Fat Cats Disproportionately Support Hillary, Everyday Folk Support Obama
The bulk of Hillary’s primary money is from people who contributed over $2300. Only a small proportion of her money came from small donors (those giving less than $200). On the other hand, the largest category for Obama’s campaign money is from small donors (those giving less than $200).
Obama Size of Donations:
Under $200: $34,512,100
$200-$2299: $19,481,410
Over $2300: $25,268,200
Clinton Size of Donations:
Under $200: $9,460,880
$200-$2299: $23,504,390
Over $2300: $46,676,500
There’s nothing wrong with giving $2300 if you got it like that. However, when the “under $200″ category is disproportionately low relative to other candidates, it does raise some eyebrows. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about who is really not going to be beholden to the lobbyists and special interests.
——–
Also see related articles:
October 16, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Nice catch! I proudly gave my $25 as well. We need a change and apparently a lot of regular folks like us believe he is the man to do just that.
October 16, 2007 at 4:19 pm
This is a great post sagereader. You’re gonna get some interested visitors linking to this!
October 16, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Yet her lead in the national polls is undeniable. Surely those likely Democratic voters can’t all afford to give $2300 each. The money thing is interesting, but there are other ways to gauge these things. If you consider that Clinton’s support also comes from the disadvantaged and the less educated, who don’t have access to the internet (where a lot of these small donations are collected) or who can’t afford to give up $50 … then who has the more elite group of supporters?? The college campuses are full of Obama supporters– and many in this group can certainly be considered the future elite … or “fat cats”, as you eloquently call them.
October 16, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Great Post!
I have been looking around for these kind of numbers for awhile but couldn’t come across them!
It says so much more about Obama as a person and as a leader when he’s raising money from over 350,000 different people. Unbelievable!!
Take Care,
Tony
October 16, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Sieglinde,
So Hillary’s well-heeled supporters are donating the maximum merely to help all those poor disadvantaged folks who don’t own a computer and don’t have the money to influence the candidate personally? My, you have certainly embraced the double-speak of the Clinton campaign — turning lobbyists and bundlers into philanthropists and Obama’s college donors into “elites.” We should all be terribly worried about undue student influence on the candidate — like maybe they will lobby for justice, civil liberities, a peaceful world and healthcare? Or, you might consider that Obama supporters, including regular middle class people and students may just want a chance to have a say in our democracy — we want to have a choice for who we vote for and we want that vote to count for a change.
October 16, 2007 at 5:33 pm
From Politico today:
Regarding polls — Who do you think has the biggest incentive to make it look good?
Clinton pollster Mark Penn: $1,583,465.08
Clinton ad-maker Mandy Grunwald: $311,443.88
Obama guru David Axelrod: $379,439.12
Edwards pollster Harrison Hickman: $162,034.30
Edwards strategist Joe Trippi: $83,920.56
October 16, 2007 at 5:34 pm
FINALLY - I have been trying to get this message out for weeks now. The MSM will not discuss the fact that Obama’s money is “clean” and represents “a new consciousness” in politics. These are the kinds of numbers that mean so much to the average citizen. Canvassing for Obama in New Hampshire this past weekend makes it clear to me that people are generally not aware of the difference in the “quality” of the donations between the two candidates. This is history being made - why are we not being informed of this as it happens - do we have to wait until after the election to reflect on such an outstanding change in how politics presents its “positive” face to the world. Let’s get more of this kind of reporting out there soon.
October 16, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Interesting, but Obama is NOT going to be the nominee! Hillary clearly is. She has a DOUBLE DIGIT lead over Obama and she’s the smarter politician by far. Obama has charisma but Hillary is going to win this one. She’ll wipe the floor with Rudy, Thompson, or Rommey. No question about it. The Republican front runners are all just a train wreck waiting to happen.
October 16, 2007 at 6:43 pm
[...] Ortega Tuesday, October 16, 2007 @ 3:43pm Thing On These Things, a pro-Barack Obama blog, provides these figures. Obama Size of [...]
October 16, 2007 at 7:26 pm
While these figures, please note that the Obama campaign considers purchases of campaign-related merchandise (like key chains, buttons, and t-shirts) as contributions. This practice is not utilized by other campaigns.
This fact will skew Obama’s figures to having more ’small-scale’ donors.
October 16, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Jack,
Maybe the Clinton machine is more ruthless and conniving. You call this smarter — I call it the main reason she will never get my vote and I am sure many others feel similarly. She may have gotten results in the short run — but Obama is giving her a credible challenge and for this alone, he should be supported by any voter who actually believes in democracy. Jack, do you think we should all just accept that we have no choice except to vote for the one who has already declared herself the winner? Is this the way democracy is supposed to work? If Clinton is inevitable as you say, then I guess it really doesn’t matter if a few paultry million of us just decide not to vote in the general. In the meantime, the primary and caucuses are our only feel proud of our votes — so stop dumping your turds on us.
October 16, 2007 at 8:53 pm
All the more reason for Clinton to push her nomination as “inevitable” don’t you think? Make people believe you got it locked up so they vote for you in the primary that otherwise would not.
October 16, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Yes, Obama does count the purchasing of “obama gear” towards his contributions, but hey, if you are willing to walk around in an Obama t-shirt, you’re pretty committed.
The big point: Hillary counted those purchases as well in the 3rd quarter and still had that little support in the below $200 category.
October 16, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Thanks everyone for the comments. “Another viewpoint” raises an important clarification point. Is Obama’s small donor number because his campaign counts paraphernalia?
1. It would be illegal if the Obama campaign did not count their sales of key chains, buttons, and t-shirts as part of their campaign contributions. The Obama campaign directly sells their paraphernalia so they have to count this.
Here is the FEC statement on this.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#contribution
2. This still does not account for the disparity in campaign funds between the two categories in the small donor column. In July, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton reported in the New York Times that the sales of paraphernalia accounted for “several hundred thousand dollars.”
Let’s be generous and say it was a million dollars per quarter. That still leaves over a $20 million gap in campaign money from small donors between Clinton and Obama. It also doesn’t erase the $21 million lead Clinton has in big donor contributions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/us/politics/17obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5070&en=31e9f1747984d3c5&ex=1186891200
3. While Hillary did not sell t-shirts directly, she did sell access to our nation’s homeland security leaders and counted those in her contributions.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/on-heels-of-911.html
I think I’ll go with the t-shirt guy.
October 16, 2007 at 9:46 pm
POINT #3 — GREAT RETORT!
October 16, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Donna,
Don’t put words in my mouth. I have enough of them. You should read my original post, and if you don’t understand it, read it again. It’s very simple, really. Having $2300 supporters doesn’t make you a candidate only of the elite. If polls are to believed, then Hillary’s support reaches farther than the $2300 elite … If polls are to be believed, then there certainly is a significant number of the population who (a) support Hillary, and (b) do not give to the campaign. This could mean many things, including: their inability to actually donate. You can read it as a lack of grassroots support, which certainly makes Obama look really formidable, but in truth, the polls say otherwise. Double digit leads are the undeniable fact, whether the support translates to money or not. HOW ELSE CAN YOU ACCOUNT FOR THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN OBAMA’S LARGE CADRE OF SMALL DONORS AND HIS UNIMPRESSIVE SHOWING IN THE POLLS?
October 16, 2007 at 11:36 pm
ps. I’m neither a Hillary or an Obama supporter by the way … I’m on the fence, the fence that Hillary and Obama share with Edwards. I may sound like a Hillary supporter, but really my purpose is to bust stupid myths, including this major-media-derived simplification that Obama’s support is from the grassroots, and Hillary’s is from the elite, as evidenced by their relative number of small donors. This is CONTRADICTORY to all the polling, which shows Hillary with big double-digit leads. Clearly, Hillary’s support extends beyond the elite donors. Let’s not fool ourselves.
October 17, 2007 at 12:20 am
The only problem is that personal donations (those coming from individuals and not companies) cannot exceed $2000 by law. So anything over that is a company donation. Atleast thats what the law was when I last checked. So basically it means hilary has less individuals supporting her
October 17, 2007 at 10:30 am
Wow!! What an interesting post…..
I will draw my own conclusions, and probably post it in my blog:
A Jill of All Trades
October 17, 2007 at 11:40 am
Sieglinde,
I did not misunderstand you. I took exception to your premise that Obama is the candidate of the elite. That seems like a formulation that Karl Rove would dream up. I don’t doubt that the Clinton campaign is already working on a negative way to spin the phenomenon of Obama’s small donors.
Donations to Obama or Hillary or any political campaign really only come from people who are engaged — and access to information and ability to network has become widely and easily accessible among regular folks because of the internet and cheapness of computers. Until the Obama campaign, I would bet that many middle-class people like myself didn’t even know that they could make a small donation and that together with thousands of other donors they could make a difference.
I think most voters are not donating to Hillary’s or any campaigns because they don’t even consider it. Its all being taken care of already, so why bother? This is a widespread mindset that takes our democracy for granted and it is not a symptom of poverty or lack of education — but perhaps a failure of critical thinking skills. The majority of upper-middle and middle-class folks don’t make political donations either. The best they can muster is to show up to vote. I admit to being disinterested in the past because I thought any ‘ol democrat will do. But if I’ve learned anything from the last two elections is that just showing up to vote is not good enough — in fact it has brought us disaster. If we want a real choice and a real change, we are going to have to make it happen for ourselves.
Sieglinde, I am definately not fooling myself, I know as well as anyone that the Clinton machine is deeply entrenched and the media establishment is in lockstep — so it is a daunting task that Obama has taken on. The Clinton campaign counts on everyone remaining passive and uninformed and just buying the “name” brand they see on TV. They play on people’s fear of change. This appears to be working just fine for them — for now. I would add that having operatives in the major polling firms has also been quite invaluable to them.
You twice mentioned the phrase “If the polls are to be believed.” Well — who the hell knows? Is it really beyond imagination that the polls are being manipulated? Not one vote has been cast yet — so you don’t know anything more than I do. What I do know is that I have been inspired and motivated by Obama unlike any other poilitican in my adult life. I am not a child — I am fifty years old and I am not going to buy the load of horse pucky that Hillary is inevitable. You say your motivation is to debunk a myth — seems to me that you are actively engaged in perpetuating it.
October 17, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Hillary’d disproportionate lead in the polls may reflect or outmoded means of polling. Everyones carrying around cellphones, but polls are conducted over house phones. Also, Obama’s support largely stems from the young and the independent voters, not generally considered likely voters or good polling subjects.
Democrats would be making a huge mistake to nominate Hillary next year. Many people I know who would opt for a dem in next years general would vote for anyone but Hillary, who seems to derive most of her support from the rank-and-file democrats who mostly haven’t thought about this election past her first name or womanhood.
Fact is nominating Obama can put red states in play. Nominating Hillary will put blue states in play.
October 17, 2007 at 11:47 pm
I’m a 47 year old black man and I wont vote for Hillary no matter what she is old money and if u know what old money is u would vote for Obama Hillary will sell u out just like slick Bill did anything for a buck. And about these polls I’ve never been polled a day in my life u got to come with something better than that.
October 19, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Hey, gary bigdaddy! I am a 50 year old white woman. By all the cw I am suppose to be a big Clinton supporter. I refuse to vote for her under any circumstance.
I have been supporting barack Obama since he ran for the senate in my state of Illinois in 04. And I will continue to believe in and support this man. He is what our country so desperately needs.
And, as of this writing, Obama has taken in over 2 million from us small donors in 3 days.
This is really a show of strength for Obama to show the support he has among the people!
October 21, 2007 at 10:42 pm
I’m glad you acknowledge your “pro-Obama slant” (although I would disavow such an awful anti-Asian slur…just kidding). But look at Barack’s top contributors (from OpenSecrets.org): over $360,000 came from people at Goldman Sachs, nearly $238,000 from Lehman Brothers, over $200,000 from JP Morgan Chase, about $180,000 from Citigroup. Seven percent of his money comes from labor (but that’s because, admirably, he disavowed PAC money). As for Hillary (and trust me, not a fan), Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are her #2, #3 and #4 contributors. Both candidates — and needless to say both parties — are funded by the major investment banks. *Not directly*, as the Ctr for Responsive Politics (which runs OpenSecrets) stresses: “The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization’s PAC [Obama excepting], its individual members or employee or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families.”
A more valid reason to oppose Hillary (aside from her neocolonial attitudes on foreign policy masked as friendlier, more competent hegemony– and general douchebaggery) is that America does not need dynastic rule. Would Jeb plan on 2012 (I presume –if elected– she would not last re-election)? But I hope it is not too cynical to say, in contrast, that the “fat cats disproportionately support the political system, everyday folk don’t bother to vote”?
November 14, 2007 at 1:47 am
[...] ”Fat Cats Disproportionately Support Hillary, Everyday Folk Support Obama.” Despite The Swamp’s framing, the bulk of Obama’s support is from small donors.) [...]
December 14, 2007 at 9:31 pm
[...] President so that lobbyists do not override the will of the American people. In fact, he attracts a greater bulk of small donors than other major candidates. Based on his record in Illinois, Senator Obama is a “known [...]