI love how the communists accuse us of being anti-semetic which is rich.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/20/2011 @ 10:09 pmIf anyone who isn’t already up to speed is interested in who killed John Kennedy, a good place to start is Oliver Stone’s movie: JFK.
Yes, it’s a movie and not uncontested truth revealed chapter and verse, but it does identify the major players and it points in most of the right directions. It’s also entertaining and easily accessible.
ropelight (caa094) — 11/21/2011 @ 7:14 amNo, it’s not, really, anything but the flowering of an disinformation campaign, that the KGB started in the mid 60s. if not earlier;
narciso (ef1619) — 11/21/2011 @ 7:16 amIt’s easy to identify the wild-eyed conspiracy nuts, they’re the ones who already know it all, and their most consistent characteristic is usually an attempt to discourage independent inquiry.
Watching Oliver Stone’s JFK movie isn’t going to indelibly mark anyone as irredeemable or condemn them to eternal damnation. Take a look, see for yourself.
And if you have questions, simply type JFK Assassination into your search engine and get started. It’s a vast undertaking and full of blind alleys, misinformation, disinformation, deception, and dirty tricks. But, if you keep an open mind and look at the evidence itself, rather than the uninformed opinions of naysayers, eventually the shadow of truth can be detected lurking in the background. It’s not pretty picture but it is the single most important event in the second half of the 20th Century.
Many of the fundamental problems we have today have their origins in the policy decisions made in the
ropelight (caa094) — 11/21/2011 @ 9:10 amMitrokhin, gave the game away;
Promotion of false John F. Kennedy assassination theories, using writer Mark Lane.[24] Lane denied this allegation and called it “an outright lie”.[25]
Forged letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to E. Howard Hunt, attempting to incriminate Hunt in the Kennedy assassination.[26]
Discrediting the CIA using the ex-CIA case officer and defector Philip Agee.[27]
Spreading rumors that the FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was a homosexual.[28]
Attempts to discredit Martin Luther King, Jr. by placing publications portraying him as an “Uncle Tom” who was secretly receiving government subsidies.[29]
Stirring up racial tensions in the United States by mailing bogus letters from the Ku Klux Klan, by placing an explosive package in “the Negro section of New York” (operation PANDORA),[30] and by spreading conspiracy theories that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination had been planned by the US government.[30]
Fabrication of the story that the AIDS virus was manufactured by US scientists at the US Army research station at Fort Detrick. The story was spread by Russian-born biologist Jakob Segal.[31]
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
narciso (ef1619) — 11/21/2011 @ 9:17 amInstead of wasting time, and money, on Oliver Stone’s fantasies, try going to the library and checking out the Warren Commission’s report on the event, and then follow your nose.
AD-RtR/OS! (db1e05) — 11/21/2011 @ 9:51 amAlmost everything written since the publication of the report, is in response to that report.
It is difficult to sort out everything if you don’t know the background from which it derives.
O/T?
Oh Happy Days….
The Dow is down 314-pts (2.67%) at this hour.
Has anyone found MFG’s missing $600MM?
Tried to sell any Euro Bonds lately?
Guns, ammo, and canned goods…investments for the future!
AD-RtR/OS! (db1e05) — 11/21/2011 @ 9:55 amExcellent recommendation AD, I concur. There are only two kinds of people in the world, those who support the Warren Commission’s conclusions, and those who’ve actually read the Commission’s report.
ropelight (caa094) — 11/21/2011 @ 12:05 pmVery nice back-handed compliment.
AD-RtR/OS! (db1e05) — 11/21/2011 @ 12:10 pmI like you.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/21/2011 @ 1:03 pmKarl, I agree with you that Obama will be glad to get all the small donations he can. I agree that they’ll actively solicit those. But I promise they will publicize those — advance the narrative of the “small-donor little-guy campaign” — disproportionately to their actual cumulative totals.
The Obama campaign will never, ever fail to do something it wants to do on account of a shortfall in funds. We should assume that the Dem campaign has an unlimited bankroll, because they do. Whether it’s hard or soft, direct or indirect, all the funding they can think of ways to spend will materialize as and when needed.
The only interesting questions are (a) by how much will the GOP be outspent and (b) will the spending gap be so large that the GOP candidates become uncompetitive? My predictions are that Obama & Friends will spend about $10b, compared to perhaps $1b for the GOP ticket from all sources, for a 10-to-1 advantage. And I still don’t think that will buy them the election.
Beldar (c3ab0d) — 11/21/2011 @ 6:10 pmO/T…
Iran rounds up CIA assets in Iran and Lebanon…
I blame Dick Cheney.
AD-RtR/OS! (db1e05) — 11/21/2011 @ 6:40 pmThis would never have happened if he hadn’t outed Valerie Plame!
It looks like Gen. Patreaus has his work cut out for him.
🙄 The left outed Valerie Plame.
DohBiden (ef98f0) — 11/21/2011 @ 6:42 pmAldrich Ames outed Valerie Plame years before Scooter Libby ever heard her name.
ropelight (7ec2fa) — 11/22/2011 @ 7:25 amNo one will be able to overcome the margin of cheat Obama has.
kansas (7b4374) — 11/22/2011 @ 10:04 amhttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/22/democrats-say-new-romney-ad-distorts-obamas-words/
narciso (ef1619) — 11/22/2011 @ 10:23 am