...her campaign is doing what it needs to do in soliciting small donors who can give again and again, instead of relying too much on larger donors who may already be maxed out to Clinton.
Can't really conclude that from the figures released. The $5 million in GE receipts tells us that now even more of her donors are maxed out ($4,600) for the entire election cycle and she already had more in that category at the end of Q2. If it were easy to tap small donors again and again, Obama would have done better in Q3 because he had a base of 200,000 (
Posted by Marie at October 2, 2007 09:32 AMWell written piece, Steve. Like you write here, the big story is Hillary's new donors and small donors, something that Obama was said to have a lock on.
And let's keep an eye on this delightful GOP/Religious Right conflict. I, too, think they're bluffing about a third candidate (bring it on!!!), rather I believe they're just jockeying for a seat at the table after the nomination is made.
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 2, 2007 09:37 AM(contined from prior comment)
...base of 200,000, unscheduled donors of less than $200. For Q3 both campaigns added approximately 100,000 new donors which still leaves Obama with a larger donor base. On primary fund receipts, they are about equal, and that includes Hillary's transfer of $10 million from her Senate coffers. A significant portion of the $10 million was generated from people who have also contributed to her presidential campaign and was a sleazy way for them to get around the $4,600 legal limit. Another campaign finance loophole that Hillary has successfully exploited.
Then there's Richardson's funds tranfer from his last gubinatorial race. A perfectly legal way for him to collect money from corporations for a presidential campaign.
And Democrats are the ethical ones. Disgusting.
Posted by Marie at October 2, 2007 09:42 AMPlease share your stories about lost manufacturing jobs.
The Alliance for American Manufacturing is a national, non-partisan group dedicated to strengthening U.S. manufacturing. AAM’s blog, ManufactureThis.org, covers issues related to U.S. manufacturing jobs and is compiling firsthand accounts of factory closings and lost jobs.
AAM invites people to share their stories about lost manufacturing jobs, either by emailing Steven Capozzola at scapozzola@aamfg.org, or by posting a comment directly on the blog, www.manufacturethis.org.
##
Just out of curiosity, who do you all think is the least bad republican. If a republican were to win, who would be the most tolerable? I'm asking because there's really not a single one I can stomach other than Ron Paul because he's just fun to listen to. I thought maybe Huckabee on healthcare and there were some things he said in a debate that sounded ok (can't remember what though), but after visiting his website, I see he wants a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and another one outlawing abortion. Very very early on, I thought Romney might be ok, but now I absolutely can't stand him. There's just no one over there who's palatable.
Posted by CG at October 2, 2007 10:04 AMSorry, that probably should have been in the open thread.
Posted by CG at October 2, 2007 10:05 AM...Ron Paul because he's just fun to listen to.
And George Bush looked like a nice guy to have a beer with.
Problem with any of the GOP contenders is that you don't just get the guy who gets elected. You get an entire Republican administration and who could come up with an entire cabinet of 21st century republicans that wouldn't be more of the same we've had for the past seven years? There is no such thing as a reasonable republican these days. Couple that with a conservative judiciary and there is no acceptable GOP president.
Posted by snark at October 2, 2007 10:19 AMRon Paul because he's just fun to listen to.
Yeah, 'cos all that talk about cutting off all social services is so amusing. That's way better than having a beer with him. That's having a beer and watching kids starve to death. What's not to like?
Anyhow, what'd really be cool is if the fundies run a third party candidate and split the 'puke vote. I'd even contribute, if Pat Robertson wanted to run again!
Posted by iamcoyote at October 2, 2007 10:45 AMCoyote, if only that would happen! I started getting excited last night listening to the fundamentalists on the talk shows that they would actually consider running a third party candidate, but I had to come back to reality. I just don't think they'll do it, I think they're just flexing their muscles here. Darn it!
Posted by Jeff Dinelli at October 2, 2007 11:04 AMAnd George Bush looked like a nice guy to have a beer with.
The one who seems most like Bush to me in that regard is Fred Thompson. So down to earth and all that crap, but the guy barely seems like he wants the job, seems like he'd be on vacation more than Bush and doesn't seem to know anything about anything.
As for Ron Paul being fun to listen to, he's bashed the Bush admin quite a bit. He adds comic relief to the debates while not being scary because he has no chance of winning. I can't remember what he said about religion, but I'm pretty sure I liked it.
Posted by CG at October 2, 2007 11:27 AMThey can flex all they want, Jeff, looks like they've jumped the shark with their antics. They'll take what they can get, even Guiliani, because they'd rather have a seat at the table than stick with their "convictions." The object is to squeeze a couple more pennies from the rubes, so I have no doubt, they'll find a way to embrace whatever 'puke gets the not. Fortunately, their rubes may not be so sanguine about the choice.
Posted by iamcoyote at October 2, 2007 11:27 AMin the Age of Bush you can be a good Republican or you can be a good American but you cannot be both
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 2, 2007 11:47 AMHere are the numbers that I only estimated in my previous comment:
...Obama campaign. We have raised a historic $74.9 million in dollars available for primary spending, without transferring one cent from any other campaign fund and with no money from federal lobbyists or PACs."Clinton has raised $62.6 million that can be used during the primaries, plus $10 million transferred from her Senate account.
About equal. Maybe a little less after Hillary returns the Hsu bundled receipts, but still close enough for government work.
Posted by Marie at October 2, 2007 12:46 PMHillary is bought and paid for...and not by any of you.
Enjoy your scraps.
Posted by RAM at October 3, 2007 05:50 AMYou hit the nail on the head. If we can afford 200 Billion to carry on a war where no amount of money can guarantee results why can't we spend 35 Bill on our children's healthcare where the results are guaranteed? That comparison is priceless.
Posted by s hall at October 4, 2007 11:47 AM