Obama brings in a total for the quarter that is just a hair short of Clinton's numbers. But that's not even the half of it.
100,000 donors compared to Clinton's 50,000.
$6.9 million raised online, compared to Clinton's $4.2 million.
$23.5 million available for the primary campaign. Clinton has so far refused to provide details on her numbers, but via the Chicago Tribune, we know that many of her VIP fundraisers last quarter asked individuals to give $4600, the maximum combined amount for both the primary and the general election. Many of Clinton's donors are already tapped out. Obama's, by contrast, aren't anywhere close.
And whereas Clinton leaked her numbers to the press early Sunday night, Obama waited until today, managing both the expectations game and the news cycles perfectly.
Last but not least: the polls may still show him behind, but it is now only a matter of time before he emerges as the front runner. Momentum is everything during the invisible primary, and right now, Obama's got it. Clinton's campaign has been predicated on building a sense of inevitability, but in one quarter that sense has been destroyed. When Obama actually brings in more money than her in Q2, I wouldn't be surprised to see Hillary slip into third in some states behind John Edwards.
Should be interesting to watch everyone respond to this over the next 24 hours....
UPDATE: Great catch by Greg Sargent. Obama had more donors give online than Clinton had donors in total.
UPDATE II: Ezra and Chris Bowers have more, and both have reminded me of a point I've been meaning to make for some time.
Although it is far, FAR too early to write off the candidates in the second tear, it is very clear that on the Democratic side of things we're looking at a three-way race for much of the foreseeable future. Three way races are much more difficult to predict, which makes them virtually impossible for the media to cover using their standard "front runner vs. the field, but wait... here comes the dark horse" narrative. Which, if you ask me, is a very, very good thing for our democracy.
UPDATE III: Check out the difference in coverage from Drudge. I've long wondered when people would start to figure this out. Drudge really doesn't matter than much. He is, after all, the Web 1.0 version of a blog. I really just don't understand why anyone cares about him.
Then again, with a bit more thought, I suppose it does make some sense. Most of the media industry seem to have only just now figured out Web 1.0. Like the politicians they cover, that puts them about a decade behind on the technological curve. In time they'll catch up. Until then, they'll continue to believe that a man who does nothing more than aggregate a bunch of links is somehow innovative. Oh well.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
