Don't look now, Hillary...

Presented without comment, but damn...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-tops-30-m.html

 

Final number is $32.5 million. No official word on Hillary's numbers, yet.

 

Panel made a pretty big deal about it this morning on This Week with George Snuffleupagus. Said Hilly topped out around $13 million. (and, oh God, how I hate Bay Buchanan -- she was one of the panelists).

 

I can't imagine she will be that low. She'll be in the 20's, but Obama passing her does start to shoot a hole into her entire front-runner image.

Which is really the base of her entire campaign.

 

Could Obama's support in national polls be being underrepresented?

Most (all?) political polls are still done over land-line telephones. Obama's greatest base of support, based on the donations and method of solicitation, are from younger people and the Netroots community.

It stands to reason that younger Americans and Netroots progressives would be far less likely to have a land-line telephone. Are pollsters considering the possibility that they aren't capturing a key base of support for Obama in their polling?

 

That's a possibility, Point.

Obama's folks are pointing to the number of donors -- over 250,000 unique donations -- as much as they are the actual money.

Bottom line is that Obama's going to be in it until the end with those kinds of dollars.

 

I agree that he'll be in it until the end, but the money won't be the reason why. Romney was the top fundraiser among the republicans and I don't see him doing too well in the polls. I remember a few elections ago when Phil Gramm had about twice as much as any of the other candidates and he still got stomped in the primaries.

I have a feeling Obama will finish a very close second to Hillary in the primaries but that's because he's a good candidate, not because he has more money than she does...

 

I don't disagree Mizzou, but the situations you're describing aren't really analagous. Obama has not raised more than $55 million dollars. So we're not talking Phil Gramm, here.

And that's an issue for Hillary because here entire campaign is based no being the front runner. She's after money and endorsements, in that order. Obama is after both of those, too, but he's building a ground game, and if he can keep up with her on all of those, he only looks more appealing in the long run.

Just my read on the two campaigns. If Hillary can't show that she's clearly the best in money and organization, what's her appeal to any voter that's still undecided?

 

Historically, black candidates are overrepresented in polling. People will tell someone on the telephone that they would vote for a black candidate, but when they pull the curtain, racism sets in.

 

I'm just thinking that there must be something to explain the disparity between Obama's fundraising and where he stands in the polls -- no way is he a better national fundraising organizer than the Clinton camp. Or perhaps there can't be any correlation drawn between polls and fundraising.

I have heard of what you're referring to, known as the "white lie" and I would imagine it would be more of a factor in a general election. If a white person felt the least bit uncomfortable with Obama simply because he was black then they could easily find another pretense for supporting Hillary, Edwards or another Dem. Hence, no need to lie.

 

I don't know that the "white lie" phenomenon will play out in a nationwide race.

I guess we can find out.

And, Point, I think the one thing that money means is that the big money democratic donors aren't sold on Hillary, yet.

 

Is that the same as ordering a medium Diet Coke at Mcdonalds but when you go to the fountain you fill your cup up with regular Coke?